DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anming (CN 105217166) (see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Anming discloses a device (figure 1) for dispensing a fluid product, comprising
a reservoir (item 13, figure 1) containing the fluid product; and
a metering valve (valve body, figure 1) comprising a valve body containing a metering chamber,
a valve shut-off element (item 5, figure 1) sliding axially in said valve body between a rest position and a dispensing position, in order to dispense the contents of said metering chamber,
said valve shut-off element being urged towards its rest position by a valve spring (item 51, figure 1),
said fluid product comprising a liquid formulation made up of one or more active principle in suspension (paragraph [0016]),
said reservoir containing a follower-piston (item 4, figure 1) which separates said reservoir between an upper reservoir part connected to said metering valve and a lower reservoir part isolated from said metering valve by said follower-piston,
wherein said reservoir contains a piston spring (item 6, figure 1) which axially urges said follower-piston towards said metering valve, said follower-piston being adapted for axially sliding in said reservoir in a sealed manner after each actuation, in order to compensate for the volume of each dose dispensed, said follower piston being pushed axially downwards by said fluid product when it is filled in said reservoir, such that said follower-piston compresses said piston spring and the air arranged in said reservoir lower part until the pressures are balanced between said upper part of the reservoir containing said fluid product in liquid form and said lower part of the reservoir containing the air and said compressed piston spring (paragraphs [0016], [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Anming discloses that after each actuation, said piston spring pushes said follower piston axially upwards to compensate for the decrease in volume generated by the dispensing of a dose of fluid product, without substantial modification of the pressure in said upper part of the reservoir, such that said fluid product always remains in liquid form (paragraphs [0022-0023]).
Regarding claim 9, Anming discloses that said piston spring exerts a pressure adapted to compensate for each decrease in volume after each actuation, but without exerting a pressure on said follower piston that is liable to hinder the filling of said reservoir with said fluid product (paragraphs [0022-0023]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the structure of Anming is capable of holding any liquid product with propellant dissolved therein and thus teaches the limitations of the 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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anming in view of Dann et al. (“Dann” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2015/0232260).
Regarding claims 10-11, Anming teaches the invention as discussed in detail above but does not explicitly teach that a propellant comprises HFA gas, such as HFA 134a and/or HFA 227 and/or HFA-152a and/or HFO1234ze.
Dann teaches a spray delivery device that contains a spray composition comprising a propellant, a carrier fluid and other particles (paragraph [0007]), wherein the propellant is mixed in the composition and can comprise an HFA based gas or an HFO based gas or mixtures thereof (paragraphs [0034], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the spray composition mixture of Dann in the device of Anming because it is capable of spraying such liquid compositions through its delivery device. Use of propellants and other gases for dispensing aerosolized liquids is old and well-known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would choose any such propellants based on the needs of the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 7-11 under Anming and Dann have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Anming does not teach a follower piston that is arranged between a pressurized propellant and a compressed spring during filling and the follower piston of Anming is primarily aimed at providing spraying pressure to the solution as opposed to a propellant used by the current application. Applicant asserted that because of these reasons, Anming does not anticipate claim 7.
Examiner disagrees and would like to point out that claim 7 does not explicitly teach any propellant that is provided between the follower piston and the compressed spring. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., propellant in the reservoir) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also asserted that Anming’s follower piston does not provide a pressure equilibrium between the reservoir space and the follower piston space. This is not found to be persuasive as paragraph [0023] of Anming’s translation clearly teaches that the reservoir cavity is filled against the pressure of the piston and the compression spring and the compression spring moves up to pressurize the liquid in the reservoir chamber. Thus, the piston and the compression spring move up and down for pressure equalization purposes. Therefore, Anming anticipates claim 7 because it teaches each and every limitation as claimed. Claims 8-11 also remain rejected under Anming and Dann as discussed in detail above.
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 shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754