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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
All previous 35 USC 112 have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 in response to Office Action 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Regarding the claims, Applicant argues arguments, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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 1-2, 5, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 5011047 issued to Cruysberghs (hereinafter “Cruysberghs”) in view of US Pat 3837527 issued to Kutik et al. (hereinafter “Kutik”) in view of US Pat 3656657 issued to Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding claim 1, Cruysberghs teaches a pressure container (Fig 1, container 10, is a pressure container, Abstract) comprising:
a container body (Fig 1 shows in cross-section that portions 12, 14, 16 are integrally one piece so together make a body of the container) having a container interior (interior of container body shown), wherein at an upper end of the container body an end portion is formed integrally with the container body (the upper end portion 16 of the body), which has a container opening (Fig 1, container’s opening shown through 16a), and wherein the container body has a container bottom arranged at a lower end and formed integrally with the container body (the lower end bottom 14 of the body);
a valve disposed in and/or at the end portion (Fig 1, 20 is in and at the body upper end portion); and
a single-piece suction pipe (Fig 1, col 2 lines 29-38, a suction pipe for discharge is tube 26), which is arranged in the container interior (26 is in the interior) and is connected fixedly and fluid-tightly to the valve (pipe 26 is necessarily a fluid-tight connection because it is a gas-tight connection since it allows constant air pressure; col 4 lines 6-10, “a constant pressure will be available in the can 10 at all times to propel the product from the can, while the pressurizing medium utilized can be an inert gas, such as air, which is not harmful to the environment”), a pipe interior of the suction pipe being fluidically connected to a passage opening of the valve (fluid can pass through the pipe interior and a hollow passage/opening in the valve to get to the stem 22 in a connected flow; col 2 lines 33-35, “flow through the tube 26, the valve 20, the stem 22 and to the push button 24 from which it discharges outwardly”), and the suction pipe extending in the direction of the container bottom into a region of the container bottom and having a pipe opening in the region of the container bottom (Fig 1, the connected flow starts in an opening at a bottom of pipe 26 that is shown in a region proximal the container bottom 14), wherein
the pipe opening is formed at one pipe end of the suction pipe (Fig 1, the bottom pipe opening of 26 is at one end of 26), and wherein
the valve has an internal channel having a first inlet end that receives the suction pipe therein (Fig 1, col 2 lines 26-29, “The lower end of the tube 26 is slightly spaced from the bottom plate 14 and the upper end extends into the valve 20” meaning 26 into/therein a first inlet and a corresponding internal channel of 20 necessarily by a predetermined distance of insertion (though unseen in the Figure), and because of the connected flow) and a second outlet end that comprises a valve outlet opening (Fig 1, valve 20 necessarily has an opening to allow the connected flow into the “hollow actuating stem 22”, and that opening is structurally an outlet into 22 located at a second outlet end of the valve), wherein a longitudinal axis of the entire suction pipe is aligned with a flow path (Fig 1, a flow path of the valve 20 through stem 22 is shown vertically aligned with the central longitudinal axis of pipe/tube 26 (i.e. the axis as defined by the “entire” pipe / pipe’s entirety and is a straight line, and said straight axis passes through the flow path of stem 22)), wherein
an outer upper surface of the suction pipe is in direct facing radially overlapping contact with an inner surface of the inlet end of the valve (see examiner annotated Cruysberghs Figure 1, hereinafter “EAFC1”; EAFC1, pipe outer upper surface shown radially overlapping a valve inlet end inner surface. Contact taught above from being connected gas-tight “into” valve 20) and wherein
an outer surface of the inlet end of the valve, radially opposite the inner surface, is in direct facing radially overlapping contact with an inner surface of the container body (EAFC1, an inlet outer surface (magnified region) is shown radially opposite the inlet inner surface (dashed vertical line) and directly faces while radially overlapping and contacting an inner surface of the container body (body contact; via shared black line)).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Cruysberghs does not explicitly teach the longitudinal axis of the entire suction pipe is aligned with a flow path for the entire valve (i.e. the path defined by the distance of flow travel through the entire valve).
Kutik, however, teaches a longitudinal axis of the entire suction pipe is aligned with a flow path for the entire valve (see examiner annotated Kutik Figure 2, hereinafter “EAFK2”; EAFK2, the dashed arrow shows the central longitudinal axis of a suction pipe that is dip tube 28 aligned with an entire valve’s through flow path (same line); Abstract, “aerosol container” necessarily can deliver suctioned contents in pressurized manner through the pipe; col 2 lines 37-40, “Attached to this membrane 18 at the center is a valve stem 19”; col 3 last two lines, “the dip tube 28 to extend straight down at the center”, so fixed perpendicularly to the container bottom).
PNG
media_image2.png
619
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the entire straw axis and entire valve path into alignment with each other (e.g. creating one straight path through the entirety of both the valve and straw) because Applicant has not disclosed that the alignment provides a specific advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves an explicit problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the rearrangement because alignment would perform equally well in dispensing pressurized contents. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the valve flow path of Cruysberghs (since the disclosure is silent except saying col 2 lines 36-38, “these components are conventional”) to obtain the invention as claimed. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C.
But Cruysberghs/Kutik does not explicitly teach that an end portion of the pipe (shared by the pipe opening at the one – bottom – end region of the pipe) narrows toward the container bottom.
