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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the limitations “interior bottom” as recited in claim 1 line 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the limitations “interior top” as recited in claim 1 line 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the limitations “wherein the at least two indentations are triangular” as recited in claim 4 line 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Similar issue in claim 15. No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the limitations “a first void area of the dispensing orifice to a second void area” as recited in claim 8 line 2-3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Similar issue in claim 19. No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the limitations “a ratio of a first void area of the dispensing orifice to a second void area of the at least two indentations is from about 50:1 to about 10:1” as recited in claim 8 line 2-3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Similar issue in claim 19. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "222" and "242" have both been used to designate an “inner perimeter”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element numeral “270” not disclosed in the specifications. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the second portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Azeltron (US 2018/0235413 A1).
Referring to claim 1. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
a floor (118) defining a bottom of the dispensing structure 9100’);
a perimetric flange (120; Figure 3) adjoined to the floor (118) at an interior bottom, the perimetric flange (120; Figure 3) and the floor (118) at least partially defining a side and a bottom the dispensing structure (see Figure 3);
an access orifice (134) extending through at least a portion of the floor (118) for accessing the articles stored in the container (102);
a dispensing orifice (122) extending through the floor (118) for individually dispensing one or more articles from the container (102), the dispensing orifice (122) comprising a perimeter having a first portion (top perimeter portion of 122) comprising at least two indentations (top left and right members 124; Figure 4) extending away from the perimeter towards the access orifice (134) and a second annular portion (bottom perimeter portion of 122); and an outer lid (140) having a size and shape adapted to mate with and seal an interior top of the perimetric flange (top of 100) and form a top of the dispensing structure when in a closed position (see Figure 4A).
Referring to claim 2. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
wherein the second portion of the perimeter (bottom perimeter portion of 122) comprises at least about 65% of the perimeter (see perimeter of second portion in Figure 4).
Referring to claim 3. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
wherein the second portion of the perimeter comprises at least about 85% of the perimeter (see perimeter of second portion in Figure 4).
Referring to claim 4. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
wherein the at least two indentations (124) are triangular (see triangular shape of 124).
Referring to claim 5. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
a slit (130; Figure 4) extending from the access orifice (134) to the dispensing orifice (122).
Referring to claim 6. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
wherein the at least two indentations (124) comprise a first indentation configured on a first side of the slit and a second indentation configured on a second side of the slit (top left and right members 124; Figure 4).
Referring to claim 7. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
wherein the dispensing orifice (122) comprises less than 15% of the surface area of the floor (see Figure 4).
Referring to claim 9. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
wherein the at least two indentations (124) comprise one or more additional indentations disposed on the second portion of the perimeter (indentations 124 disposed at the bottom portion of 122).
Referring to claim 10. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
wherein the access orifice (134) comprises greater than 30% of the surface area of the floor (see Figure 4).
Referring to claim 11. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
wherein the ratio of the surface area of the access orifice (to the dispensing orifice is about 5 to 1 or greater.
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 8 11-18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azeltron (US 2018/0235413 A1).
Referring to claims 8 and 19. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) wherein a ratio of a first void area of the dispensing orifice to a second void area of the at least two indentations about 1:1.
Azeltron does not disclose wherein a ratio of a first void area of the dispensing orifice to a second void area of the at least two indentations is from about 50:1 to about 10:1.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings such that a ratio of a first void area of the dispensing orifice to a second void area of the at least two indentations is from about 50:1 to about 10:1, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Referring to claim 11. Azeltron discloses a surface area of the access orifice and a surface area of the dispensing orifice wherein a surface area of the access orifice is smaller than a surface area of the dispensing orifice.
Azeltron does not specifically disclose wherein the ratio of the surface area of the access orifice to the dispensing orifice is about 5 to 1 or greater.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings such that the ratio of the surface area of the access orifice to the dispensing orifice is about 5 to 1 or greater, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 12, see the structure of rejected claims 1-11 cited above.
Regarding claim 13, see the structure of rejected claim 2 cited above.
Regarding claim 14, see the structure of rejected claim 3 cited above.
Regarding claim 15, see the structure of rejected claim 4 cited above.
Regarding claim 17, see the structure of rejected claim 6 cited above.
Regarding claim 18, see the structure of rejected claim 7 cited above.
Referring to claim 16. Azeltron discloses a dispensing structure for a container (100’; Figure 4) comprising:
a slit extending (130) from the access orifice (134) to the dispensing orifice (122).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM EST.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights