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 e present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
Claims 31-47 and 51-54 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and Remarks" filed on 02/20/26.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
identify the following terms in the specification by reference to the drawings, designating the corresponding part or parts therein to which each term applies: clamping portions.
Claim Objections
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in axial direction” should be “in an axial direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
In regards to claims 31 and 51, claim limitation “conveying device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “device” and coupled with functional language “conveying” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) “conveying device” has been interpreted to cover: a bellows actuatable by an actuating lever—and equivalents thereof.
Further, in regards to claims 42 and 51, claim limitation “connection part” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “part” and coupled with functional language “connection” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) “connection part” has been interpreted to cover: a part arranged axially between a container and each of a bellows, conveying device and outer housing, the part configured to be screwed onto the container or connected in a latching catching or snap-in manner—and equivalents thereof.
Further, in regards to claims 42 and 51, claim limitation “connecting portion” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “portion” and coupled with functional language “connecting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) “connecting portion” has been interpreted to cover: a protrusion from a lateral wall of the conveying device formed as a latching or snap-in lug or latching or snap-in pin; and, a flange-like and/or radially extending connecting portion at a bottom of the conveyor housing—and equivalents thereof.
Further, in regards to claims 42 and 51, claim limitation “latching element” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “element” and coupled with functional language “latching” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) “latching element” has been interpreted to cover: an element that engages with a connecting portion of the conveyor housing to form a form fit or positive connection between the conveyor housing and the connection part.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
For the purpose of applying prior art the following broadest reasonable interpretations are applied. The disclosure does not set forth uncommon, special, or otherwise explicit definitions for terms for which the following aforementioned broadest reasonable interpretations are provided. These broadest reasonable interpretations do not appear inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretations
In regards to claim 31,
the term monolithic is interpreted as:
“consisting of or constituting a single unit” as per the attached definition obtained on 03/03/26 from Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.
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 51-54 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.
As per claim 51, the limitation “the outer housing comprises clamping portions extending transversely from the outer housing […]” is ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear how clamping portions can be both: part of the outer housing and, extending transversely from the outer housing. That is, it is unclear how the clamping portions can extend transversely from themselves.
Claim 33 depends from claim 32 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 52-54 depend from claim 51 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 31, 36, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6279784 to O’Neill.
As per claim 31, and as the examiner can understand the claim, O’Neill discloses a dispensing device (Fig. 4-5) configured to dispense a fluid, comprising:
an outer housing (6),
a conveying device (32) received in the outer housing (Fig. 4-5), and an outlet channel (44) having a channel opening (Fig. 4-5),
wherein the outlet channel extends transversely to a longitudinal axis of the dispensing device (Fig. 4);
wherein the conveying device includes a conveyor housing (32, 33), and wherein the conveyor housing and the outlet channel combine with the other elements of the dispensing device to form a single unit – i.e. one monolithic element.
As per claim 36, O’Neill further discloses the outer housing and the conveyor housing each comprises a clearance through which an actuating lever is passed (Fig. 1 and 4).
As per claim 42, O’Neill further discloses a connection part (2) configured to connect the dispensing device to a container (Fig. 4), wherein the connection part comprises a latching element (see Figure Below) which engages over both a first connecting portion of the conveying device (see Figure Below) and a second connecting portion (see Figure Below) of the outer housing thereby clamping the connection part, conveying device and outer housing together.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure: US 6279784, Fig. 4 – annotated
Claims 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6279784 to O’Neill.
As per claim 51, and as the examiner can understand the claim, O’Neill discloses a dispensing device configured to dispense a fluid comprising:
an outer housing (6);
a conveying device (32) received in the outer housing,
an outlet channel (44) having a channel opening (Fig. 4), and
a connection part (2) configured to connect the dispensing device to a container,
wherein a longitudinal axis runs centrally through the conveying device and the connection part (see Figure below—the axis runs through a center, i.e. “centrally”, through the conveying device and through the connection part),
wherein the conveying device comprises a connecting portion (see Figure below) and the connection part comprises a latching element (see Figure below) engaging with the connection portion (Fig. 4), and
wherein the outer housing comprises clamping portions (see Figure below) extending transversely from the outer housing and radially with respect to the longitudinal axis (see Figure below), the clamping portions being clamped in an axial direction between the connection part and the connecting portion of the conveying device (see Figure below), thereby fixing the connection part, conveying device and outer housing together.
PNG
media_image2.png
662
1136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure: US 6279784, Fig. 4 – annotated
As per claim 52, O’Neill further discloses the connecting portion of the conveying device is a flange (Fig. 4).
As per claim 53, and as the examiner can understand the claim, O’Neill further discloses the outer housing covers the latching element from the outside (Fig. 4).
As per claim 54, and as the examiner can understand the claim, O’Neill further discloses the latching element is one of a plurality of latching elements (see Figure above), wherein the connection part comprises the plurality of latching elements and the clamping portions of the outer housing are each respectively located between two adjacent latching elements of the plurality of latching elements (see Figure above).
Claims 31, 38, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019175349 to Jasper et al.
As per claim 31, Jasper discloses a dispensing device (Fig. 2-3) configured to dispense a fluid, comprising:
an outer housing (see Figure below),
a conveying device (5-7) received in the outer housing (Fig. 2-3), and an outlet channel (15) having a channel opening,
wherein the outlet channel extends transversely to a central axis or a longitudinal axis of the dispensing device (Fig. 2)
wherein the conveying device includes a conveyor housing (2B), and wherein the conveyor housing and the outlet channel combine with the other elements of the dispensing device to form a single unit – i.e. one monolithic element.
PNG
media_image3.png
568
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure: WO 2019/175349 Fig. 2 – annotated
As per claims 38 and 43, Jasper further discloses the outer housing is formed in multiple parts with an upper part (see Figure, above) and a lower part (see Figure, above) which are plugged together or interlocked, wherein a dividing plane of the outer housing is located between the upper and the lower part and runs transversely with respect to the central axis or longitudinal axis (see Figure, above).
Claims 31-35, 37, 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019175349 to Jasper et al.
As per claim 31, Jasper discloses a dispensing device (Fig. 2-3) configured to dispense a fluid, comprising:
an outer housing (2a-2b),
a conveying device (5-7 and see Figure A - below) received in the outer housing (Fig. 2-3), and an outlet channel (15) having a channel opening,
wherein the outlet channel extends transversely to a central axis or a longitudinal axis of the dispensing device (Fig. 2)
wherein the conveying device includes a conveyor housing (see Figure A - below), and wherein the conveyor housing and the outlet channel combine with the other elements of the dispensing device to form a single unit – i.e. one monolithic element.
PNG
media_image4.png
482
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure A: WO 2019/175349 Fig. 2 – annotated
As per claim 32, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Jasper further discloses a flexible bellows (5) is arranged completely within the conveyor housing and the flexible bellows is held by the conveyor housing (Fig. 2).
As per claim 33, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Jasper further discloses the flexible bellows is held at an upper end of the flexible bellows by the conveyor housing (Fig. 2).
As per claim 34, Jasper further discloses the conveyor housing is closed at a top of the conveyor housing (Fig. 2).
As per claim 35, Jasper further discloses the conveyor housing comprises an aperture (14b) at a top of the conveyor housing which opens into the outlet channel (Fig. 2).
As per claims 37 and 45, Jasper further discloses the outlet channel and channel opening are arranged off-center in/on the outer housing with respect to a vertical symmetry plane of the conveyor housing (see Figure B, below).
PNG
media_image5.png
706
804
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure B: WO 2019175349, Fig. 2 - annotated
As per claim 44, Jasper further discloses the outer housing holds the conveying device (Fig. 2).
As per claim 46, Jasper further discloses the dispensing device comprises an actuating lever (21) configured to actuate the conveying device (Fig. 2-3).
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 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019175349 to Jasper et al in view of DE 10221667 to Adler et al. All citations herein made to DE 10221667 are made to the attached machine translation into english of DE 10221667 –DE10221667_MT.
As per claim 39, Jasper does not disclose a rotatably mounted dispensing element. Adler teaches a dispensing device comprising a rotatably mounted dispensing element (20) arranged at a channel opening (Fig. 1), wherein different dispensing forms of the fluid are selectable by rotating the dispensing element having a plurality of passage openings (21, 22; [0030]-[0033]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Jasper according to the aforementioned teachings from Adler to provide a means for selecting between a plurality of dispensing forms.
As per claim 41, Adler further teaches the fluid is dispensable selectively as a spray by rotating the dispensing element ([0030] & [0037]).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by US 6279784 to O’Neill in view of US 7175056 to Buti.
As per claim 40, O’Neill discloses a dispensing device configured to dispenser a fluid, comprising:
a connection part (2) configured to connect the dispensing device to a container.
an outer housing (4, 6) having a lower part connect to the connection part (Fig. 4),
a conveying device (10, 32) received in the outer housing (Fig. 4), and
an outlet channel (44) having a channel opening (Fig. 4),
the conveying device comprising a bellows (10) and a conveyor housing (32), the bellows being completely arranged within the conveyor housing (Fig. 4),
O’Neill does not disclose the outer housing formed in multiple parts which are plugged together or interlocked. Buti teaches a dispensing device (10) comprising: a connection part (11) configured to connect the dispensing device to a container (Col. 3, Ln. 25-27); an outer housing (9, 14) formed in multiple parts and comprises an upper part (9) and a lower part (14) which are interlocked (50, 91; Col. 4, ln. 35-48); wherein a dividing plane of the outer housing located between the upper and the lower part runs transversely with respect to a central axis of the conveying device (See Figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
588
698
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure: US 7175056, Figure 2 - annotated
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019175349 to Jasper et al in view of US 6527202 to Tseng.
As per claim 47, Jasper further discloses some parts made of plastic ([0057] and [0142]). Jasper does not disclose materials for all of the components. Tseng teaches a dispensing device wherein al materials are made of a recyclable plastic (Col. 1, Ln. 44-46 – i.e. the embodiment not comprising a spring 31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to modify Jasper according to the aforementioned teachings from Tseng to form all components of Jasper of a recyclable plastic to similarly provide for recyclability of the dispensing device of Jasper.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the claim rejection under 35 USC § 112 issued in the non-final rejection dated 10/20/25, the amendment filed 02/20/26 appropriately addresses all and the rejections are withdrawn. The claim rejection under 35 USC § 112 contained in this office action are necessitated by the amendment filed 02/20/26.
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections by providing the following arguments:
Regarding claim 31, the prior art does not show a conveyor housing and an outlet channel form one monolithic piece.
Regarding claim 31, the indicated “outer housing lower part” of Jasper is not “outer” because it lies entirely within the dispensing device.
Regarding claim 40, the prior art does not disclose the claim as amended.
Regarding claim 51, the inwardly extending portions (now amended to “clamping portions”) indicated in O’Neill do not: extend transversely to the outer housing, and radially with respect to a longitudinal axis, and are clamped in an axial direction.
In response to argument (A), and as set forth in this office action in accordance with the definition afforded to “monolithic” as set forth herein under the title “Claim Interpretation”, each of Jasper and O’Neill disclose a conveying device includes a conveyor housing and wherein the conveyor housing and the outlet channel combine with the other elements of the dispensing device to form a single unit – i.e. one monolithic element.
In response to argument (B), in determining the relative weight to accord to rebuttal evidence, considerations such as whether a nexus exists between the claimed invention and the proffered evidence, and whether the evidence is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, are appropriate. The mere presence of some credible rebuttal evidence does not dictate that an obviousness rejection must always be withdrawn. See MPEP § 2145. Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., outer housing does not lie entirely within the dispensing device) 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).
In response to argument (C), the remarks have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the grounds of rejection contained in this office action.
In response to argument (D), O’Neill discloses the claim limitations as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 with 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 March 4, 2026