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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-19 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III in the reply filed on 09/29/25 is acknowledged. In the reply filed 09/29/25 Applicant did not indicate the particular claims elected for prosecution. However, for the purpose of examination, all the claims are considered election (i.e. claims 1-19) – as indicated in the prior response dated 05/27/25.
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:
establish antecedent basis in the specification for the following subject matter:
“a liquid dispenser comprising an inner container comprising […] a support configured to engage an endcap and a bottom, wherein […] the bottom of the inner container forms the bottom of the liquid dispenser” (claims 1, 10, 16).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“a liquid dispenser comprising an inner container comprising […] a support configured to engage an endcap and a bottom, wherein […] the bottom of the inner container forms the bottom of the liquid dispenser” (claims 1, 10, 16).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sidewalls” should be “sidewall”; and “treading” should be “threading”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1, 10, and 16, the following claimed subject matter fails to find support in the application as originally filed and therefore constitutes new matter: “a liquid dispenser comprising an inner container comprising […] a support configured to engage an endcap and a bottom, wherein […] the bottom of the inner container forms the bottom of the liquid dispenser”. While the application does support an inner container having a support projected from a bottom of the inner container and engaging an endcap –the endcap forming a bottom of a liquid dispenser, the application does NOT describe the “an inner container comprising […] a support configured to engage an endcap and a bottom, wherein […] the bottom of the inner container forms the bottom of the liquid dispenser”, as required by the claim.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 17-19 depend from claim 16 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the above noted factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404.
As per claims 1, 10, and 16 the claim requires inter alia “a liquid dispenser comprising an inner container comprising […] a support configured to engage an endcap and a bottom, wherein […] the bottom of the inner container forms the bottom of the liquid dispenser”. While the application does support an inner container having a support projected from a bottom of the inner container and engaging an endcap –the endcap forming a bottom of a liquid dispenser, the application does NOT describe the “an inner container comprising […] a support configured to engage an endcap and a bottom, wherein […] the bottom of the inner container forms the bottom of the liquid dispenser”, as required by the claim. It is unclear how the application enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and or use an invention commensurate with the aforementioned subject matter—i.e. where an inner container, of a liquid dispenser, has a bottom and a support engaging an endcap where that bottom also forms a bottom of the liquid dispenser.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 17-19 depend from claim 16 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 1-19 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 claims 1, 10, and 16, the limitation “the bottom of the liquid dispenser” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
As per claim 12, the limitation “the center” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
As per claim 16, the following limitations lack antecedent basis in the claims: “the threading”; and, “the treading”.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 17-19 depend from claim 16 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
In view of the numerous informalities and indefinitenes issues noted above, although a search of the prior art has been conducted, no meaningful application of prior art against the claims can be made at this time. This should not be taken as an indication that the claims would be allowable if all of the noted issues are corrected. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 October 10, 2025