Smith, however, teaches a similar pressurized dispensing container with suction pipe comprising:
an end portion of the suction pipe narrows toward the container bottom (Fig 1, col 3 lines 22-25, shows and discloses a single-piece perpendicular to bottom suction pipe which is dip tube 3 narrows toward the bottom of itself into a smaller diameter orifice 11 and the bottom of the container, wherein “the ratio of bottom orifice diameter 11 to the dip tube internal diameter is from about 1:2 to 1:10”, meaning 11 is a smaller diameter portion of the pipe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the bottom end portion of the pipe of Cruysberghs to be narrowed towards the bottom of the container and perpendicular to the container bottom as taught by Smith, since it has been held that the configuration/shape of the claimed containing element (e.g. pipe contains contents in perpendicular configuration and narrowed end shape) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Cruysberghs further teaches the pipe opening (Fig 1, the bottom pipe opening) is arranged in a lower of the container interior (Fig 1, col 2 lines 27-29, “The lower end of the tube 26 is slightly spaced from the bottom plate 14” in a lower section of the container interior).
But Cruysberghs/Kutik does not explicitly teach that the bottom pipe opening is in specifically “the lower tenth” of the container interior.
Smith, however, teaches a similar pressurized dispensing container with suction pipe comprising:
the bottom pipe opening is arranged in a lower tenth of the container interior (Fig 1, col 4 lines 20-25, “container 36 inches long, having a diameter of 18 inches… The dip-tube extends through the top wall of the container and terminates within about 0.025 inch from the bottom wall of the container”. One tenth of 18 inches is 1.8 inches so the bottom pipe opening being 0.025 inches from the bottom inner surface means it is within the lower one tenth range region of the container interior).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the bottom end portion of the pipe of Cruysberghs to be arranged in a lower tenth of the container interior as taught by Smith, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions/proportions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (e.g. a vast majority of contents are able to be dispensed since the pipe opening is so near the bottom). MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Cruysberghs/Kutik/Smith further teaches the pipe end (Cruysberghs, Fig 1, the bottom pipe opening in container bottom region that is in the one pipe end and in the pipe end portion) is formed obliquely (Smith, narrowed form pipe end modifies Cruysberghs pipe end thereby necessarily makes it oblique relative to an above straight pipe portion). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 8, Cruysberghs/Kutik does not explicitly teach at least one wall opening is formed in a pipe wall of the suction pipe in an upper region of the suction pipe.
Smith, however, teaches a similar pressurized dispensing container with suction pipe comprising:
at least one wall opening is formed in a pipe wall of the suction pipe in an upper region of the suction pipe (Fig 1, col 3 lines 40-45 and 61-65, orifice 12, wherein “one upper orifice [12], the orifice should preferably be located on dip-tube 3 at a point corresponding to the level at which about 30-70 percent volume of full charge of liquid is present in container 1”, “(and 30-70 percent volume) of the full charge of liquid refers to the levels of liquid in the container”, meaning 30 percent is in the top one third (being 33 percent) within an upper region (being at least an upper 50 percent) of the container interior).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the upper region one third of the pipe of Cruysberghs to have a wall opening in it as taught by Smith in order to advantageously allow the vapor to pass into the pipe’s liquid forming a composition upon dispensing where it overcomes “the tendency of the composition to change, as would occur with non-perforated dip-tube equipment, [which] may be retarded, [wherein] no real control over the composition of the mixture withdrawn from the container is available and the composition of the mixtures withdrawn from such equipment changes progressively” (Smith, col 2 lines 24-29) meaning the tube contents otherwise change/degrade from “uniform composition” (Smith, col 1 line 33) of maximum efficacy for the contents dispensed now achieved by Smith’s upper pipe wall opening, that is in Cruysberghs pipe wall beneficially providing maximum efficacy of its dispensed contents by having uniform composition.
Regarding claim 9, Cruysberghs/Kutik/Smith further teaches the at least one wall opening is arranged in an upper third of the container interior (Smith, wall opening 12 in upper third of container interior of Cruysberghs). See details in the parent claim 8 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 10, Cruysberghs/Kutik/Smith further teaches the pipe opening (Cruysberghs, Fig 1, bottom pipe opening in end) has a smaller cross-section than the other regions of the suction pipe (Smith, narrows that end). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 11, Cruysberghs further teaches the pipe opening (Fig 1, bottom pipe opening) is vertically aligned with a pipe outlet (Fig 1, an outlet of the pipe is in the upper end), wherein the pipe outlet is located within the first inlet end (col 2 lines 26-29, “The lower end of the tube 26 is slightly spaced from the bottom plate 14 and the upper end extends into the valve 20” meaning into/therein a first inlet and an internal channel of 20).
Regarding claim 12, Cruysberghs further teaches the suction pipe is fixed within the container interior (Fig 1, pipe is fixedly connected inside via its valve fixed connection).
Regarding claim 13, Cruysberghs further teaches the pipe opening is always arranged in the region of the container bottom (Fig 1, col 2 lines 26-29, “The lower end of the tube 26 is slightly spaced from the bottom plate 14”, means the bottom lower end pipe opening is always in the bottom region of the container).
Regarding claim 14, Cruysberghs/Kutik/Smith further teaches the pipe opening is always aligned perpendicular to the container bottom (Kutik, always straight rearrangement so always perpendicular to Cruysberghs’ bottom (as in the bottommost line at least partially defining the bottom 14 shown horizontal); or else perpendicular like Smith’s pipe-to-bottom configuration). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 3343730 – highly similar to claim 1 (Figs 1-2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights