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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Phrases that can be implied, such as “The present invention provides” (see line 1) should not be present therein.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The limitation “between 20 Shore A and 60 Shore A”, as used in claim 6 does not have antecedent basis in the specification. It is noted the specification discloses the hardness of the elastomeric material of the applicator body as being between 50 and 60 Shore A (see page 5, lines 10-11 and page 11, lines 5-6).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 1, it is unclear what structure the limitation “so as to maintain said planar drapeable structure in flexion” (see lines 11-12) is intended to defined, i.e., the specification discloses the drapeable structure is mounted such that the flexibility thereof is maintained (see, for example, page 4, lines 6-8, i.e., the drapeable structure is able to flexed after being mounted), however the language noted above seems to indicate the drapeable structure is maintained in a flexed (i.e., stretched) state after being mounted. Clarification is needed.
In regard to claim 9, it is unclear as to which element the term “it” (see line 3) is referring.
Iin regard to claim 10, on line 3, “(212)” should be “(252)” (see page 14, lines 4-5).
In regard to claim 11, on line 4, “a distal end” should be “the distal end” since the distal end of the applicator has already been defined in claim 1 (see line 3).
In regard to claim 12, it is unclear as to whether or not the substance is intended to be part of the claimed combination, i..e, the language in claim 1 is such that the substance is not intended to be claimed, however, the language in claim 12 seems to indicate the substance is intended to be claimed. Should the Applicant intend to claim the substance, an antecedent basis should therefor be defined. Should the Applicant not intend to claim the substance, “adapted to be” / “for” language should be used when referring thereto.
In regard to claim 13, this claim merely repeats the limitations already defined in claim 5.
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.
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 1-14 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.
In regard to claim 1, an antecedent basis for “the fact” (see line 14) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 2, an antecedent basis for “the shape” (see the last line) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 3, the phrase "such as" (see line 3) 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).
In regard to claim 7, an antecedent basis for “said one or more substance applicator channels” (see lines 3-4) has not been defined.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueno (US 2014/0227020).
In regard to claim 1, the Ueno reference discloses an applicator of substance comprising:
an elastomeric deformable applicator body 4, 6 (see paragraphs 0031-0032 which discloses these elements are rubber sponges) including a distal end 6 and one or more openings at the distal end of the applicator configured to deliver a substance (i.e., applicator body 4, 6 is permeable to the fluid in the container 3 and therefore must include openings at the distal end);
a planar drapeable structure 5a (see Figure 4) flexible and permeable (i.e., element 5a is disclosed as being a rubber sponge having a mesh portion 8, see paragraph 0033, lines 1-2) conjured to be positioned over the distal end of the applicator and to be in contact with a skin of a user to apply the substance; and
an outer sleeve 12a (see Figures 4 and 5) configured to connect the applicator body and the planar drapeable structure so as to maintain the planar drapeable structure “in flexion” and connected to the applicator body and comprising a distal end of sleeve including a sleeve opening (i.e., outer sleeve 12a is in the form of a ring having openings at the distal and proximal ends thereof); wherein
the one or more openings are configured to dispense the substance toward the planar drapeable structure; and
the planar drapable structure in bending is configured to protrude at least partially outward from the sleeve opening.
In regard to claim 2, when the applicator is assembled, the planar drapeable structure is further configured to be encapsulated between the outer sleeve body and the applicator body and undergo deformation and conform to the shape of the applicator body.
In regard to claim 3, the planar drapeable structure is made of a planar permeable material.
In regard to claim 4, the distal end of the applicator comprises a convex bevel surface on which the openings are provided.
In regard to claims 5 and 13, the distal end of the applicator and the planar drapeable structure positioned on the distal end of the applicator are configured to be inwardly depressed, i.e., as both of these elements are disclosed as being rubber sponges, they are considered to be configured to be inwardly depressed.
In regard to claim 12, the substance is considered to be a liquid, gel or pseudoplastic fluid since it is capable of flowing through sponge.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griebel et al. (U.S. Patent 6,309,128, hereinafter Griebel).
In regard to claim 1, the Griebel reference discloses an applicator of substance comprising:
an elastomeric deformable applicator body 28 (see Figures 3a and 3b) including a distal end and one or more openings at the distal end of the applicator configured to deliver a substance (i.e., applicator body 28 is disclosed as foam permeable to the fluid in the container 10 and therefore must include openings at the distal end);
a planar drapeable structure 22 flexible and permeable (see column 3, the last two lines) conjured to be positioned over the distal end of the applicator and to be in contact with a skin of a user to apply the substance; and
an outer sleeve 12a (the element having upper portion 30 is considered to be the outer sleeve, see Figures 3a and 3b) configured to connect the applicator body and the planar drapeable structure so as to maintain the planar drapeable structure “in flexion” and connected to the applicator body and comprising a distal end of sleeve including a sleeve opening (at 30); wherein
the one or more openings are configured to dispense the substance toward the planar drapeable structure; and
the planar drapable structure in bending is configured to protrude at least partially outward from the sleeve opening.
In regard to claim 3, the planar drapeable structure is a flexible mesh (see column 4, line 14).
In regard to claim 4, the distal end of the applicator comprises a convex bevel surface on which the openings are provided.
In regard to claims 5 and 13, the distal applicator end and the planar drapeable structure are configured to be inwardly compressed (see Figures 3a and 3b).
In regard to claim 7, the applicator body comprises an applicator outer surface in fluid communication with an inner surface of the applicator through one or more substance applicator channels wherein the applicator outer surface includes the one or more openings and the inner surface of the applicator defines an inner cavity 26 of the applicator with the one or more channels terminating at the one or more openings.
In regard to claim 8, the inner applicator surface is “configured to engage one or more first nozzle coupling members provided on an outer nozzle surface of a nozzle body” (i.e., the upper surface of the nozzle body 14 in contact with the inner applicator surface defines a coupling member on the nozzle which engages the inner surface of the applicator). It is noted the nozzle, nozzle outer surface and nozzle coupling members are not considered to be part of the claimed combination in this claim.
In regard to claim 9, the Griebel device includes a nozzle body 14 configured to be attached to a substance reservoir 10 and configured to receive within it the substance stored in the substance reservoir and wherein the nozzle body comprises a proximal end configured to be attached to an outlet of the substance reservoir and a distal end configured to release the substance.
In regard to claim 14, the applicator body is configured to accommodate the nozzle body.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno.
In regard to claim 6, although the Ueno reference does not disclose the hardness of the elastomeric material, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the elastomeric material of the applicator body can be designed to have any suitable hardness, including that claimed, depending on the needs of the user, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated the particular hardness of the elastomeric material is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Ueno reference does not limit the hardness of the elastomeric material.
Claims 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griebel.
In regard to claim 6, although the Griebel reference does not disclose the hardness of the elastomeric material, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the elastomeric material of the applicator body can be designed to have any suitable hardness, including that claimed, depending on the needs of the user, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated the particular hardness of the elastomeric material is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Griebel reference does not limit the hardness of the elastomeric material.
In regard to claim 10, although the nozzle 14 in the Griebel device is shown to be integrally formed with the reservoir and not coupled thereto via a collar having coupling members which engage coupling members on the reservoir, as claimed, the examiner takes official notice that such nozzle structures are commonly secured to reservoirs by various forms of releasable coupling members in order to enable a user to separate the nozzle from the container if needed (i.e., to clean/replace the nozzle, refill the reservoir, etc.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the nozzle in the Griebel device can be attached to the reservoir via a collar/coupling members which engage coupling members on the reservoir in order to enable a user to separate the nozzle from the container if needed.
In regard to claim 11, similarly, although the nozzle 14 in the Griebel device does not disclose the applicator body includes a collar and coupling members on an outer surface between distal and proximal ends of the applicator which engage the sleeve body and coupling members on the sleeve body, as claimed, the examiner takes official notice that such applicator structures are commonly secured to the elements on which they mounted (i.e., a sleeve body) by various forms of releasable coupling members in order to enable a user to separate the applicator from the sleeve body if needed (i.e., to clean/replace the applicator). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the applicator body in the Griebel device can be attached to the sleeve body via a collar/coupling members which engage the sleeve body and coupling members on the sleeve body in order to enable a user to separate the applicator from the sleeve body if needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Weiss et al. reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as a teaching of an applicator having an applicator body 12 with a planar drapeable structure 14 thereover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
9/25/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights