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
`
`05/23/2023
`
`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)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1,3,8,11,14,16-17,20,22,25,30 and 38-41 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`5a) Of the above claim(s) 6-7,10,13,18,28-29 and 34 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`1) Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1,3,8,11,14,16-17,20,22,25,30 and 38-41 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`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 beenreceived 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 20230512
`
`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 27 April 2023.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A requestfor continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), wasfiled in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 April
`
`2023 has been entered.
`
`Status of Claims
`
`Claims 6-7, 10, 13, 18, 28-29, and 34 are previously withdrawn from
`
`consideration. Claims 1 and 20 have been amended. Claims 38-41 have been added.
`
`Thus, claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 14, 16-17, 20, 22, 25, 30, and 38-41 are currently under
`
`consideration.
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`Applicant’s argumentsfiled 4 April 2023 have been considered but are moot
`
`because the new ground of rejection does notrely on the primary reference applied in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 3
`
`the prior rejection of record for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the
`
`arguments.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not includedin this action can
`
`be found in a prior Office action.
`
`Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 30, and 38-41 is/are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenton (US 20030032980 A1) in view of
`
`Manesis (US 20100108712 A1).
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Stenton discloses a dispenser (see Abstract), comprising:
`
`a container ("body 20"; [0019]; FIG. 1) containing a bandageor dressing
`
`composition ("medical adhesives, and particularly cyanoacrylates"; see Abstract);
`
`a dispensing nozzle ("nozzle 30"; [0019]; FIG. 1) having a shape and size and
`
`including a nozzle head that connects or mates with the container ("nozzle 30 is
`
`preferably removably attached to body 20"; [0019]; Annotated FIG. 2) and a preformed
`
`slot (see Annotated FIG. 2) for dispensing the bandage or dressing composition
`
`("adhesive stored in internal reservoir 22 can be dispensed through slotted tip nozzle
`
`30"; [0021]),
`
`wherein the dispensing nozzle 30 is part of the container and/or capable of
`
`attachment to the container ("nozzle 30 is preferably removably attached to body 20";
`
`[0019]; FIG. 1) and further
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 4
`
`wherein the dispensing nozzle has an outer nozzle cavity extending between the
`
`nozzle head and the preformedslot (see FIG. 2), the outer nozzle cavity having two
`
`opposing straight sides and two opposing curvilinear sides (see Annotated FIG. 4); and
`
`a removable cap("small orifice tip nozzle 40"; [0019]; FIG. 2) configured to
`
`connect with one of the container and/or the nozzle ("small orifice tip nozzle 40 is
`
`preferably removably attached to slotted tip nozzle 30 (or directly to body 20)"; [0019];
`
`FIG. 2).
`
`Stenton does not specify wherein the removable cap includes an interior region
`
`having a size and shape configured to match the size and shape of the dispensing
`
`nozzle and connecting with the container and/or the dispensing nozzle by a screwfit
`
`mechanism, wherein the removable capis self-aligning when the removable capis
`
`twisted to a position where a top of the removable cap is properly seated over the
`
`preformed slot; wherein, when the cap is connected with the container or nozzle, the
`
`preformedslot of the dispensing nozzle mates with and/or nests within a preformed
`
`recess including a conformable material that forms an abutment surface that sealingly
`
`engages the preformed slot. However, Manesis teaches a medicinalliquids dispensing
`
`assembly ([0002]) with an analogous removable cap ("protective cap 58"; [0066]; FIG.
`
`3) wherein the removable cap ("protective cap 58"; [0066]; FIG. 3) includes an interior
`
`region having a size and shape configured to match the size and shapeof the
`
`dispensing nozzle ("cap 58 preferably defines an inner cavity having a shape that
`
`generally conforms to the shape of at least the distal end 36 of the dispensing nozzle
`
`32"; [0066]; FIG. 3) and connecting with the container and/or the dispensing nozzle by a
`
`screwfit mechanism ("protective cap 58 preferably is internally threaded, allowing it to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 5
`
`be screwed on over external threads provided on the neck 14 of the vessel 12"; [0067];
`
`FIG. 3),
`
`wherein the removable capis self-aligning when the removable capis twisted to
`
`a position wherea top of the removable capis properly seated over the preformedslot
`
`(“liner 60 is configured to be in intimate contact with the distal end 36 of the nozzle 32
`
`whenthe cap 58 in a closed position over the assembly"; [0068]; FIG. 3);
`
`wherein, when the cap is connected with the container or nozzle, the preformed
`
`slot of the dispensing nozzle mates with and/or nests within a preformed recess
`
`including a conformable material that forms an abutment surface that sealingly engages
`
`the preformedslot(“liner 60 is configured to be in intimate contact with the distal end 36
`
`of the nozzle 32 when the cap 58 in a closed position over the assembly"; [0068]; FIG.
`
`3).
`
`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 Stenton’s device such that the
`
`removable capincludes an interior region having a size and shape configured to match
`
`the size and shape of the dispensing nozzle and connecting with the container and/or
`
`the dispensing nozzle by a screw fit mechanism, wherein the removable capis self-
`
`aligning when the removable capis twisted to a position where a top of the removable
`
`cap is properly seated over the preformed slot; wherein, when the cap is connected with
`
`the container or nozzle, the preformed slot of the dispensing nozzle mates with and/or
`
`nests within a preformed recess including a conformable material that forms an
`
`abutment surface that sealingly engages the preformed slot, as taught by Manesis, for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 6
`
`the purpose of “reducing or preventing contamination of the external surface of the tip
`
`about the slit” ([0019)).
`
`Regarding Claims 8 and 30, Stenton/Manesis fails to expressly disclose the
`
`dispensing nozzle 30 has a volume of between about 0.00824 in? and about 0.038in’.
`
`However, 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 Stenton/Manesis’s device such
`
`that the dispensing nozzle 30 has a volume of between about 0.00824 in? and about
`
`0.038 in’ as a matter of routine optimization 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 Stenton/Manesis would not operate differently with the claimed
`
`nozzle volume and wouldstill 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 bandageor dressing composition” (Specification [0080)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Annotated FIG. 2
`
`
`
`
`SES LES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` woe Lt
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 8
`
`Annotated FIG. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding Claim 11, Stenton/Manesis fails to expressly disclose the preformed
`
`recess has an area of between about 0.0015 in? to about 2 in?. However,
`
`Stenton/Manesis suggests that the preformed recess has an area (see FIG. 2). 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 Stenton/Manesis’s device such that the preformed recess
`
`has an area of between about 0.0015 in? to about 2 in? as a matter of routine
`
`optimization 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
`
`Stenton/Manesis 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 9
`
`generally match, approximate, and/or mimic, the corresponding size and shapeof the
`
`dispensing nozzle” (Specification [00109}).
`
`Regarding claim 14, Stenton fails to disclose the cap further comprises: a
`
`nonconformable portion made of a less conformable material than the conformable
`
`material. However, Manesis teaches the cap 58 further comprises: a nonconformable
`
`portion made of a less conformable material than the conformable material(“liner 60 is
`
`preferably made ofa resilient material such assilicone polymer, rubber, sponge, or the
`
`like"; [0066]; FIG. 3). 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 Stenton’s
`
`device suchthat the cap further comprises: a nonconformable portion made of a less
`
`conformable material than the conformable material, as taught by Manesis, for the
`
`purposeof “reducing or preventing contamination of the external surface of the tip about
`
`the slit” ([0019)).
`
`Stenton/Manesis fails to expressly disclose the less conformable material has a
`
`Shore A hardnessofat least 1.2 times the Shore A hardness of the conformable
`
`material. However, 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 Stenton/Manesis’ device such
`
`that the less conformable material has a Shore A hardnessof at least 1.2 times the
`
`Shore A hardnessof the conformable material as a matter of routine optimization 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 10
`
`claimed device was notpatentably 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 Stenton/Manesis would not
`
`operate differently with the claimed ratio in material hardness and would still be capable
`
`of sealingly engaging the preformedslot. 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 ofthe ratios in hardnessdifference between the
`
`nonconformable portion and the conformable portion affect the creation of a seal
`
`between the abutment surface and the preformedslot.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Stenton/Manesis 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, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinaryskill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
`
`Stenton/Manesis’s device such that the bandage composition when applied using the
`
`dispenser has a wetcoat weight of 50 to 120 mils at a generally uniform thickness as a
`
`matter of routine optimization 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 11
`
`Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the
`
`device of Stenton/Manesis would not operate differently with the claimed wet coat
`
`weight of 50 to 120 mils at a generally uniform thickness and wouldstill dispense the
`
`compositions contained within. Furthermore, Applicant places no criticality on the range
`
`claimed asit relates to the claimed structure.
`
`Regarding claim 17, Stenton/Manesis fails to expressly disclose the bandage
`
`composition, when applied and dried, has a thickness of between about 1 mil and about
`
`10 mils. However, 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 Stenton/Manesis’s device
`
`such that the bandage composition, when applied and dried, has a thickness of
`
`between about 1 mil and about 10 mils as a matter of routine optimization 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 Stenton/Manesis would not operate
`
`differently with the claimed composition thickness and wouldstill be capable of
`
`dispensing the bandage composition.
`
`Regarding Claim 20, Stenton discloses a dispenser (see Abstract), comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 12
`
`a container ("body 20"; [0019]; FIG. 1) containing a bandage or dressing
`
`composition ("medical adhesives, and particularly cyanoacrylates"; see Abstract);
`
`a dispensing nozzle ("nozzle 30"; [0019]; FIG. 1) including a nozzle head that
`
`connects or mates with the container ("nozzle 30 is preferably removably attached to
`
`body 20"; [0019]; Annotated FIG. 2) and a slot (see Annotated FIG. 2) for dispensing the
`
`bandage or dressing composition ("adhesive stored in internal reservoir 22 can be
`
`dispensed through slotted tip nozzle 30"; [0021)),
`
`wherein the dispensing nozzle 30 is part of the container and/or capable of
`
`attachment to the container ("nozzle 30 is preferably removably attached to body 20";
`
`[0019]; FIG. 1) and further
`
`wherein the dispensing nozzle has an outer nozzle cavity extending between the
`
`nozzle head and the preformedslot (see FIG. 2), the outer nozzle cavity having two
`
`opposing straight sides and two opposing curvilinear sides (see Annotated FIG. 4); and
`
`a removable cap("small orifice tip nozzle 40"; [0019]; FIG. 2) configured to
`
`connect with one of the container and/or the nozzle ("small orifice tip nozzle 40 is
`
`preferably removably attached to slotted tip nozzle 30 (or directly to body 20)"; [0019];
`
`FIG. 2).
`
`Stenton does not specify wherein the removable cap includes an interior region
`
`having a size and shape configured to match the size and shape of the dispensing
`
`nozzle and connecting with the container and/or the dispensing nozzle by a screwfit
`
`mechanism, wherein the removable capis self-aligning when the removable cap is
`
`twisted to a position where a top of the removable cap is properly seated over the
`
`preformedslot, wherein, when the removable cap is connected with the container or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 13
`
`nozzle, the slot of the dispensing nozzle sealingly engages a portion of the removable
`
`cap.
`
`However, Manesis teaches a medicinalliquids dispensing assembly ([0002]) with
`
`an analogous removable cap("protective cap 58"; [0066]; FIG. 3) wherein the
`
`removable cap ("protective cap 58"; [0066]; FIG. 3) includes an interior region having a
`
`size and shape configured to match the size and shapeof the dispensing nozzle ("cap
`
`58 preferably defines an inner cavity having a shapethat generally conforms to the
`
`shape of at least the distal end 36 of the dispensing nozzle 32"; [0066]; FIG. 3) and
`
`connecting with the container and/or the dispensing nozzle by a screwfit mechanism
`
`("protective cap 58 preferably is internally threaded, allowing it to be screwed on over
`
`external threads provided on the neck 14 of the vessel 12"; [0067]; FIG. 3),
`
`wherein the removable capis self-aligning when the removable capis twisted to
`
`a position wherea top of the removable capis properly seated over the preformedslot
`
`(liner 60 is configured to be in intimate contact with the distal end 36 of the nozzle 32
`
`whenthe cap 58 in a closed position over the assembly"; [0068]; FIG. 3);
`
`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("liner 60
`
`is configured to be in intimate contact with the distal end 36 of the nozzle 32 when the
`
`cap 58 in a closed position over the assembly"; [0068]; FIG. 3).
`
`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 Stenton’s device such that the
`
`removable capincludes an interior region having a size and shape configured to match
`
`the size and shape of the dispensing nozzle and connecting with the container and/or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 14
`
`the dispensing nozzle by a screw fit mechanism, wherein the removable capis self-
`
`aligning when the removable capis twisted to a position where a top of the removable
`
`cap is properly seated over the preformedslot, wherein, when the removable capis
`
`connected with the container or nozzle, the slot of the dispensing nozzle sealingly
`
`engagesa portion of the removable cap, as taught by Manesis, for the purpose of
`
`“reducing or preventing contamination of the external surface of the tip about the slit”
`
`([0019]).
`
`Stenton fails to disclose the removable cap includesa first material having a
`
`Shore A hardness of between about 30 and about 70 and a second material having a
`
`Shore A hardnessof at least 1.2 times the Shore A hardnessofthe first material, and
`
`wherein a top portion of the cap is substantially free of the second material. However,
`
`Manesis teaches the cap 58 includes a first material and a second material wherein a
`
`top portion of the cap is substantially free of the second material ("liner 60 is preferably
`
`made ofa resilient material such as silicone polymer, rubber, sponge, or the like";
`
`[0066]; FIG. 3). 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 Stenton’s device such
`
`that the cap further comprises: a nonconformable portion made of a less conformable
`
`material than the conformable material, as taught by Manesis, for the purpose of
`
`“reducing or preventing contamination of the external surface of the tip aboutthe slit”
`
`([0019]). Stenton/Manesis fails to disclose the first material having a Shore A hardness
`
`of between about 30 and about 70 and the second material having a Shore A hardness
`
`of at least 1.2 times the Shore A hardnessofthe first material. However, it would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 15
`
`claimed invention to modify Stenton/Manesis’ device such that the first material have a
`
`Shore A hardnessof between about 30 and about 70 and the second material have a
`
`Shore A hardnessof at least 1.2 times the Shore A hardnessofthe first material as a
`
`matter of routine optimization 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 wasnot 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 Stenton/Manesis would not operate differently with the claimedratio in
`
`material hardness and would still be capable of sealingly engaging the preformedslot.
`
`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 anyof
`
`the ratios in hardnessdifference between the nonconformable portion and the
`
`conformable portion affect the creation of a seal between the abutment surface and the
`
`preformedslot.
`
`Regarding claim 22, Stenton does notdisclose the slot sealingly engages a
`
`portion of the removable cap by mating with and/or nesting within a preformed recessin
`
`the removable cap that forms an abutment surface that forms the seal between the slot
`
`and the removable cap. However, Manesis teaches the slot sealingly engages a portion
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 16
`
`of the removable cap by mating with and/or nesting within a preformed recessin the
`
`removable cap that forms an abutment surface that forms the seal between the slot and
`
`the removable cap ([0066]; FIG. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinaryskill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
`
`Stenton’s device such that the slot sealingly engages a portion of the removable cap by
`
`mating with and/or nesting within a preformed recessin the removable cap that forms
`
`an abutment surface that forms the seal between the slot and the removable cap, as
`
`taught by Manesis, for the purposeof “reducing or preventing contamination of the
`
`external surface of the tip aboutthe slit” ([0019]).
`
`Regarding Claims 38 and 39, Stenton discloses that the two opposing curvilinear
`
`sides are convex (see Annotated FIG. 4).
`
`Regarding Claims 40 and 41, Stenton/Manesis does not specify that the two
`
`opposing curvilinear sides are concave. However, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinaryskill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
`
`Stenton/Manesis’ device such that the two opposing curvilinear sides are concave as a
`
`matter of design choice 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 wasnot 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 17
`
`Stenton/Manesis would not operate differently with the claimed concave opposing
`
`curvilinear sides and would still be capable of dispensing its contents. Furthermore,
`
`Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that "Outer nozzle
`
`cavity 446 is generally decorative and does not convey,hold, or dispense bandage or
`
`dressing composition.” (Specification [0043]). No criticality is disclosed on how the
`
`shape of the outer nozzle cavity impart new and unexpected results.
`
`Claim(s) 3 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Stenton/Manesis andfurther in view of Hardy et al. (US 20060118005 A1).
`
`Regarding claims 3 and 25, Stenton/Manesis fails to disclose the bandage or
`
`dressing composition has a 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
`
`measured at 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 effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stenton/Manesis’
`
`device such that the bandage or dressing composition 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)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/486,059
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 18
`
`Conclusion
`
`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.
`
`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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on (571) 272-7159. 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
`17 May 2023
`
`