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 .
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 2, 9, 14, 15 and 17 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. In claim 2, line 7, “oxygen and/or water” is indefinite due to the slash and should be --at least one of oxygen and water--.
In claim 9, lines 1-2 and 3, the Markush grouping “made of a metal, glass, ceramic or resin” should each be --made of one of a metal, glass, ceramic and resin--. In line 4, the listed alternatives are confusing and indefinite and should be --is injected, or by bonding or fusing…--.
In claim 14, line 2, the slash renders the subject matter confusing, and should be --a dehydrating and deoxygenating agent or a…--.
In claims 15 and 17, line 2 of each, “the space” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 63-218075 in view of JP 2011-212366. JP 63-218075 discloses a container (Figure 1) for storing a liquid composition in which the liquid composition is placed in the container, the container having an inlet through which the composition is injected so that the composition is sealably contained in the container, the container comprising a first sealing structure as a bottle (2) having a sealing section (lid) sealing the inlet, a second sealing structure in the form of a film (1) which covers at least the entire sealing section of the first sealing structure or the entire first sealing structure to further seal the sealing section, and a member (3) having a function of consuming and removing oxygen disposed between the first and second sealing structures. JP 63-218075 does not disclose the member including a function of consuming and removing water disposed between the first and second sealing structures, nor the particular liquid silicone composition claimed. However, JP 2011-212366 disclose a container similar to JP 63-218075 in which a member (3) as an oxygen scavenger is used in addition to a drying material (water removing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of JP 63-218075 with an oxygen and water absorbing member in the manner of JP 2011-212366 as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a container with a content-protecting feature that acts to lessen the deterioration of the content. As to the particular liquid composition claimed, to protect any previously known liquid substance in storage would be merely a matter of choice and degree. It has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claims 2-8, the further limitation of the particular liquid composition would fail to further unobviously distinguish the container structure from the prior art combination of JP 63-218075 and JP 2011-212366.
As to claim 9, JP 63-218075 discloses the bottle (2) to be possibly glass, metal or plastic (see paragraph 0001).
As to claims 10 and 11, JP 63-218075 discloses the second sealing structure (1) in the form of a resin film or a multilayered resin film (numerous possibilities).
As to claim 13, JP 63-218075 disclose the second sealing structure (1) covers the entire first sealing structure and is closed by peripheral heat fusion or bonding.
As to claim 14, 15 and 17, JP 2011-212366 disclose an oxygen absorbent and drying material employed together disposed in a space between the first and second sealing structures.
Claims 1-11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba et al. (12,319,487)(based on its earlier PCT publication date) in view of JP 2011-212366. Baba et al. disclose a container (Figure 1) for storing a liquid silicone composition in which the liquid silicone composition is placed in the container, the container having an inlet (top opening of 32) through which the composition is injected so that the composition is sealably contained in the container, the container comprising a first sealing structure as a bottle (30) having a sealing section (fixture 36) sealing the inlet, a second sealing structure in the form of a film (defining 40) which covers at least the entire sealing section of the first sealing structure or the entire first sealing structure to further seal the sealing section, and a member (21 and 22) having a function of consuming and removing oxygen and water disposed between the first and second sealing structures. Baba et al. do not disclose the particular liquid silicone composition as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Baba et al. with any particular liquid silicone composition as claimed, as such a modification would predictably be suggested by the Baba et al. disclosure of liquid silicone composition in general.
As to claims 2-8, the further limitation of the particular liquid silicone composition would fail to further unobviously distinguish the overall claimed container structure from that suggested by Baba et al..
As to claim 9, Baba et al. disclose the bottle (32) to be glass (see column 2, lines 64-67).
As to claims 10 and 11, Baba et al. disclose the second sealing structure (40) in the form of a film or a multilayered film.
As to claim 13, Baba et al. disclose the second sealing structure (40) covers the entire first sealing structure and is closed by heat fusion of bonding (disclosed heat sealing).
As to claims 14-15 and 17, Baba et al. disclose an oxygen absorbent (21) and drying material (24) employed together disposed in a space between the first and second sealing structures.
As to claim 16, Baba et al. discloses a member (21 and 22) having a function of consuming and removing oxygen and water rested on the sealing section (at 36) of the first sealing structure (32).
Claim 12 is 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.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 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, Orlando Aviles-Bosques, can be reached on (571) 270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG
