www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/486,059
`
`08/14/2019
`
`Delony L. Langer-Anderson
`
`79280US005
`
`2291
`
`3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
`PO BOX 33427
`ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
`
`YANG, TSUNG TAI
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3781
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/21/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`LegalUSDocketing @ mmm.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/486 ,059
`Langer-Anderson etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`Tsung Tai "Ted" Yang
`3781
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 01 July 2022.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1,3,6-8,10-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20,22,25,28-30 and 34 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 6-7,10,13,18,28-29 and 34 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`[) Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1,3,8,11,14,16-17,20,22,25 and 30 is/are rejected.
`(1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`S)
`“If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)() The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s)filed on 14 August 2019 is/are: a)f¥) accepted or b)([) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)0) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a)C) All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230209
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Status of Claims
`
`2.
`
`Claims 6-7,10,13,18,28-29 and 34 are previously withdrawn from consideration.
`
`Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 3, 14, 16, 20, 23, and 30 have been amended.
`
`Thus, claims 1,3,8,11,14,16-17,20,22,25 and 30 are currently under consideration.
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 24 January 2023 have been fully considered but they
`
`are not persuasive.
`
`4.
`
`The argument on pg. 9 of Applicant Remarksthat “Claim 1
`
`is not anticipated by
`
`Benetti because there is no express or inherent disclosure of “a bandage or dressing
`
`composition” in Benetti” is not persuasive. A recitation of the intended use of the
`
`claimed invention mustresult in a structural difference between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior
`
`art.
`
`If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the
`
`claim. In this case, the intended use of the contents of the claimed dispenser as “a
`
`bandage or dressing” doesnot result in a structural difference between the claimed
`
`dispenser and Beneiti’s dispenser. Therefore, the express or inherent disclosure of “a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 3
`
`bandageor dressing composition” is not required for Benetti to anticipate Claim 1 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`5.
`
`The argument on pg. 10 of Applicant Remarksthat “the caulks and glues in
`
`Benetti have no relevance to the wound dressing applications of the present invention”
`
`is not persuasive. Benetti discloses “Devices and methods for reliably and reusably
`
`creating an airtight seal on a tapered nozzle attached to a container of air-curable
`
`material” (see Abstract). Specifically, Benetti’s disclosure is used to dispense any“air-
`
`curable material.” Caulks and glues are referenced in Benetti as examplesof“air-
`
`curable material.” Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention
`
`mustresult in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior artin
`
`order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
`
`If the prior art
`
`structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case,
`
`the intended use of the contents of the claimed dispenser as “a bandageor dressing”
`
`does not result in a structural difference between the claimed dispenser and Benetti’s
`
`dispenser. Therefore, the express or inherent disclosure of “a bandage or dressing
`
`composition” is not required for Benetti to render claims 8, 11, 14, 16-17, 20, 22, and 30
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`6.
`
`The argument on pg. 10 of Applicant Remarksthat “there is again nothing in
`
`either Benetti or Hardy that would lead one of ordinary skill to use the dispenser of
`
`Benetti to dispense the composition of Hardy” is not persuasive. As mentioned above,
`
`Benetti’s disclosure is used to dispense any“air-curable material’ including caulks and
`
`glues. Hardy teaches “a polymer adhesive material’ with the claimed viscosity. The
`
`examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 4
`
`the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves
`
`or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See /n re Fine,
`
`837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21
`
`USPQe2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
`
`In this case, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinaryskill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
`
`Benetti’s device such that the “air-curable material” has a viscosity of greater than
`
`20,000 Centipoise (cps) when measured at 23°C using a Brookfield LVT viscometer, as
`
`taught by Hardy, for the purpose of achieving “a limited sag distance when placed on a
`
`vertical surface” ([0026)).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`7.
`
`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 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.
`
`8.
`
`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 madein 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 effectivefiling date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 5
`
`9.
`
`Claim(s) 1
`
`is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benetti
`
`(US 20090014481 Ai).
`
`10.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Benetti discloses a dispenser (“dispensed from a container”:
`
`[0008]), comprising:
`
`a container (“container 40”; [0024]; FIG. 3) containing a bandage or dressing
`
`composition (“Caulk, glue, and other air-curable substances”; [0008)):;
`
`a dispensing nozzle (“nozzle 30 “; [0024]; FIG. 3) having a shape andsize (FIG.
`
`3) and including a preformedslot(“orifice 32 “; [0024]: FIG. 3),
`
`wherein the dispensing nozzle is part of the container and/or capable of
`
`attachment to the container ("Nozzle 30 hasafirst end 34 and a second end 36
`
`connected to container 40"; [0024]; FIG. 3); and
`
`a removable cap (“sealing device 10”; [0019]; FIG. 1) configured to connect with
`
`one of the container and/or the nozzle ("sealing device is operated by inserting the
`
`device over a tapered nozzle 30"; [0024]; FIG. 3),
`
`wherein the removable cap 10 includes an interior region having a size and
`
`shape configured to match the size and shapeof the dispensing nozzle ("allows
`
`opening 13 and inner surface 16 to fit snugly around outer circumference 31 of nozzle
`
`30"; [0026]; FIG. 1);
`
`wherein, when the cap 10 is connected with the container 40 or nozzle 30, the
`
`preformed slot 32 of the dispensing nozzle 30 mates with and/or nests within a
`
`preformedrecess("cavity 17"; [0027]; FIG. 4) including a conformable material
`
`("moldable material 24"; [0027]; FIG. 4) that forms an abutmentsurface that sealingly
`
`engagesthe preformedslot ([0031]; FIG. 4).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 6
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`11.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections 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.
`
`12.
`
` Claim(s) 3 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Benetti in view of Hardy et al. (US 20060118005 A1).
`
`13.
`
`Regarding claims 3 and 25, Benetti fails to disclose the bandage or dressing
`
`composition hasa viscosity of greater than 20,000 Centipoise (cps) when measured at
`
`23°C using a Brookfield LVT viscometer. However, Hardy teaches the bandage or
`
`dressing composition has a viscosity greater than 20,000 Centipoise (cps) ("adhesive
`
`composition can have a viscosity of 100,000 cP or less"; [0027]) when measuredat
`
`23°C using a Brookfield LVT viscometer and the procedure described herein ([0027]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the
`
`effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to modify Benetti’s device such that the
`
`bandage or dressing composition has a viscosity of greater than 20,000 Centipoise
`
`(cps) when measuredat 23°C using a Brookfield LVT viscometer, as taught by Hardy,
`
`for the purposeof achieving “a limited sag distance when placed on a vertical surface”
`
`({0026)).
`
`14.
`
`Claim(s) 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Benetti.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 7
`
`15.
`
`Regarding claims 8 and 30, Benetti fails to expressly disclose the dispensing
`
`nozzle 30 has a volume of between about 0.00824 in? and about 0.038 in’. However,
`
`Benetti suggests that the dispensing nozzle 30 has a volume ([0024]; FIG. 3-4).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benetti’s device such that the
`
`dispensing nozzle 30 has a volume of between about 0.00824 in’ and about 0.038in®
`
`since it has been held that “wherethe only difference between the prior art and the
`
`claims wasa recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having
`
`the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device,
`
`the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC
`
`Syst, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830,
`
`225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Benetti would not operate
`
`differently with the claimed nozzle volume and would still be able to dispense the
`
`bandage/dressing as claimed. Furthermore, Applicant places no criticality on the range
`
`claimed, indicating simply that the “dispensing nozzle can be any shape, size, volume,
`
`or dimension capable of dispensing and/or holding the bandage or dressing
`
`composition” (Specification [0080)).
`
`16.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Benetti fails to expressly disclose the preformed recess has
`
`an area of between about 0.0015 in? to about 2 in?. However, Benetti suggests that the
`
`preformed recess 17 has an area (“inner surface 16”; [0019]; FIG. 3) “capable of
`
`frictionally engaging with a nozzle 30” ([0019]); FIG. 4). Therefore, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effectivefiling date of the claimed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 8
`
`invention to modify Benetti’s device such that the preformed recess has an area of
`
`between about 0.0015 in? to about 2 in? since it has been held that “where the only
`
`difference between the prior art and the claims wasa recitation of relative dimensions of
`
`the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not
`
`perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably
`
`distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ
`
`777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant
`
`case, the device of Benetti would not operate differently with the claimed preformed
`
`recess area and would be capable of engaging with a nozzle. Furthermore, Applicant
`
`places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that “the inner region is
`
`configured to generally match, approximate, and/or mimic, the corresponding size and
`
`shape of the dispensing nozzle” (Specification [00109]).
`
`17.
`
`Regarding claim 14, Benetti discloses the cap further comprises:
`
`a nonconformable portion ("Unitary body 11"; [0020]; FIG. 2) made of a less
`
`conformable material ("rubber, silicone, flexible plastic, vinyl, ethylene propylene diene
`
`monomer rubber, or any other material that is durable"; [0020]) than the conformable
`
`material ("moldable materials are oil-based waxes, bee's wax, putty, plasticized
`
`metallocene-catalyzed propylene copolymers, or any other substance that remains
`
`pliable and moldable upon exposure to air"; [0027)).
`
`Benetti fails to expressly disclose the less conformable material has a Shore A
`
`hardnessof at least 1.2 times the Shore A hardness of the conformable material.
`
`However, Benetti suggests the use of different materials for the less conformable
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 9
`
`material and the conformable material ([(0020] & [0027]). Therefore, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effectivefiling date of the claimed
`
`invention to modify Benetti’s device such that the less conformable material has a Shore
`
`A hardnessofat least 1.2 times the Shore A hardnessof the conformable material since
`
`it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims
`
`was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the
`
`claimedrelative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the
`
`claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC
`
`Syst, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830,
`
`225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Benetti would not operate
`
`differently with the claimed ratio in material hardness and wouldstill be capable of
`
`sealingly engaging the preformed slot. Furthermore, Applicant places no criticality on
`
`the range claimed, indicating simply that "the less or nonconformable portion or region
`
`has a shore A hardnessof at least 1.2 times or 1.5 times or 1.7 times or 2.0 times. or
`
`2.3 times, or 2.5 times, or 3 times the shore A hardness of the conformable portion.” No
`
`criticality is disclosed on how any of the ratios in hardness difference between the
`
`nonconformable portion and the conformable portion affect the creation of a seal
`
`between the abutment surface and the preformedslot.
`
`18.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Benetti fails to expressly disclose the bandage composition
`
`when applied using the dispenser has a wet coat weight of 50 to 120 mils at a generally
`
`uniform thickness. However, Benetti suggests the bandage composition having a wet
`
`coat weight ([0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 10
`
`the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benetti’s device
`
`such that the bandage composition when applied using the dispenser has a wet coat
`
`weight of 50 to 120 mils at a generally uniform thickness since it has been held that
`
`“where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of
`
`relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative
`
`dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device
`
`was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725
`
`F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232
`
`(1984). In the instant case, the device of Benetti would not operate differently with the
`
`claimed wet coat weight of 50 to 120 mils at a generally uniform thickness and would
`
`still disoense the compositions contained within. Furthermore, Applicant places no
`
`criticality on the range claimedasit relates to the claimed structure.
`
`19.
`
`Regarding claim 17, Benetti fails to expressly disclose the bandage composition,
`
`when applied and dried, has a thickness of between about 1 mil and about 10 mils.
`
`However, Benetti suggests the bandage composition has a thickness ([0038]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benetti’s device such that the
`
`bandage composition, when applied and dried, has a thickness of between about 1 mil
`
`and about 10 mils since it has been held that “where the only difference between the
`
`prior art and the claims wasa recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and
`
`a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the
`
`prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 11
`
`Gardner v. TEC Syst. Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
`
`denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Benetti
`
`would not operate differently with the claimed composition thickness and would still be
`
`capable of dispensing the bandage composition.
`
`20.
`
`Regarding claim 20, Benetti discloses a dispenser (“dispensed from a container’;
`
`[0008]), comprising:
`
`a container (“container 40”; [0024]; FIG. 3) containing a bandage or dressing
`
`composition (“Caulk, glue, and other air-curable substances”; [0008)):;
`
`a dispensing nozzle (“nozzle 30 “; [0024]; FIG. 3) including a slot
`
`(“orifice 32 “;
`
`[0024]; FIG. 3) for dispensing the bandage or dressing composition,
`
`wherein the dispensing nozzle is part of the container and/or capable of
`
`attachment to the container ("Nozzle 30 hasafirst end 34 and a second end 36
`
`connected to container 40"; [0024]; FIG. 3); and
`
`a removable cap(“sealing device 10”; [0019]; FIG. 1) configured to connect with
`
`one of the container and/or the nozzle,
`
`wherein the removable capincludes an interior region having a size and shape
`
`configured to match the size and shape of the dispensing nozzle ("allows opening 13
`
`and inner surface 16 to fit snugly around outer circumference 31 of nozzle 30"; [0026];
`
`FIG. 1),
`
`wherein, when the removable cap is connected with the container or nozzle, the
`
`slot of the dispensing nozzle sealingly engagesa portion of the removable cap ([0031];
`
`FIG. 4); and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 12
`
`wherein the removable cap includes a first material ("Moldable material 24";
`
`[0027]; FIG. 4) and a second material ("Unitary body 11"; [0020]; FIG. 2), and
`
`wherein a top portion of the cap is substantially free of the second material (see
`
`FIG. 3; NOTE: top portion consists of both first and second material and FIG. 3 shows
`
`significantly less second material than the first material. Therefore, top portion of the
`
`cap is substantially free of the second material.).
`
`Benetti fails to expressly disclose the second material has a Shore A hardnessof
`
`at least 1.2 times the Shore A hardnessofthe first material. However, Benetti suggests
`
`the use of different materials for the second material and the first material ([0020] &
`
`[0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benetti’s device such that the
`
`second material has a Shore A hardnessof at least 1.2 times the Shore A hardnessof
`
`the first material since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior
`
`art and the claims wasa recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a
`
`device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the
`
`prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”
`
`Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
`
`denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Benetti
`
`would not operate differently with the claimed ratio in material hardness and wouldstill
`
`be capable of sealingly engaging the preformed slot. Furthermore, Applicant places no
`
`criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that "the less or nonconformable
`
`portion or region has a shore A hardnessofat least 1.2 times or 1.5 times or 1.7 times
`
`or 2.0 times. or 2.3 times, or 2.5 times, or 3 times the shore A hardness of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 13
`
`conformable portion.” No criticality is disclosed on how any of the ratios in hardness
`
`difference between the second material and the first material affect the creation of a
`
`seal between the abutment surface and the preformed slot.
`
`21.
`
`Regarding claim 22, Benetti discloses the slot 32 sealingly engages a portion of
`
`the removable cap 10 by mating with and/or nesting within a preformed recess("cavity
`
`17"; [0027]; FIG. 4) in the removable cap that forms an abutmentsurface that forms the
`
`seal between the slot and the removable cap ([0031]; FIG. 4).
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortenedstatutory period, then the
`
`shortenedstatutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Tsung Tai "Ted" Yang whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-8846. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 6pm (EST) M-F.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 14
`
`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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Nicholas J Weiss can be reached on (571) 270-1775. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
`
`center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfiling 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.
`
`IT.Y./
`Examiner, Art Unit 3781
`
`/SUSAN S SU/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
`13 February 2023
`
`