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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 22, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: dose adjustment means in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites “a push-button slides” this should be written as “configured to slide.” Claim 12 recites “a hollow sleeve is inserted” a term other than “inserted” should be used.
As per MPEP 2173.05(p)(ll), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. It is not clear if the claims are drawn only to structures that are capable of performing the method steps or if the claims are intended to be written as method steps. For the sake of examination, the claims have been interpreted as only requiring that the claimed structures be capable of performing the method steps and are not so narrow as to require the method steps to actually be performed. Applicant is encouraged to check the claims to ensure language is functional as opposed to reciting positive step limitations.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the locking member" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 depends off of claim 1, claim 13 introduces a locking member. Claim 14 may need to depend on claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knox (US 3,353,537).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12-15, Knox teaches a device for dispensing a fluid product comprising: a pump (pump components as rejected below) (10) connected to a reservoir (Fig. 1 member 99) (40) containing several doses of fluid product and to a dispensing head (Figs. 1 and 3 needle with curved walls member 93 connectable at 92) (50) provided with a dispensing opening (necessarily has an opening) (58), said pump (10) comprising a body (Fig. 1 includes 68’and 24) (20) containing a metering chamber (Fig. 1 chamber 68 in sleeve 46 contained between/inserted in the body portions) (21) in which a piston (Fig. 1 members 60 and 56) (22) connected to a piston rod (Fig. 1 member 51) (25) provided with a push-button (Fig. 1 member 37) (26) slides, said push button configured to be pressed by a user to actuate the pump (Col. 6 lines 16-28) (10), a return spring (Fig. 1 member 66) (27) cooperating with said piston (22) and/or said piston rod (25) to automatically return said piston (22) to a rest position after each actuation; wherein said body (20) comprises, downstream of said metering chamber (21), a T-like connection (Fig. 3 71 and 72) (24), of which a first branch is connected to said metering chamber (Fig. 3 at end 69) (21), a second branch is connected to said reservoir (Fig. 3 at end 73) (40) and a third branch is connected to said dispensing head (Fig. 3 at end 82) (50); a first valve (Fig. 3 member 80) (41) is provided in said second branch of said T-like connection (24) and a second valve (fig. 3 member 84) (51) is provided in said third branch of said T-like connection (24), said first and second valves (41, 51) are urged by first and second springs (45, 55) against first and second respective valve seats (Fig. 3 springs 81 and 85 valve seats within bush 77 and portion 82 of the body 68’) (43, 53); said device comprising dose adjustment means (28, 29) cooperating with said piston rod (25), said dose adjustment means comprising a bush (29) arranged coaxially around said piston rod (25), said bush (29) being movable with respect to said piston rod (25) to axially adjust the rest position of said piston (22) in said body (20) and consequently a volume of said metering chamber (21) (Fig. 1 bush 48 nut 54, Col. 7 lines 15-20); wherein said body (20) is connected to a secondary body (Fig. 1 member 10) (30) surrounding at least partially said piston rod, wherein said adjustment means is arranged between said secondary body and said piston rod (Fig. 1 in the area of 14 the bushing is between 51 and 10), said secondary body comprising a radial flange (32) configured to be pressed by the user to actuate said pump (Fig. 1 member 11).
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox (US 3,353,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marshall (US 4,838,866).
With regard to claim 3, Knox teaches valves as recited but does not explicitly disclose the valves to be balls. However, Marshall teaches a similar injection device which uses two ball valves to control flow (Fig. 2 42 and 38). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ball valves in Knox as in Marshall as they would function exactly the same and provide an art effective equivalent valve that would yield the same predictable result of delivery.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox (US 3,353,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kas (US 2,825,334).
With regard to claim 7, Knox teaches valves as recited but does not explicitly disclose a dip tube. However, Kas teaches using a dip tube with a vent to transfer fluid from the reservoir (Fig. 3 tube 34 vent 36, Col. 2 lines 25-29). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration for transferring fluid in Konx as in Kas including a dip tube and vent as this provide venting and maintain pressure in the reservoir.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox (US 3,353,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 6,063,054).
With regard to claim 11, Knox teaches a device substantially as claimed. Knox does not explicitly disclose a spray nozzle. However, Anderson et al. teach a similar multi-dose injection device (abstract) in which the outlet may be connected to a needle or fluid may be sprayed depending on the desired mode of delivery (Figs. 6b and 6c, Col. 5 lines 30-45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a spray in Knox as Anderson et al. teach equivalently using a needle or spray depending on desired delivery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-3648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:00 AM to 4:30 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/EMILY L SCHMIDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights