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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Siwek, Galer, nor Hass disclose that the cutout includes at least one retention prong and at least one retention surface for retaining an edge of a nicotine pouch.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the at least one additional cylindrical extension protruding from the bottom seal to keep the at least one spring in place. However, Siwek clearly discloses at least one additional cylindrical extension protruding from the bottom seal to keep the at least one spring in place (18,19 figure 3,4). For at least the foregoing reasons claim 9 and its dependent claims stand rejected.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Siwek discloses multiple cutouts instead of a single cutout. Neither the claimed invention nor Siwek actually rely on material being cutout of the housing to form the upper opening, instead they are both injection molded. Since all of the “cutouts” of Siwek are contiguous with a single opening it is argued that they comprising a single cutout with an irregular shape defining the opening and the retention prongs. For at least the foregoing reasons claim 17 and its dependent claims stand rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,588,702. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are a mere broadening of the previously allowed claims.
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) 9-11,13-17 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siwek US 5,071,033 in view of Galer US 2007/0248656 and Hass US 3,845,882.
Siwek discloses a system for dispensing nicotine pouches, comprising:
(Re claim 9) “a spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser, including: a body including an upper body section and a lower body section, wherein the upper body section includes a cutout on a top face of the upper body section” (16 figure 2). “wherein the cutout includes at least one retention prong” (20,16 figure 2). “wherein the lower body section includes at least one hinge” (22, 23 figure 2). “a plate installed below the cutout and the at least one retention prong” (26,12 figure 2). “a cap attached to the body by the at least one hinge and a pin” (11,29,30 figure 2). “at least one cylindrical extension protruding from the plate” (12,27 figure 2). “at least one additional cylindrical extension protrudin from the bottom” (13,18,19 figure 3,4).“at least one spring mounted between the bottom … and the plate and retained around the at least one additional cylindrical extension protruding from the bottom … constant upward pressure on the plate” (13,18,19,27 figure 2-4 ).
Siwek does not disclose a bottom seal attached to a bottom end of the body, nor that the spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser is operable to store a nicotine pouch and further operable to dispense the nicotine pouch.
Galer teaches that the spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser is configured to store a nicotine pouch and is further configured to dispense the nicotine pouch (1 figure 1, ‘nicotine’ claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Siwek to include that the spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser is configured to store a nicotine pouch and is further configured to dispense the nicotine pouch because it expands the market for the dispenser by using It for a greater number of dosage forms.
Hass teaches a bottom seal attached to a bottom end of the body (7, 17 figure 1,4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Siwek to include a bottom seal attached to a bottom end of the body because it makes the system easier to load and assemble.
(Re claim 10) Siwek does not disclose that the bottom seal is attached to the body through welding, plastic welding, adhesives, screws, latches, or other permanent or semi-permanent joining process.
Hass teaches that the bottom seal is attached to the body through welding, plastic welding, adhesives, screws, latches, or other permanent or semi-permanent joining (7,17 figure 1,4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Siwek to include that the bottom seal is attached to the body through welding, plastic welding, adhesives, screws, latches, or other permanent or semi-permanent joining makes the system easier to load and assemble.
(Re claim 11) “at least one second hinge is mounted on a backside of the lower body section” (22,23 figure 2).
(Re claim 13) “the spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser is formed of materials including plastic, metal, and/or fiber-reinforced composite” (col 3 lines 15-26).
(Re claim 14) “the cap includes a lip protruding from a body of the cap” (32,33 figure 3,4).
(Re claim 16). Siwek does not disclose that the dispenser is formed by injection molding.
Hass teaches that the dispenser is formed by injection molding (col 4 lines 11-18).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the dispenser of Siwek to include that the dispenser is formed by injection molding because it allows the parts to be produced inexpensively.
Siwek discloses a spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser, comprising:
(Re claim 17) “a body including an upper body section and a lower body section, wherein the upper body section includes a cutout, wherein the cutout consists of a single cutout on a top face of the upper body section, wherein the cutout includes at least one retention prong” (20,16 figure 2) Applicants cutout seems to merely refer to the contiguous upper opening, as no cutting is actually involved. Siwek discloses a single contiguous upper opening which can be considered the single cutout adjoining all of the cut-out notches. “wherein the lower body section includes at least one hinge” (22,23 figure 2). a plate installed below the cutout and the at least one retention prong” (26,12 figure 2). “a cap attached to the body by the at least one hinge and a pin” (11,29,30 figure 2). “at least one cylindrical extension protruding from the plate” (12,27 figure 2). “at least one spring mounted between the bottom … and the plate and positioned around the at least one cylindrical extension” (13,27 figure 2,3).
Siwek does not disclose a bottom seal attached to a bottom end of the body nor that the spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser is operable to store a nicotine pouch and
further operable to dispense the nicotine pouch.
Galer teaches disclose that the spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser is configured to store a nicotine pouch and is further configured to dispense the nicotine pouch (1 figure 1, ‘nicotine’ claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Siwek to include that the spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser is configured to store a nicotine pouch and is further configured to dispense the nicotine pouch because it expands the market for the dispenser by using It for a greater number of dosage forms.
Hass teaches a bottom seal attached to a bottom end of the body (7, 17 figure 1,4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Siwek to include a bottom seal attached to a bottom end of the body because it makes the system easier to load and assemble.
(Re claim 19) “the bottom seal includes at least one additional cylindrical extension, wherein the at least one additional cylindrical extension retains the at least one spring on the bottom seal” (18 figure 3).
(Re claim 20) “the spring-loaded nicotine pouch dispenser is formed of materials including plastic, metal, and/or fiber-reinforced composite” (col 3 lines 15-26).
(Re claim 21) “the plate experiences constant pressure from the at least one spring” (13 figure 3,4).
(Re claim 22) “the at least one retention prong consists of two retention prongs” (20 figure 2). The to opposing prongs can be considered the retention prongs, which the front prong 25,20 could be considered a lip prong.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siwek/Galer/Hass in view of Evans US 2014/0069829.
Siwek/Galer/Hass discloses the system as rejected above.
Siwek/Galer/Hass does not disclose at least one gasket.
Evans teaches at least on gasket (‘gasket’ para 0040).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Siwek/Galer/Hass to include at least one gasket because it enhances the seal preventing the entry of moisture or other contaminants.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art could be found to support a 102 or 103 rejection of claims 1-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0245814 discloses a dispenser with two springs pressing a plate.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights