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 Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 26: “said inner interference region” should read “said radially inner interference region”;
At claim 1, line 26, “outer interference region” should read “radially outer interference region”;
At claim 2, line 2, “the inner interference region” should read “radially inner interference region”;
At claim 2, line 2, “outer interference region” should read “radially outer interference region”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “preferably the majority or even all of the container, comprises a cellulose material” in lines 16-17. The term "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 2 recites “an axial length greater than or equal to 0.5 mm, better still greater than or equal to 1 mm, even better still greater than or equal to 2 mm, in particular between 2 mm and 5 mm, and in particular substantially equal to 2.5 mm” in lines 3-5. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites “preferably in a removable manner” in line 3. The term "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 10 recites “plastic material, in particular polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), elastomer material, such as styrene-ethylene-buylene-styrene (SEBS), or a mixture of these materials” in lines 2-4. The phrases "in particular" and “such as” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-10 are also rejected through their dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 6,581,793 to Racine (hereinafter, “Racine”) in view of CN-109502127 to Lu et al. (hereinafter, “Lu”).
Regarding claim 1, Racine discloses a cosmetic product packaging assembly (assembly with cap 1 and container neck 4 is capable of holding a cosmetic product, see e.g., col. 1, ll. 5-10; col. 4, ll. 27-35; Figs. 1-7) comprising: a container (container having neck 4, see Fig. 7) extending along a longitudinal axis (axis 11, Fig. 2) between a bottom (bottom of container having neck 4; see e.g., col. 4, ll. 27-35) and a neck (neck 4, Fig. 7), a peripheral wall connecting said bottom to said neck (col. 4, ll. 27-35), said neck (neck 4) defining an opening (annotated Fig. 7 below) and having a radially inner surface (inner face 5, Fig. 7) and a radially outer surface (outer face 6, Fig. 7) that are connected by a frontal surface (transverse face 7, Fig. 7) extending in the radial direction (radial relative to axis 11, see Fig. 7), said outer surface (outer face 6) being provided with an axial joining portion (portion with threads 9, see Fig. 5), and said inner surface (inner face 5) and said outer surface (outer face 6) each having a smooth axial portion (annotated Fig. 7) connected to the frontal surface (transverse face 7, see Fig. 7); a closure element (cap 2, Figs. 2, 7) comprising a plate (annotated Fig. 7) intended to extend orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (plate 7 extends orthogonal to axis 11, see Fig. 7) when the closure element (cap 2) closes the container (container having neck 4) and having an upper surface (annotated Fig. 7) and a lower surface (annotated Fig. 7), and a fastening skirt (skirt 13, Figs. 2, 7) extending perpendicularly from the lower surface (annotated Fig. 7) of the plate (annotated Fig. 7) to a frontal surface (surface at edge 16, Fig. 2), said fastening skirt (skirt 13) comprising a radially inner surface (inner face 14, Figs. 2, 7) and a radially outer surface (annotated Fig. 7) that are connected by the frontal surface (see Fig. 2), said inner surface (inner face 14) being provided with an axial joining portion (portion with threads 15, Figs. 2, 7) designed to cooperate with the axial joining portion (portion with threads 9) of the outer surface (outer face 6) of the neck of the container (neck 4, see col. 4, ll. 59-62); wherein the lower surface (annotated Fig. 7) of the closure element (cap 2) is provided with a sealing element (seal 3, Figs. 2, 7) comprising a base (annotated Fig. 7) having an upper surface (face 28, Fig. 7) and a lower surface (face 30, Fig. 7), a radially inner sealing skirt (second bead 36, Fig. 7; col. 7, ll. 34-40) and a radially outer sealing skirt (first bead 26, Fig. 7; col. 7, ll. 34-40), said base (annotated Fig. 7) and said sealing skirts (beads 26, 36) defining a groove (annotated Fig. 7), and wherein, when the closure element (cap 2) closes the container (container with neck 4), the smooth axial portions (annotated Fig. 7) and the frontal surface (transverse face 7) of the neck of the container (neck 4) are at least partially received in the groove (annotated Fig. 7) of the sealing element (seal 3; col. 7, ll. 34-40) and define therewith a radially inner interference region (interference region formed at edge 37, Fig. 7; col. 7, ll. 34-40), a radially outer interference region (interference region formed at edge 8, Fig. 7; col. 7, ll. 34-40) and a frontal interference region (interference region at transverse face 7, see Fig. 7; col. 34-40), said inner interference region (interference region formed at edge 37) and outer interference region (interference region formed at edge 8) having an at least partial overlap in projection on the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
593
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Racine Annotated Figure 7
Racine does not expressly disclose wherein at least the neck of the container, and preferably the majority or even all of the container, comprises a cellulose material.
Lu teaches a product packaging container that may be used for cosmetics (p. 2, ll. 4-8 of attached translation). Lu teaches a container extending along a longitudinal axis between a bottom and a neck (see Fig. 1). Lu teaches the neck defines an opening and has radially inner and outer surfaces (Fig. 1). Lu teaches an axial joining portion (Fig. 1) on the outer surface of the neck that is threaded to be joined to a closure element (p. 2, ll. 19-24). Lu teaches the neck of the container comprises a cellulose material (p. 2, ll. 35-42). Lu teaches that the cellulose material may comprise bamboo, for example (p. 3, ll. 23-26). Lu further teaches that including a cellulose material in the container neck improves the toughness and elasticity of the container material (p. 3, ll. 23-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the packaging assembly of Racine to add a cellulose material to the neck of the container as taught by Lu for the purpose of improving the toughness and elasticity of the container material, as recognized by Lu (p. 3, ll. 23-26), and because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, Racine does not expressly disclose the overlap in projection on the longitudinal axis of the inner interference region and outer interference region has an axial length greater than or equal to 0.5 mm, better still greater than or equal to 1 mm, even better still greater than or equal to 2 mm, in particular between 2 mm and 5 mm, and in particular substantially equal to 2.5 mm.
Racine teaches that the seal forms inner and outer interference regions that overlap in the longitudinal direction by the neck deforming the sealing element to form an effective fluid seal (col. 3, ll. 7-9; col. 7, ll. 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the packaging assembly of Racine to have the overlap in projection of the inner and outer interference regions be at least 0.5 mm because it has been held that a a mere change in size or relative dimensions is not patentably over the prior art where the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 3, Racine further discloses the axial joining portion (portion with threads 9) of the outer surface (outer face 6) of the neck of the container (neck 4) and the axial joining portion (portion with threads 15) of the inner surface (inner face 14) of the fastening skirt (skirt 13) of the closure element (cap 2) are threaded portions (col. 4, ll. 59-62).
Regarding claim 4, Racine further discloses one and/or the other of the inner sealing skirt (second bead 36) and outer sealing skirt (first bead 26) of the sealing element (seal 3) has/have a chamfer (annotated Fig. 7) flaring toward the outside of the groove (see annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Racine further discloses the base (annotated Fig. 7) of the sealing element (seal 3) is in the form of a disk or ring (see e.g., Fig. 2; col. 4, ll. 50-51), of which the upper surface (face 28) extends facing the lower surface (annotated Fig. 7) of the plate (annotated Fig. 7) of the closure element (cap 2).
Regarding claim 6, Racine further discloses the sealing element (seal 3) is manufactured separately from the closure element (cap 2; see Figs. 2, 7; col. 7, ll. 21-25) and subsequently fastened thereto (col. 7, ll. 21-25), preferably in a removable manner (seal 3 is capable of being removed).
Regarding claim 7, Racine further discloses the closure element (cap 2) is made of a first material (col. 4, ll. 52-53) and the sealing element (seal 3) is made of a second material (col. 5, ll. 56-58), which is different from the first material (see col. 4, ll. 52-53; col. 5, ll. 56-68; see also Figs. 2, 7).
Regarding claim 8, Racine further discloses the sealing element (seal 3) is attached to the closure element (cap 2) by overmolding (see col. 5, ll. 56-60; col. 7, ll. 21-25; Note – “by overmolding” is a product-by-process limitation – see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 9, Racine as modified by Lu already includes the cellulose material (Lu, p. p. 3, ll. 23-26) of which at least the neck of the container is made comprises paper, cardboard, paper pulp, cardboard pulp, bamboo or a bamboo derivative or else bagasse, a fibrous residue derived from sugarcane, or a mixture of these materials (Lu, p. 3, ll. 23-26).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racine in view of Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. 2008/0272083 to Druitt (hereinafter, “Druitt”).
Regarding claim 10, Racine further discloses the sealing element (seal 3) is made of plastic material (col. 5, ll. 56-59).
Racine does not expressly disclose the plastic material is polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), elastomer material, such as styrene- ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS), or a mixture of these materials.
Druitt teaches a similar packaging assembly comprising a closure element (closure 1, Figs. 1-4) for a neck of a container (Figs. 1-4). Druitt teaches a lower surface of the closure element is provided with a sealing element (sealing liner 8, Figs. 3-4). Druitt teaches the sealing element may comprise polyethylene (para. [0012]). Druitt further teaches that the sealing element is formed from a softer plastic material than the closure element so that it forms a seal with the neck of the container (para. [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the packaging assembly of Racine/Lu to form the sealing element from polyethylene as taught by Druitt because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pub. 2024/0270433 to Dag discloses a product packaging assembly comprising a container with a neck, wherein the majority of the container comprises a cellulose material (see e.g., Figs. 6-11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733