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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Meixner teaching separate cannulas with one having a float at a free end as evidenced in the rejection below.
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 2-5, 11, and 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 2 recites “a cannula comprising at least a first part…” It is unclear which cannula claim 2 is referring to or if the Applicant intends to introduce an additional cannula. Further, if there’s another branching of the cannular from the two claimed in claim 1 to a third constituted by ‘the first part.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “said cannula” and “a first part.” It is unclear which cannula claim 3 is referring to and further if there’s another branching of the cannular from the two claimed in claim 1 to a third constituted by ‘the first part.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “said cannula” “a second part,” and “a first part.” It is unclear which cannula claim 3 is referring to and further if there’s another branching of the cannular from the two claimed in claim 1 to a third or fourth constituted by ‘the first part” and “the second part” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a float" and “a free end” in line 2. It is unclear if the applicant intends to introduce an additional float/free end or is referring back to the ones introduced in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a float" in line 3. It is unclear if the applicant intends to introduce an additional float or is referring back to the one introduced in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “said cannula” “a second part,” and “a first part.” It is unclear which cannula claim 3 is referring to and further if there’s another branching of the cannular from the two claimed in claim 1 to a third or fourth constituted by ‘the first part” and “the second part” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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) 1-10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabussier (US Patent No. 3,260,421), and further in view of Appleby et al. (US Patent No. 3,785,537) and Meixner et al. (US Patent No. 10,961,111).
Re: Claim 1, Rabussier discloses the claimed invention including A dispensing device for multiphase liquids comprising:
a closed casing (1) defining at least one chamber configured to contain one or more substances (32,33) (Figs. 1, and 6).
a multiphase liquid including at least:
a first component (33) housed within said chamber(Figs. 1, and 6), and
a second component (32) housed within said chamber, of different and immiscible density with respect to said first component so as to form, at least when said multiphase liquid is at rest, an interface surface which delimits said components (Depicted in Fig. 1 and 6, Col. 3, lines 70-75, different densities),
Rabussier further disclosing a dispenser (see below for the pump modification) including:
one or more cannulas (4) defining a first direction of extension skewed with respect to the ground when said device is in use to access said multiphase liquid (Depicted in Fig. 1 and 6), and another part whose free end is turned away from the bottom of the chamber except for two mutually separated cannulas with one constrained by a float. However, Meixner teaches two cannulas (20, 40) mutually separated, one of said cannulas, one of said cannulas (20) defining a first direction of extension skewed with respect to the ground when said device is in use to access multiphase fluids (Col. 1, lines 31-34, multiphase fluid access), and another one of said cannulas (40) whose free end (42) is turned away from the bottom of the chamber and is constrained to a float (30) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include two separate cannulas with one free end constrained to a float as taught by Meixner, since Meixner states in col. 1, lines 31-34 such a modification maintains the cannula at a surface of a fluid ensuring that the open end of the hose inside the container always held at a separate phase of the fluid, and that the float is freely movable on the liquid surface despite positioning of the container; and further since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
an expulsion mechanism (3) arranged on the top of said casing with respect to the ground at least when said device is in use, operatively connected to said cannula and configured to dispense said multiphase liquid from said chamber outwards (Fig. 1 and 6),
wherein said one or more cannulas comprise globally a plurality of first accesses (31) arranged on planes spaced along said first extension direction in such that at least two of said first accesses are separated from said interface surface and said expulsion mechanism simultaneously dispense said first component and said second component (Figs. 1 and 6) except for the dispenser being a manually activated pump for pumping fluid from the device for expulsion. However, Appleby teaches art recognized equivalence either selecting an aerosol valve (24) (as found in Rabussier) (Fig. 1) or a manually activatable pump (124) (Fig. 3) for dispensing fluid from the device (Col. 1, lines 46-50, either an aerosol valve or pump may be used).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rabussier in view of Appleby by causing the dispenser to be a pump, since Appleby discloses the equivalence of a propellant valve and pump for their use in the dispensing art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to move and dispense fluid would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any dispenser (see Specification, p. 7, lines 8-24 wherein the applicant states that either an aerosol valve or pump may be used interchangeably) and it appears that the device of Rabussier in view of Appleby would work appropriately if made with the claimed pump dispenser.
Re: Claim 2, Rabussier discloses the claimed invention including a cannula comprising at least a first part extending within said chamber, at least partially along a first extension direction skewed relative to the ground when said device is in use in such a way as to access said multiphase liquid and said first section comprises a plurality of first accesses distributed along said first extension direction on a surface side of said first part and mutually spaced so that at least two of said first accesses are separated from said interface surface and said expulsion mechanism simultaneously pumps said first component and said second component (Depicted in Fig. 1 and 6).
Re: Claim 3, Rabussier discloses the claimed invention including said cannula comprises a connection part (51) configured to put in fluid passage connecting said expulsion mechanism and said first part (55), abreast to said first part and configured in such a way that a free end (56) of said first part faces away from said ground, when said device is in use, and that said cannula defines globally a U-shaped configuration, said connecting section being devoid of said first accesses (Depicted in Fig. 6).
Re: Claim 4, Rabussier discloses the claimed invention including the embodiment of Fig. 6 teaching said cannula defines a second part (55) in fluid passage communication with said first part and extending to the left of said first part along a second extension direction in such a way that a free end of said second part faces away from said ground (Depicted in Fig. 6), when said device is in use, and that said cannula globally defines a U-shaped configuration (Fig. 6), except for second accesses along the second part. However, Rabussier discloses in an alternate embodiment said second part including second accesses distributed along said second extension direction on a lateral surface of said second part and mutually spaced in such a way that at least two of said second accesses are separated from said interface surface (Col. 2, lines 23-28, placing accesses at equidistance along the entire length of tube). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include accesses along the second part, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re: Claim 5, Rabussier as modified by Meixner in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches at least one said cannula comprises a float (30) arranged in correspondence with a free end of said cannula (40) and configured to maintain said free end positioned in correspondence of the free surface of said multiphase fluid (Meixner: Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 6, Rabussier discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of cannula. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling date to include a plurality of said cannula and at least two of said cannula share at least part of said connection portion or part of said first section, since it has been held mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re: Claim 7, Rabussier discloses the claimed invention including said cannula is rigid and maintains the same shape independently of said multiphase liquid (Col. 6, lines 37-40, rigid).
Re: Claim 8, Rabussier discloses the claimed invention including at least part of said cannula is deformable and changes its form in dependence upon the level of said multiphase liquid within said casing (Col. 2, lines 55-60, flexible cannula).
Re: Claim 9, Rabussier as modified in the rejection of claim 4 above discloses the claimed invention including said first access and said second access are constituted by holes distributed in such a way as to be mutually equidistant along respectively said first extension direction and said second extension direction.
Re: Claim 10, Rabussier discloses the claimed invention including said dispenser comprises a spout (14, 18) operatively connected to said expulsion mechanism, in fluid passage connection with said cannula and configured to mix said first component and said second component during the expulsion of said multiphase liquid from said casing (Col. 4, lines 40-58, mixing occurs and dispensed from spout).
Re: Claim 13, Rabussier as modified by Appleby in claim 1 above discloses the claimed invention including said dispenser is configured to dispense the liquid product (Appleby: Col. 1, lines 9, liquid dressing).
Re: Claim 14, Rabussier discloses the claimed invention including said dispenser is configured to deliver nebulized product (Appleby: Col. 1, lines 5, spray).
Re: Claim 15, the rejections of claims 4 above covers the limitations recited in this claim, and the modified device of Rabussier further teaching second accesses distributed along said second extension direction on a lateral surface of said second part and mutually spaced in such a way that at least two of said second accesses are separated from said interface surface (Fig. 1 depicts accesses on a later surface mutually spaced with at least two being separated by the interface).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References cited on the PTO-892 provide additional examples of multiple cannulas with alternate access points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights