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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 25, 2026. These drawings are entered.
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.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 not 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 function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauser et al. (WO 2019/211682 A2, hereinafter “Pauser”).
Regarding Claim 16, Pauser discloses a dispensing gun for a cartridge (abstract) comprising a frame (Figure 1,10) having a handle (12), an injection gate (114) for connecting a cartridge (as seen in Figure 1), the injection gate being located at the distal part of the frame (as seen in Figure 1), a lever (Figure 2, 121) comprising at least two teeth (as seen in Figure 2) and a piston (13 and 23 taken together) comprising at least two notches (131, as seen in Figure 2). Pauser further discloses that the dispensing gun comprises a means for directly locking the cartridge on the injection gate (via slit 115 as seen in Figure 3 and described on page 15, lines 3-6), the dispensing gun comprises means for pushing the piston inside the cartridge so that the material contained in the cartridge is extruded in a single piston stroke (via plunger 13 as described on page 12 lines 18-33), and the dispensing gun is configured so that the lever comprises an actuating state in which the first notch of the piston and the first tooth of the lever are engaged together prior to connecting the cartridge (as the toothing allows for multiple positions of the lever and the handle relative to one another the lever and the handle would form an angulation as seen in Figure 2).
Pauser discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose that the lever and the handle form an angle ranging from 80° to 120°. However, the Examiner notes that such modification would merely involve a change in the shape of the lever/handle angulation which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Additionally, the examiner notes that the present specification does not assign criticality to the range of 80° to 120°. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the dispensing gun of Pauser with a lever/handle angle in the range of 80° to 120° when additional mechanical advantage is desired, as such a modification would merely involve a change of shape, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Pauser discloses the dispensing gun of claim 16, and as per the notch and tooth configuration as seen in Figure 2, is capable of a final state in which the lever is depressed and the piston of the dispensing gun is engaged in the cartridge so that the material initially contained in the cartridge has been entirely extruded, and an intermediate state in which the lever is maintained in a position between the actuating state and a final state, for contacting the piston close to the piston of the cartridge so that the dispensing gun is ready to use for extruding the material contained in the cartridge.
Regarding Claim 19, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the injection gate is configured for locking (per slit 115 as described above) a cartridge which has a base section with two opposite locking wings (see annotated figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the piston comprises a rod (23) configured to be received in the internal volume of the cartridge when locked on the distal part of the injection gate (as seen in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 21, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the pivot of the lever from the actuating state to the final state displaces the piston in the range from 10 mm to 20 mm (page 5, lines 25-31).
Regarding Claim 22, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that when the lever is in an actuating state, the distal end of the internal piston is located at the proximal end of the injection gate (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 23, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the frame comprises one or more ribs (112c).
Regarding Claim 24, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 23, and further discloses that the dispensing gun comprises a washer (disc made out of metal retention means as described on page 13, lines 17-20) positioned behind the frame's rib.
Regarding Claim 25, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 18, and further discloses that when the lever is in the intermediate state, the lever is maintained in a position between the actuating state and a final state by a spring plunger (as described on page 6, lines 15-30).
Regarding Claim 26, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 19, and further discloses that the injection gate comprises a proximal part (Figure 3, 117) configured to connect the distal end of the frame and a distal part (116) configured to connect and lock the two opposite locking wings of the base section of the cartridge.
Regarding Claim 27, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the frame is made of an injected-molded polymer and the injection gate is made of metal (as described on page 8, lines 4-8).
Regarding Claim 28, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the dispensing gun is autoclavable and/or decontaminable (as the device of Pauser is capable of being cleaned, it is decontaminable).
Regarding Claim 29, Pauser discloses a system comprising the dispensing gun according to claim 16 (as described above) and a cartridge (Figure 5, 20) having a base section with two opposite locking wings (see annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding Claim 31, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 16, and further discloses that the cartridge has a base section with at least two opposite locking wings (see annotated Figure 5 above). Please note: as the cartridge is not positively recited in Claim 16, the structure of the cartridge cannot be positively recited in a dependent claim.
Regarding Claim 32, Pauser discloses the dispensing device of claim 19, and further discloses that the injection gate comprises means for directly locking an external sleeve of the cartridge (as seen in Figure 5 where the outer surface of the cartridge is considered an external sleeve) via its two locking wings (as seen in Figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Replacement drawings of Figures 7, 8, and 9 are sufficient to overcome the drawing objections and have been entered. The substitute specification marked up with corresponding changes has also been entered. Claim amendments were sufficient to overcome the claim objections. Additionally, claim amendments submitted are sufficient to overcome previous 35. U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10 and 11 of applicant’s response filed June 25, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 16-29 and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5 ET.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights