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, 6, 9-10, 17-18, and 23-24 have been examined in this application. This communication is a second non-final action on the merits.
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 23 is 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 23, the limitation “the opposite” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. A correction may include “an opposite”. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 23 is interpreted according to the aforementioned suggested correction.
Claim 24 depends from claim 23 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 1, 9, 10, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5622287 to Glynn in view of US 11612903 to Goettke et al.
As per claims 1, 9, and 23, Glynn discloses a pump dispenser for a metered removal of a liquid from a container onto which the pump dispenser can be placed, comprising;
a housing (21, 71) configured to be placed on the container, the housing defining a metering chamber (Col. 5, Ln. 16-18);
a pump head (1) configured to be moved up and down relative to the housing along a longitudinal axis of the pump dispenser between a first and a second position to carry out a pump stroke (Col. 5, ¶ 3);
a piston (51) secured to the pump head (Col. 4, Ln. 47-51) and movable in the metering chamber to convey the liquid (Col. 5, Ln. 15-28);
a dispenser opening (49) connected to the metering chamber (Fig. 1) through which metered liquid can leave the pump dispenser;
a spring (47) configured to reset the pump head relative to the housing; and
a valve (67) defining a conveying direction of the liquid from the container into the dispenser opening, the valve configured to block a conveying process in an opposite direction (“one-way […] valve” -- Col. 5, Ln. 32-34).
Glynn does not disclose: a particular material of the spring; and the spring having a plurality of rings arranged one over another, each connected together by at least one connecting web.
Goettke teaches a pump dispenser comprising a spring (7; Fig. 3) configured to reset a pump head relative to a housing (Col. 10, ¶ 3), the spring having a plurality of rings (9, 10) arranged one over another (Fig. 3), each connected together by at least one connecting web (11), and the spring made of plastic (Col. 10, ¶ 3-4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the dispenser of Glynn to include the spring of Goettke since doing so would be an obvious substitution of one known spring for another known spring, with the expected results that the substituted spring would function to bias the dispensing head.
As per claims 10 and 24, Glynn further discloses the dispenser opening extends in part in a dispenser extension on the housing (Fig. 1). Glynn does not explicitly disclose the dispenser extension being formed on the housing. However, this limitation is considered as product-by-process. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. There appears no structural difference between the product of Glynn and the product of claim 3 of the instant application.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5622287 to Glynn in view of US 11612903 to Goettke et al in view of US 20190143354 to Fries.
As per claim 17, the Glynn-Goettke combination does not disclose longitudinal ribs of different lengths formed on an inside of the pump head, one of the longitudinal ribs interacting by rotation of the pump head relative to the housing with at least one stop formed on the housing. Fries teaches a pump dispenser comprising longitudinal ribs of different lengths (22’, 22”, 22”’; Fig. 11) formed on an inside of the pump head (5) one of the longitudinal ribs interacting by rotation of the pump head relative to a housing with at least one stop formed on a housing ([0057]-[0059]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Glynn according to the aforementioned teachings from Fries for reasons including to control a dosage amount.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5622287 to Glynn in view of US 11612903 to Goettke et al in view of US 5363993 to Mascitelli et al.
As per claim 18, the Glynn-Goettke combination discloses the claimed invention except for the particular material of the constituent components. Mascitelli teaches a pump dispenser wherein all constituent elements are made of plastic to make the dispenser completely salvageable (abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the constituent components of Glynn from plastic, like taught by Mascitelli, for reasons including to similarly make the pump dispenser completely salvageable.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the drawing objections issued in the non-final rejection dated 12/30/25, the amendment filed 04/30/26 appropriately addresses all and the drawing objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art, the remarks filed 04/30/26 have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the grounds of rejection contained in this office action.
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 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights