DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-15 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.
I- The term "generally" in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "generally open" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
II- Claim 8 is indefinite because “the flow” (line 3) lacks proper antecedent basis.
III- In claim 11, the claimed limitations “a sleeve” (line 1), “a leading end” (line 2) and “a chub” (line 4) are positively recited for a second time. This renders the claims confusing as they raise issues of double inclusion.
IV- Claim 15 is indefinite because “the flow” (line 24) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-4, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pentland 2023/0338984.
Pentland discloses a cap (4) for use with a sleeve (6) that receives a chub (2) filled with a material to be expelled from the chub through the cap and onto a surface, the cap comprises a base having a lower face with a downwardly depending skirt (9) extending from the lower face as seen in Figure 4, the skirt configured for receiving in or about a leading end of the sleeve as seen in Figure 12, the base and the skirt together defining a cap body having a generally open or hollow interior, a bore (12) extending through the base and defining a passageway from the open or hollow interior through the base, and one or more downwardly depending barbs (11) positioned on the lower face and situated about the bore, the barbs piercing an end surface of the chub when the skirt is received in or about the leading end of the sleeve and when the end surface of the chub is received within a longitudinally oriented passageway through the sleeve and advanced toward the cap and forced against the barbs, the barbs configured to encourage movement of a portion of the pierced end surface of the chub away from the bore as the chub is forced against the barbs (col. 2, para. [0030]); having at least three barbs, equally spaced about the bore on the lower face of the base as seen in Figure 3; wherein each barb includes a pointed or sharpened tip (col. 2, para. [0020]); wherein the barbs include sharpened side edges (col. 2, para. [0020]); wherein the skirt is releasably securable to the sleeve as seen in Figure 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pentland 2023/0338984 in view of Hiemer 2012/0279988.
Pentland has taught all the features of the claimed invention except that a longitudinally oriented inner face of each barb is concave. Hiemer teaches the use of a barb (51) being concave (col. 3, para. [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to utilize the teaching of Hiemer onto each barb of Pentland to be concave as taught by Hiemer, in order to improve the flow.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
10. Claims 5-7, 9, 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -: 4:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights