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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims and specification, filed on 09/16/2025, are accepted and do not introduce new matter.
Previous 112(b) rejections are overcome, since Applicant has cancelled all previous claims.
Claims 9-18 are pending and new; claims 1-8 were cancelled.
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.
Claim 13-14 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 13 recites the limitation "the access port" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret claim 13 as dependent on claim 10, since claim 10 introduces “an access port”.
Claims 14 is indefinite for depending on claim 13.
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 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazazian (U.S. 8,082,754) in view of Hui et al (U.S. 2017/0275060).
Regarding claim 9, Kazazian teaches an earring (14), comprising:
a body including a reservoir (main body 2, which includes a reservoir, as seen in Figs 6-7);
an atomizer (spray mechanism 4) coupled to the reservoir (as seen in Figs 6-7) and configured to, when compressed, reduce a liquid stored in the reservoir into a spray (col 4, lines 4-8 disclose: “The manipulation of the reservoir actuates the spray mechanism 4 to dispense fluid 5. This may be by a pumping of the fluid 5 from the reservoir 2 by reciprocating displacement pumps, such as a plunger or diaphragm pump” wherein reciprocating displacement pumps, such as a plunger pump, in the relevant sprayer art involve compressing the atomizer to create pressure in the reservoir and driving the liquid out of the reservoir as a spray; as evidence by Tu U.S. 2016/0279654, which discloses a reciprocating plunger pump that when compressed draws liquid from its reservoir as a spray - see Par 0007 and Fig 5; as such, Kazazian discloses an atomizer that functions as claimed); and
an attachment element (ear fastener 12) extending from a top of the atomizer configured to be attached to an ear of a user (as seen in Figs 6-7 and disclosed in col 3, line 11, the fastener is disclosed as an ear fastener; thus it is configured to be attached to the ear of a user).
However, Kazazian does not teach the earring having a cap releasably coupled to the body covering the atomizer; wherein the ear fastener extends from the cap.
Hui teaches an encased dispenser, which includes an atomizer (135) and a reservoir (160); that comprises a cap (120) releasably coupled to a body (defined by 107), wherein the cap covers the atomizer (as seen in Fig 1C, the cap 120 covers atomizer 135).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kazazian to incorporate the teachings of Hui to provide a cap to the main body in order to cover the outlet of the atomizer so that the user can handle the earring with the liquid stored safely inside the reservoir in a leak-proof manner (as disclosed in Par 0067 of Hui). In combination, the ear fastener of Kazazian would extend from the cap of Hui. Examiner points to D’Alessandro (U.S. 2017/0295893) as evidence for this configuration, since D’Alessandro teaches a piece of jewelry that provides a scent; wherein the jewelry can be used as earrings (see Par 0031), comprising an attachment element (seen in Fig 1, attachment element is coupled to a cap 20) coupled to and extending from a cap (20, as seen in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kazazian and Hui teach the earring of claim 9. However, the reservoir of Kazazian does not comprise: an access port extending into the reservoir through which the liquid is dispensed into the reservoir.
Hui teaches an encased dispenser, which includes an atomizer (104) and a reservoir (160); that comprises an access port (181) extending into the reservoir through which the liquid is dispensed into the reservoir (as seen in Fig 1C and Par 0078, the access port allows for liquid to flow into the reservoir in order to refill it).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kazazian to incorporate the teachings of Hui to provide an access port at a bottom end of the reservoir in order to refill the reservoir without removing any other part of the main body (as disclosed in Par 0078 of Hui).
Regarding claim 11, Kazazian and Hui teach the earring of claim 10, wherein the access port is configured to receive a stem of a container through which the liquid flows to refill the reservoir (Examiner notes that the claim is directed to an earring; therefore the stem of a container used to refill the reservoir of the earring are not actual parts of the claimed invention. Nonetheless, Hui discloses in Par 0067 that their refill mechanism is the same as the one disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 8,079,388 by inventor Turgeman; wherein Turgeman discloses a container 150 that has a stem 152 that is inserted into access port 34 in order to refill reservoir 12; Thus Hui teaches the subject matter of this claim).
Regarding claim 12, Kazazian and Hui teach the earring of claim 9, wherein at least one of the cap and the body includes at least one of a metal, a fabric, a polymer, and a glass (col 3, lines 43-46 of Kazazian disclose the assembly, which includes the main body, comprising plastic and metal).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Kazazian and Hui teach the earring of Claim 10, wherein the body extends from a top end (upper end of body 2) to a bottom end (lower end of body 2), the cap is proximate of the top end, and the access port is proximate of the bottom end (in combination, the cap 120 as modified by Hui is defined on the upper end of the device, see Fig 1C; and the access port as modified by Hui is defined on the bottom end of the device, see Fig 1C).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Kazazian and Hui teach the earring of claim 13, wherein the cap is coupled proximate to the top end (as seen in Fig 1C of Hui, the cap 120 is coupled proximate to the top end of the device).
Regarding claim 15, Kazazian and Hui teach the earring of claim 9, wherein the attachment element includes a post, a kidney wire, a hook, or a demountable fastener (as seen in Figs 6 and 7 of Kazazian, the attachment element 12 is a hook).
Regarding claim 16, Kazazian and Hui teach the earring of claim 9, wherein the atomizer is movable between a closed state, in which the atomizer is at least partially covered by the cap to prevent compression of the atomizer (in the closed state, the cap 120 of Hui covers the atomizer to prevent activation, see Fig 1A of Hui), and an open state (when the cap is removed), in which the atomizer is at least partially exposed (as seen in Fig 1B of Hui) by the cap to permit compression of the atomizer (once the cap is removed as taught by Hui, the atomizer of Kazazian is exposed to allow compression of the atomizer).
Regarding claim 17, Kazazian and Hui teach the earring of claim 9, wherein the atomizer is movable between a closed state, in which the cap is coupled to the body thereby covering the atomizer to prevent compression of the atomizer (in the closed state, the cap 120 of Hui is coupled to the body of the atomizer to prevent activation, see Fig 1A of Hui), and an open state (when the cap is removed), in which the cap is separated from the body thereby exposing the atomizer to permit compression of the atomizer (once the cap is separated from the body as taught by Hui Fig 1B, the atomizer of Kazazian is exposed to allow compression of the atomizer).
Regarding claim 18, Kazazian and Hui teach a method of refilling the reservoir of the earring of claim 11, comprising: exposing the stem of the container (stem 152 of container 150 as taught by Turgeman, which is incorporated by Hui); inserting the stem into the access port; and transferring the liquid from the container, through the stem, into the reservoir (as seen in Fig 3 and disclosed in col 3, lines 50-60 of Turgeman, the stem 152 is inserted into access port 34 of the reservoir 12 in order to transfer liquid from the container into the reservoir through the stem to refill the reservoir. Turgeman is incorporated by Hui, see Par 0067 of Hui).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kazazian does not teach the limitation of: the atomizer configured to, when compressed, reduce a liquid stored in the reservoir into a spray. Stating that Kazazian discloses that when the reservoir 2 is manipulated, the fluid in the reservoir 5 passes through a siphon 7 and exits through nozzle 8. Examiner notes that although this is accurate, this is only one way Kazazian conceived of spraying the liquid. As stated in col 4, lines 4-8 of Kazazian: “The manipulation of the reservoir actuates the spray mechanism 4 to dispense fluid 5. This may be by a pumping of the fluid 5 from the reservoir 2 by reciprocating displacement pumps, such as a plunger or diaphragm pump”. As such Kazazian also discloses an embodiment in which the liquid is dispensed using a reciprocating plunger pump. Whereby Examiner notes that reciprocating displacement pumps, such as a plunger pump, in the relevant sprayer art involve compressing the atomizer to create pressure in the reservoir and driving the liquid out of the reservoir as a spray. Examiner has cited Tu (U.S. 2016/0279654) as evidence of this, which discloses a reciprocating plunger pump that when compressed draws liquid from its reservoir as a spray - see Par 0007 and Fig 5. As such, Examiner asserts that Kazazian also discloses an atomizer that functions as claimed. For this reason, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant did not provide further arguments against the prior art.
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 JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752