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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 snap fitting orifice comprising MORE THAN two different diameters as recited in Claim 15 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both a “cap holder area” on Page 14 Line 9 and a “cap holder leak-tight area” on Page 14 Line 23.
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.
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.
Claims 11-14 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.
Claims 11 and 13 recites the limitation "cap holder leak tight area (11)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only identifies a “leak tight zone (18)”. It is further unclear if the cap holder leak tight area (11) is the same or different than the cap holder area (11) identified in the Specification Page 14 Line 9.
For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims intend to identify the cap holder leak tight area as the upper outer diameter of the cap holder (7) and the snap fitting zone (18) intends to identify a corresponding internal upper diameter of the neck (14).
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).
In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation greater than 0.1mm, and the claim also recites greater than 0.2 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Similarly, Claim 14 recites greater than 1mm and greater than 2mm. The claims are 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.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, the phrase "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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning (US 6230940) in view of Dambricourt (US 2006/0204693).
Regarding Claim 1, Manning discloses a package comprising a head (40) including at least one circular snap-fitting orifice (60) and a cap (30) snap-fitted into the said snap-fitting orifice, wherein the snap-fitting orifice comprises an annular snap-fitting zone (defined by closure mounting flange 70) and an annular leak-tight zone (66) of different diameters, and wherein a height of the orifice is greater than a thickness of the head in such a way as to form a neck. Please see the visual comparison diagram below.
PNG
media_image1.png
758
1823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Manning does not disclose a cap analogous to Applicant Element 6. Dambricourt discloses a similar nozzle with a cap (38). Manning and Dambricourt are analogous inventions in the art of flange-mounted nozzles.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cap holder of Manning with the cap of Dambricourt in order to provide a service cap which selectively closes the outlet aperture.
Regarding Claim 2, while Manning does not explicitly disclose a height of the snap-fitting zone is smaller than a height of the leak-tight zone, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the dimensions of the head, orifice, and valve may be modified to provide desired sealing and snap fitting characteristics based on the materials, sizes, and other factors of the nozzle and package.
Regarding Claim 3, Manning discloses the snap-fitting zone and the leak-tight zone are located within the orifice.
Regarding Claim 4, while Manning does not disclose the neck is located within the packaging, it is generally known in the art to modify the location of the container neck as an obvious variation in the relocation of parts. Please see Schwanenberg (US 6213355) Figure 1 for a known example of an inset container neck.
Regarding Claim 5, Manning discloses the neck is located outside the packaging.
Regarding Claim 6, while Manning does not disclose the snap-fitting zone is located on an external surface of the neck, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the location of the snap-fitting zone may relocated as desired according to design considerations and would provide no unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 7, while Manning does not disclose a height of the leak- tight zone is equivalent to a height of the orifice, as discussed above, the dimensions of the head, orifice, and valve may be modified to provide desired sealing and snap fitting characteristics based on the materials, sizes, and other factors of the nozzle and package.
Regarding Claim 8, Manning discloses the snap-fitting zone is located within the neck.
Regarding Claim 9, Manning discloses the diameter of the snap-fitting zone is smaller than the diameter of the leak-tight zone.
Regarding Claim 10, while Manning does not disclose the diameter of the snap-fitting zone is greater than the diameter of the leak-tight zone, the location and dimension of the snap-fitting zone may be modified to be greater as seen in Applicant Figure 5 as a modification of the location of the snap-fitting groove to the exterior of the neck.
Regarding Claim 11, the components of Manning may have varying diameter dimensions for the cap holder and the orifice in order to provide a tight interference fit at leak-tight zone and the leak-tight area.
Regarding Claims 12, as discussed above, the dimensions of the orifice and outlet may be modified as an obvious variation by one having ordinary skill in the art according to design considerations to achieve desired snap-fitment and sealing engagement.
Regarding Claim 13, Manning discloses the height of the leak-tight zone is greater than the a height of the cap holder leak-tight area.
Regarding Claims 14, as discussed above, the dimensions of the orifice and inserted cap holder may be modified as an obvious variation by one having ordinary skill in the art according to design considerations to achieve desired snap-fitment and sealing engagement.
Regarding Claim 15, it is generally known in the art to provide a snap fitting orifice with more than two different diameters to achieve a more secure snap fit as disclosed in Schwanenberg (US 6213355).
Regarding Claim 17, while Manning does not disclose the snap-fitting orifice is off-center on the packaging head, the relocation of an orifice to be off-center is an obvious variation in the placement of the outlet and would not produce any unexpected results. Please see Smith (US 1748681) Figures 2 and 9 for known examples of off-center positioning of a dispensing outlet.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Manning (US 6230940) in view of Dambricourt (US 2006/0204693) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kraus (US 4998642).
Regarding Claim 1, Modified Manning discloses the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Manning does not disclose an annular sealing lip located on the cap holder and a sealing zone located around the external side of said orifice wherein a contact area between the sealing lip and the head defines the sealing zone as shown in Applicant Figures 8 and 9.
Kraus discloses a similar flanged closure comprising an annular sealing lip (21, 24 and 3) located on the cap holder and a sealing zone located around the external side of said orifice; wherein a contact area between the sealing lip and the head defines the sealing zone. Modified Manning and Kraus are analogous inventions in the art of flanged snap-fit closures.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Modified Manning with the annular sealing lip of Kraus in order to provide two sealing zones for a watertight seal (Col. 1 Lines 26-33).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, please note the construction of Bloom (US 2012/0211530) with inset snap step 50 as shown in Figure 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (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 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights