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 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(s) 1-4 is/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-Al A 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites “neck portion terminating in a circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface which defines an access aperture sized to receive a tapered male connector having internal threads“ (claim 1, line(s) 7-9) is vague and indefinite since it means “internal threads” are present in the “access aperture”. For purposes of examination, recitation will be interpreted as “neck portion terminating in a circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface which defines an access aperture, is sized to receive, a tapered male connector, wherein the tapered male connector having internal threads“.
Claim 1, recites “the ring-like, flat sealing surface” in line 11 of claim 1 lacks antecedent basis as only a “circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface” of line 7 has been claimed. For term consistency it will be interpreted per line 11.
Claim(s) 2-4 rejected by dependency of claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandenburger et al. (Germany Patent Application Publication DE102007024539A1) hereinafter BRANDENBURGER.
Regarding claim 1, BRANDENBURGER teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 below) a hermetically sealed container 1, 17 of a thermoplastic material and comprising
a hollow body portion B6-01,
a neck portion 5 unitary with the hollow body portion B6-01, and
a removable cap 2 joined to the neck portion 5 by a frangible web unitary 19 with the removable cap 2 and with the neck portion 5;
the neck portion 5 terminating in a circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface B3-01 which defines an access aperture B3-02 sized to receive a tapered male connector 6 having internal threads 6B, defining a tapered access passageway B3-03 to the hollow body portion B6-01, and provided with a continuous external thread 9A; and
the access passageway B3-03 extending continuously from the ring-like, flat sealing surface B3-01 to the hollow body portion B6-01 and configured as a tapered female connector (Fig. 3) sized to receive said tapered male connector 6.
BRANDENBURGER fails to teach circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface B3-01 having an area at least 1.85 times larger than an area defined by the access aperture B3-02.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified area ratio of circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface B3-01 / access aperture B3-02 being 1.85 in the hermetically sealed container 1, 17 of BRANDENBURGER to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
PNG
media_image1.png
569
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
958
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
888
1040
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
393
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
476
531
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
910
533
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, BRANDENBURGER (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BRANDENBURGER fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) hermetically sealed container 1, 17 wherein the circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface B3-01 has an outer diameter-to-inner diameter ratio in the range of 1.6 to 1.7.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ratio of outer diameter-to-inner diameter of circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface B3-01 (with range of 1.6 to 1.7) in the hermetically sealed container 1, 17 of BRANDENBURGER to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 3, BRANDENBURGER (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BRANDENBURGER fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) hermetically sealed container 1, 17 wherein the said continuous external thread 9A is a buttress thread.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified continuous external thread 9A to a buttress thread 9A in the hermetically sealed container 1, 17 of BRANDENBURGER since these are regarded as mechanical equivalents intended for securement purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012]
Regarding claim 4, BRANDENBURGER (as applied to claim 3 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BRANDENBURGER fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) hermetically sealed container 1, 17 wherein said buttress thread is an “M” style modified buttress thread.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified buttress thread 9A to a “M” style modified buttress thread 9A in the hermetically sealed container 1, 17 of BRANDENBURGER since these are regarded as mechanical equivalents intended for securement purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee (South Korea Patent Application Publication KR20210108810A): teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Brandenburger et al. (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO2015036536A1): teaches an “ampoule” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Vogel et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20050051572A1): teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Cosman (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20190344932A1): teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Smith (U. S. Patent US7387216B1): teaches a “closure device” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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 ttps://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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights