DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13, 20, 23, 26, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigardo et al. (20170203883) in view of Mori (WO2018235519A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rigardo discloses a semi-rigid bottle (10) for packaging viscous food, wherein the bottle: is made from a material that is suitable for aseptic processing (par. 0036), retorting, and/or hot filling, is formstable, is squeezable and collapsible by a radially-inwardly directed crushing grip force, without the bottle reassuming its initial shape after collapsing, is blow molded (par. 0036 and 0057), wherein the bottle comprises: a wall (50) with at least one oxygen and light barrier (par. 0037), and a neck portion (20) extending from the wall and comprising: a dispensing opening (40) at the top of the neck portion, threads (Fig. 1), the dispensing opening has an inner diameter.
Rigardo DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a spout section that extends from the top of the dispensing opening to the threads and that is free from any threads, the dispensing opening has an inner diameter in the range from 6 mm to 28 mm, and wherein the spout section extends along a vertical distance in the range from 6 mm to 10 mm. Attention, however, is directed to the Mori reference, which discloses a spout section (1b) that extends from the top of a dispensing opening to threads and that is free from any threads.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Rigardo reference in view of the teachings of the Mori reference by including a spout section for the purpose of providing a mouthpiece.
Regarding the diameter of the dispensing opening and the vertical distance of the spout, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inner diameter of 6 mm to 28 mm and a vertical distance from 6 mm to 10 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that doing so provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the dispensing opening and spout of Rigardo as modified by Mori because they perform the same function as the claimed dispensing opening and spout (i.e., providing an outlet for the contents of the bottle). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify Rigardo to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05, II-A).
Regarding claim 11, the inner diameter of the dispensing opening is identical to an inner diameter of the spout section at a position distanced from the dispensing opening (Fig. 2 and par. 0034 of Mori).
Regarding claim 13, the bottle further comprising a closure screwed on the neck portion (par. 0059 of Rigardo).
Regarding claim 20, the bottle has different zones of different wall thicknesses, respectively (Figs. 1-2 of Mori).
Regarding claim 23, the material of the bottle is recyclable (par. 0065 of Rigardo).
Regarding claim 26, Rigardo discloses the claimed invention except for the material of the bottle comprises a recycled plastic material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a recycled material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 31, the material of the bottle comprises only one type of material (par. 0041 of Rigardo).
Claim(s) 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigardo et al. in view of Mori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLaren (GB2163413A).
Regarding claim 2, Rigardo DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the neck portion comprises a locking wall portion having an upper surface, wherein the threads extend between the spout section and the upper surface of the locking wall portion. Attention, however, is directed to the McLaren reference, which discloses a neck portion comprises a locking wall portion (5) having an upper surface, wherein threads extend between a spout section and an upper surface of the locking wall portion (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Rigardo reference in view of the teachings of the McLaren reference by employing a locking wall for the purpose of providing a tamper-evident closure (page 1, lines 5-8 of McLaren).
Regarding claim 3, Rigardo discloses the claimed invention except for a vertical distance from the top of the dispensing opening to the upper surface of the locking wall portion is in the range from 8 mm to 15 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a vertical distance from 8 mm to 15 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that doing so provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the Rigardo dispensing opening because it performs the same function as the claimed dispensing opening (i.e., providing an outlet for the contents of the bottle). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify Rigardo to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05, II-A).
Regarding claim 4, the locking wall portion comprises a plurality of teeth (5 of McLaren).
Regarding claim 5, the locking wall portion is designed to secure a closure (8 of McLaren), such as a ring (12 of McLaren) integrally formed with the closure, to the neck portion once the closure is unscrewed from the threads to open the bottle.
Regarding claim 6, the locking wall portion is configured as a tamper-evident formation (page 1, lines 5-8 of McLaren).
Regarding claim 7, Rigardo discloses the claimed invention except for the locking wall portion has an outer diameter in the range from 15 mm to 21 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an outer diameter from 15 mm to 21 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that doing so provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the locking wall portion of Rigardo as modified by Mori and McLaren because it performs the same function as the claimed locking wall portion (i.e., providing a tamper-evident closure). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify Rigardo to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05, II-A).
Regarding claim 8, Rigardo discloses the claimed invention except for the locking wall portion has a thickness in the range from 2 mm to 5 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thickness in the range from 2 mm to 5 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that doing so provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the locking wall portion of Rigardo as modified by Mori and McLaren because it performs the same function as the claimed locking wall portion (i.e., providing a tamper-evident closure). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify Rigardo to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05, II-A).
Regarding claim 9, the neck portion comprises a section that extends from a lower surface of the locking wall portion to the wall (see 1 in Fig. 3 of McLaren), wherein the section has a width that is greater than an outer diameter of the spout section and/or that is in the range from 10 mm to 22 mm, preferably from 15 mm to 20 mm, more preferably from 16 mm to 18 mm (Fig. 3 of McLaren).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, PAUL DURAND can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights