Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. 2019-005736 A (hereinafter “JP ‘736”) in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 8-66690 A (hereinafter “JP ‘690”).
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘736 discloses a reducible solution (corresponding to the liquid composition) obtained by adding and dissolving a product containing at least 0.20 wt% of ascorbic acid in a resin container containing 100 ml (100 g at 4°C) of tap water; and a package that seals the resin container containing the reducible solution (see paragraphs [0026], [0033]).
JP ‘736 further discloses the reducible solution is considered to have a solvent component of which at least 90 vol% is tap water and an ascorbic acid concentration of 0.2 g/100 ml, that is, 2.0 g/L (see paragraph [0026]).
Further, JP ‘736 discloses that the reducible solution is considered to be used for mixing with municipal water in a ratio of 0.2 ml with respect to 100 ml of tap water, that is, a 500-fold dilution ratio (see paragraph [0035]).
Furthermore, JP ‘736 does not indicate that α-terpineol is actively added to the reducible solution, and thus the a-terpineol concentration in the reducible solution is reasonably expected to be at a very low level of about at most 5,000 ppb.
Claim 1 differs from JP ‘736 in reciting that a package configured to be able to dispense 0.1 to 10 mL of a liquid composition.
JP ‘690 discloses that a liquid injection pump 11 capable of dripping 0.2 cc (0.2 ml), which is an amount used per time, of a liquid drop by drop is used as a container for packaging a water quality improving liquid produced by mixing and dissolving a L-ascorbic acid-containing composition in water (see fig. 1; paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Accordingly, making the package disclosed in JP ‘736 "capable of dispensing 0.1-10 mL of the liquid composition at a time" by using the liquid injection pump 11 capable of dripping 0.2 ml, which is an amount used per time, of a liquid drop by drop disclosed in JP ‘690 as the container for packaging the reducible solution with a used amount of 0.2 ml per time disclosed in JP ‘736 is a matter that could be easily conceived of by a person skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, optimizing the size of an opening, which is opened during dispensing, in the liquid injection pump according to the viscosity, volume, or the like of the contents to be dispensed is merely an exercise of the ordinary creativity of a person skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 3, the liquid injection pump 11 disclosed in JP ‘690 is considered to be a package that allows extraction in a "drop-type" manner (see paragraph [0031]).
Moreover, configuring the liquid injection pump into a "spray type" according to the purpose or the like is merely an exercise of the ordinary creativity of a person skilled in the art.
Regarding claims 4-5, appropriately reducing the capacity of the container or making the container into an individually packaging container for single use, in order to improve the portability or the like of the package according to the intended use, is merely an exercise of the ordinary creativity of a person skilled in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2004-10069 A (hereinafter “JP ‘069”) and Japanese Patent Publication No. 6-330195 A (hereinafter “JP ‘195”).
JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 discloses the package of claim 1. Claim 6 differs from JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 in reciting that the package is a light-shielding container.
JP ‘069 discloses a "light-shielding container" (see the packaging container having a light transmittance of at most 1.0% in paragraph [0025]).
JP ‘195 discloses the "ascorbic acid reservoir 16" provided with the "light-shielding means 44" (see paragraph [0025]) as a container, in order to prevent ascorbic acid (vitamin C) from being decomposed due to ultraviolet rays.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the package of JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 to use a light-shielding container for preventing the decomposition of ascorbic acid due to ultraviolet rays in the resin container disclosed in JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 as suggested by JP ‘195 (see paragraph [0025]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2004-10069 A (hereinafter “JP ‘069”) and Japanese Patent Publication No. 2000-43950 A (hereinafter “JP ‘950”).
JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 discloses the package of claim 1.
Claim 7 differs from JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 in reciting that the package is an oxygen-shielding container.
JP ‘069 discloses an oxygen-blocking container (see the packaging container composed of the oxygen barrier material in paragraph [0025]).
JP ‘950 discloses the package including the oxygen barrier layer (see paragraphs [0018] and [0019])) as a container, in order to prevent ascorbic acid (vitamin C) from being decomposed due to oxygen (see paragraphs [0021]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the package of JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 to use an oxygen-shielding container for preventing the decomposition of ascorbic acid due to oxygen in the resin container disclosed in JP ‘736 in view of JP ‘690 as suggested by JP ‘950 (see paragraph [0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1142. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, INSUK BULLOCK can be reached at 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
JK
9/24/26
Prosecution Insights