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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/13/2026 has been 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “piercing means” in claim 9 (including depending claims).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
The following 3-Prong Test is used to detail the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) pertaining to the limitation “piercing means” in claim 9 (and dependent claims):
A) “Means” is used for performing a claimed function.
B) “Means” is modified by the functional language “piercing.”
C) Sufficient structure for achieving the claimed function is recited by the claim limitation: “piercing means forming a piercing tip.”
Thus, the limitation “piercing means” in claim 9 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation set forth by the structure of the “piercing tip” provided by claim 9.
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.
Claims 5 and 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the rotary ring is rotatably mounted around the neck of the reservoir” in lines 1-2. The claim is dependent upon claims 1 and 4, which define the rotary ring as the rotary member (claim 4), and require the rotary member to be a component of the assembly (claim 1). It is unclear whether the instant claim requires the rotary ring to be a component of the fluid product reservoir (as shown in the embodiment of Fig. 9 of the drawings, but in contradiction to claim 1), or if Applicant merely intends to define the location of the rotary ring in the assembly (i.e., the rotary ring is located within the assembly such that, when the reservoir is attached, the rotary ring surrounds the neck of the reservoir). For purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding (namely, as the latter interpretation described above in order to avoid conflict with claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is dependent upon claim 17, which was cancelled. For purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted as being dependent upon claim 1.
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 1-8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouliaude (US 9,044,768) in view of Chernov et al. (US 11,457,580).
Regarding claim 1, Pouliaude substantially disclose the claimed invention, including a fluid product dispenser (Fig. 1) comprising: a fluid product reservoir (6) comprising a neck (62/63), and an assembly (including 4, 5, 7, 8, 9) comprising a dispensing member (5), the dispenser comprising a cam track (73) and a lug (83) designed to follow the cam track and a spring (9), the lug being integral with the assembly (Col. 5, line 65 - Col. 6, line 5), wherein the assembly further comprises a rotary member (8), and wherein the rotary member comprises the lug (see Fig. 4); wherein the dispensing member comprises a pushbutton (55) that, when depressed, actuates the dispensing member to dispense fluid product from the fluid product reservoir (Col. 4, lines 6-16); and wherein the dispensing member is inserted in the neck of the fluid product reservoir (Col. 4, lines 40-43; Fig. 1). Pouliaude differs from the claimed invention in that it does not disclose that the cam track is integral with one of the fluid product reservoir and the assembly and the lug is integral with the other of the fluid product reservoir and the assembly, and the spring is not taught to urge the lug out of the cam track. Instead, Pouliaude teaches a relatively more complicated design in which both the cam track and the lug are integral with the assembly, and cooperate with the spring and other components of the assembly (e.g., grooves 41 with tabs 71 and splines 81 for guiding relative movement) to retain and release the fluid product reservoir from the assembly (Col. 6, lines 20-45).
Chernov et al. disclose a cartridge system (320; Figs. 9-17) comprising: a fluid product reservoir (326) comprising a neck (Fig. 12), and an assembly (including manifold 324), the dispenser comprising a cam track (track system 342, Figs. 12-17) and a lug (340, Figs. 14-16) designed to follow the cam track (Fig. 17) and a spring (360/362, Fig. 14) for urging the lug out of the cam track (Col. 14, lines 24-35), the cam track being integral with the fluid product reservoir (Fig. 12), and the lug being integral with the assembly (Figs. 14-16), wherein the assembly comprises a rotary member (rotatable ring; Col. 12, lines 53-63), the rotary member comprising the lug (Col. 12, line 63 - Col. 13, line 3). Chernov et al. teach this system as a quick and easy means for retaining and releasing a fluid product reservoir from an assembly (Col. 12, lines 27-32; Col. 14, lines 50-53) intended for use supplying liquid to a dispensing member in a gardening appliance (e.g., see Col. 1, lines 40-43 and claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the dispenser of Pouliaude to employ a fluid product reservoir with integral cam track, cooperating with a lug integral with the rotary member of the assembly, as taught by Chernov et al., as an alternative means for retaining and releasing the fluid product reservoir from the assembly. Though Chernov et al. teach the use of this system for supplying liquid to a remote pump, one having ordinary skill in the art of fluid dispensing would recognize that the teachings of Chernov et al. are applicable to the more compact device of Pouliaude since each reference attempts to provide a quick and easy means for exchanging a used reservoir for a full one, and would be capable of substituting one known system for another with predictable results.
Moreover, doing so would simplify the assembly of Pouliaude by eliminating the need for the guide grooves, tabs, and splines referenced above, as well as the need for the rotary member to move in the axial direction, and relocating the cam track function (i.e., element 7) to the replaceable reservoir. The spring disclosed by Pouliaude could be modified to act directly on the reservoir or it could be incorporated into the reservoir along with the cam track, as taught by Chernov et al. In either case, the spring would urge the lug out of the cam track during operation, as described by Chernov et al., thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Pouliaude-Chernov in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1. The rotary member of the combined invention is taught by Chernov et al. to be a rotary socket (illustrated as rotatable ring of 324 receiving cartridge 326, Figs. 14-16; Col. 12, lines 60-63), the assembly forming said lug (340 formed on rotatable ring of 324), said cam track is formed by a ring, fixedly mounted on the neck of the reservoir (track 342 formed on cylindrical outer surface 332; Col. 12, lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 3, Pouliaude-Chernov in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 2. Pouliaude further disclose that the assembly comprises a casing (1). When modified as described above, the rotary socket of the combined invention would be axially retained in this casing.
Regarding claims 4-5, Pouliaude-Chernov in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1. The illustrated embodiment of Chernov et al. discloses a fixed ring of the reservoir forming a cam track and a rotary ring of the assembly forming the lug (Figs. 12-16). Chernov et al., however, also contemplates alternative arrangements, such as the lugs being fixed (Col. 13, lines 5-9), that alternative embodiments of the cartridge may “have rotatable features for receipt within one or more fixed features of manifold 324” (Col. 12, lines 43-52), and that other structures may be used to facilitate engagement between the reservoir and the assembly (Col. 13, lines 20-24). Still, Chernov et al. do not explicitly disclose an embodiment in which the rotary ring of the assembly forms the cam track.
However, a mere reversal of parts has been held to be an obvious modification. “In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).” See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(A). In the case of the combined invention of Pouliaude-Chernov, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lug and cam track features could similarly be reversed without a significant impact on the functioning of the device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combined invention such that the rotary ring of the assembly forms the cam track, and the fixed ring of the reservoir forms the lug. Examiner notes that the arrangement claimed in claim 4 (in which the assembly comprises a rotary member that forms the cam track) is not separately described or illustrated in the instant application, which Examiner considers to be further support of the obviousness of the arrangement. Examiner further notes that the embodiment shown in Figs. 8-10 of the instant application is not represented in the claims, since assembly E’ does not comprise a rotary member, as required by claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Pouliaude-Chernov in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1. The cam track of the combined invention is further taught by Chernov et al. (see Fig. 17) to include: a locking housing (352), wherein the lug is urged by the spring in a connection position connecting the reservoir to the assembly (Col. 14, lines 36-49), a first low abutment (356) and a second low abutment (372) on either side of the locking housing, and a first cam surface (354) and a second cam surface (370) over which the lug slides under the action of an axial thrust by the spring, the first cam surface driving the lug to the first low abutment (Col. 13, line 63 - Col. 14, line 9), a subsequent release of axial pressure on the reservoir bringing the lug into the locking housing (Col. 14, lines 10-46), a following application of axial pressure bringing the lug to slide over the second cam surface to the second low abutment (Col. 14, lines 50-67) and another subsequent release of the axial pressure bringing the lug to be released from the cam track under the action of the spring (Col. 15, lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 7, Pouliaude-Chernov in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1. The cam track of the combined invention is further taught by Chernov et al. to include a ramp (surfaces of 350 or 352 contacted in position “0” in Fig. 17) to drive the lug to the cam track (Col. 13, lines 51-62).
Regarding claim 8, Pouliaude-Chernov in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1. Pouliaude further discloses (see the Abstract; Fig. 1) that the assembly comprises a case (1) provided with an insertion/extraction opening (48) and defining an insertion/extraction axis (X), the fluid product reservoir being engaged in the case through the insertion/extraction opening, the reservoir comprising a bottom (61) accessible at the insertion/extraction opening to exert an axial thrust on the reservoir against the spring (as described above regarding claim 1, this would still be true after modifying the dispenser in view of Chernov et al.).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Pouliaude-Chernov in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1. Pouliaude further discloses that the dispensing member is a pump (Col. 4, line 6) that, in an operative state, extends through the neck of the fluid product reservoir (Fig. 1).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouliaude in view of Chernov et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turbett et al. (US 5,875,936).
Regarding claims 9-11, Pouliaude-Chernov in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1. Pouliaude further discloses that the neck of the reservoir projects from a shoulder (62 is inset from the main body of 6; see Fig. 1) and defines an opening and an upper annular edge (see 63 in Fig. 1), and that the assembly comprises a tip (23) at the lower end of a sheath (2) in which the dispensing member is received (see Fig. 1). Pouliaude notes that these features provide “leaktight engagement” between the reservoir and the assembly (Col. 4, line 67 - Col. 5, line 2), but does not explicitly disclose a blocking member or piercing means.
Chernov et al. teach a similar reservoir having a neck projecting from a shoulder, the neck defining an opening and an upper annular edge (see annotated Fig. 13 below), the reservoir being provided with a blocking member (344 with 384 and 386) which seals the opening of the neck. Chernov et al. further teach that the blocking member has a flexible seal (386) which is disposed inside the neck axially away from the upper annular edge, and a sleeve (384 with 344) which extends along a height of the neck from the upper annular edge (see annotated Fig. 13 below). Chernov et al. teach these features cooperating with a means (380) in the assembly for displacing said seal (Col. 15, lines 31-36) so that a fluid seal between the assembly and reservoir is formed when a sealed reservoir is attached to the assembly (Col. 15, lines 33-36).
When modifying Pouliaude in view of Chernov et al. as described above regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to further provide the combined invention with a blocking member, as taught by Chernov et al., in order to seal the reservoir when not in use and to cooperate with the sheath/tip disclosed by Pouliaude to create a fluid seal between the reservoir and the assembly when attached.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 13 of Chernov et al., annotated by Examiner
The combined invention as described still does not explicitly disclose the flexible seal being a pierceable membrane, or that the means for displacing the seal form a piercing tip. However, Turbett et al. teach a reservoir (see Fig. 13) having a blocking member comprising a pierceable membrane (156) and an assembly (Figs. 4-5 and 12) having piercing means (154) forming a piercing tip (Col. 7, lines 35-39). Turbett et al. teach these features as a means of easily replacing a reservoir while maintaining a seal against leakage (Col. 2, lines 20-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the flexible seal of the combined invention of Pouliaude and Chernov et al. in the form of a pierceable membrane and, correspondingly, to modify the tip disclosed by Pouliaude to be a piercing tip, as taught by Turbett et al., in order to easily replace a reservoir while maintaining a seal against leakage, thus arriving at the invention as claimed in claim 9.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results. Having done so, the pierceable membrane would be connected to a lower end of the sleeve below the shoulder (in the location of 386 in Chernov et al.), and the sheath would come into sealed annular radial contact with the sleeve (as described by Pouliaude with respect to the “leaktight engagement” between the reservoir and the assembly), thus satisfying the limitations of claims 10 and 11.
Regarding claims 12-13, Pouliaude-Chernov-Turbett in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 11. The cam track of the combined invention is taught by Chernov et al. to be formed on a ring of the reservoir (cylindrical outer surface 332), but Chernov et al. is silent as to the means of connecting the blocking member to the reservoir. Thus, the blocking member of the combined invention as described above lacks an annular collar as claimed in claim 12 and an external skirt as claimed in claim 13.
However, Turbett et al. also teach a blocking member (160) with an annular collar (see upper portion of 167 in annotated Fig. 12 below) which rests on an upper annular edge of a reservoir, and an external skirt (see lower portion of 167 in annotated Fig. 12 below) which is engaged around the neck of the reservoir (165 of Turbett et al. represents the neck forming the ring and upper annular edge of the reservoir in the combined invention). Turbett et al. teach these features as a means for connecting the blocking member to the reservoir (Col. 7, lines 1-8).
PNG
media_image2.png
390
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 of Turbett et al., annotated by Examiner
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the blocking member of the combined invention with an annular collar around the peripheral edge of the sleeve and engaging with the ring via an external skirt, as taught by Turbett et al., in order to securely connect the sleeve of the blocking member to the reservoir. Since Chernov et al. is silent as to the connection means, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, with Turbett et al. providing a suitable example. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results and, having done so, the combined invention of Pouliaude-Chernov-Turbett would satisfy the limitations of both claims 12 and 13.
Claims 1-3, 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaux et al. (US 7,857,174) in view of Lefevre et al. (US 10,399,104).
Regarding claim 1, Michaux et al. disclose a fluid product dispenser (Figs. 4-5b) comprising: a fluid product reservoir (1 with 8) comprising a neck (12), and an assembly (additional components in Fig. 4, including 2, 3, 4’’, 5, 6’’, and 7) comprising a dispensing member (e.g., pump 2 in Fig. 4), the dispenser comprising a cam track (84; the cam track is considered to be the helical portion; see Col. 7, lines 9-11) and a lug (48) designed to follow the cam track (Col. 7, lines 27-31), the cam track being integral with the fluid product reservoir (ferrule 8 containing cam path 84 is a ring fixed to reservoir 1; Col. 7, lines 3-9), and the lug being integral with the assembly (48 is integral with 4’’), wherein the assembly further comprises a rotary member, and wherein the rotary member comprises the lug (4’’ turns with 7; Col. 7, lines 31-35); wherein the dispensing member comprises a pushbutton (4, 4’’) that, when depressed, actuates the dispensing member to dispense fluid product from the fluid product reservoir (Col. 3, line 67 - Col. 4, line 1); and wherein the dispensing member is inserted in the neck of the fluid product reservoir (Col. 7, lines 1-2).
Michaux et al. do not disclose a spring for urging the lug out of the cam track. However, Lefevre et al. teach a dispenser (Figs. 1-3) having a cam track and lug mechanism (see 163 and 183 in Fig. 1; the cam track is considered to be 164, 165, and 167; see Col. 7, lines 6-14 and Fig. 4) including a spring (15) for urging the lug out of the cam track (Col. 8, lines 15-60; the spring urges the lug into uppermost position PS2 in 166). Lefevre et al. teach this spring as a means for biasing the mechanism to a deployed position (Col. 6, lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the dispenser of Michaux et al. with a spring, as taught by Lefevre et al., between the reservoir and the rotary member in order to bias the device to a deployed position, thus preventing incomplete rotation. When implemented in the device of Michaux et al., the spring would urge the lug into an uppermost position in the vertical portion of 84, which is considered to satisfy the functional component of the limitation of “a spring for urging the lug out of the cam track”, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Michaux et al. further disclose that the rotary member is a rotary socket (see Fig. 4), the assembly forming said lug (48 formed by 4’’), said cam track is formed by a ring (84 formed by 83), fixedly mounted on the neck of the reservoir (Col. 7, lines 3-13).
Regarding claim 3, Michaux et al. further disclose that the assembly comprises a casing (7), wherein the rotary socket is axially retained (Figs. 4-5b).
Regarding claim 7, Michaux et al. further disclose a ramp (cam path 84 transitions from helical portion to axial vertical portion; Col. 7, lines 38-43) to drive the lug to the cam track.
Regarding claim 14, Michaux et al. further disclose that the dispensing member is a pump or a valve (Col. 3, lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 19, Michaux et al. disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 17, and further disclose that the dispensing member is a pump that, in an operative state, extends through the neck of the fluid product reservoir (Figs. 4-5b).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaux et al. in view of Lefevre et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bae (US 7,874,461).
Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al. in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1, but neither reference discloses that the rotary member is a rotary ring forming the cam track. Michaux et al. instead describes an embodiment in which rotation of an outer component (7) is correlated with rotation of a rotary ring (4’’) forming the lug, while the fixed ring forming the cam track (8) remains in a stationary position. Michaux et al., however, contemplate alternate configurations (e.g., the embodiments of Figs. 1 and 3) for achieving the purpose of exposing/retracting a dispensing end (Col. 1, lines 47-50).
Bae teaches a dispenser (Fig. 1) having a cam track/lug mechanism including a rotary ring (81) forming a cam track (81a). The device of Bae performs a similar function to the device of Michaux et al. (namely, rotation of an outer component to expose/retract a dispensing end).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combined invention of Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al. such that the rotary ring of the assembly forms the cam track, as taught by Bae, which would accordingly engage with a lug formed on the fixed ring of the reservoir. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results, especially considering that Michaux et al. contemplate alternate configurations capable of achieving the same purpose, and Bae teaches such an alternative configuration. Furthermore, as noted above, a mere reversal of parts has been held to be an obvious modification. Having made such a modification, the combined invention of Michaux-Lefevre-Bae would have a rotary ring rotatably mounted around the neck of the reservoir (since 4’’ would surround 8), thus arriving at the claimed inventions of claims 4 and 5.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaux et al. in view of Lefevre et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turbett et al. (US 5,875,936).
Regarding claim 9, Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al. in combination disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1. Michaux et al. further discloses that the neck of the reservoir defines an opening and an upper annular edge (see Figs. 5a-5b), and that the assembly has a sheath (3) in which the dispensing member is received (Col. 4, lines 24-32), but neither Michaux et al. nor Lefevre et al. disclose a reservoir being provided with a blocking member comprising a pierceable membrane, or an assembly comprising piercing means.
Turbett et al. teach a reservoir having a neck and an upper annular edge (see Fig. 13) having a blocking member which seals the opening of the neck, the blocking member (160) comprising a pierceable membrane (156) which is disposed inside the neck axially away from the upper annular edge, and an assembly (Figs. 4-5 and 12) having piercing means (154) forming a piercing tip at the lower end of a sheath (112) in which the dispensing member is received (Col. 7, lines 35-39; Figs 4-5). Turbett et al. teaches this configuration as a means of manufacturing a replaceable cartridge having an efficient, airtight connection to liquid in a flexible bag (Col. 3, lines 55-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the reservoir of the combined invention with a blocking member having a pierceable membrane, as taught by Turbett et al., and, correspondingly, to provide the assembly with a piercing tip at the lower end of the sheath, as taught by Turbett et al. Doing so would be within the capabilities of one having ordinary skill in the art and would lead to the predictable result of sealing the reservoir while enabling a fluid connection between the reservoir and the assembly. Considering that Michaux et al. and Lefevre et al. both disclose devices intended to dispense cosmetic or pharmaceutical products and such products are often provided in a flexible bag configuration, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the technique taught by Turbett et al. would result in a simple and effective means of manufacturing the reservoir, in particular for use with a flexible bag.
Regarding claim 10, Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al. in combination, modified by Turbett et al., as described above, renders the dispenser of claim 9 obvious. Turbett et al. further teaches that the blocking member comprises a sleeve (176 with 166) which extends into the neck from an upper annular edge (see Figs. 12-13), and that the sheath comes into sealed annular radial contact with the sleeve (via 177; Col. 7, lines 29-35). Thus, when modified by Turbett et al., as described above, the pierceable membrane of the combined invention would be connected to a lower end of the sleeve.
Additionally, when making this modification, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to extend the sheath disclosed by Michaux et al. into the neck of the reservoir, as taught by Turbett et al., in order to effectively puncture the membrane. Doing so in accordance with the teaching of Turbett et al. would result in the sheath coming into sealed annular radial contact with the sleeve.
Regarding claim 11, Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al. in combination, modified by Turbett et al., as described above, renders the dispenser of claim 10 obvious. Michaux et al. further discloses that the neck projects from a shoulder (see Figs. 4-5b). When modified in accordance with the teaching of Turbett et al., as described above, the pierceable membrane would extend below this shoulder (e.g., approximately where the bottom of the pump is shown), with the sleeve extending along a height of the neck.
Regarding claims 12-13, Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al. in combination, modified by Turbett et al., as described above, renders the dispenser of claim 11 obvious. Michaux et al. further disclose that that the reservoir has a ring (8) forming the cam track and surrounding the upper annular edge (Figs. 5a-5b), but neither Michaux et al. nor Lefevre et al. disclose an annular collar as claimed in claim 12 or an external skirt as claimed in claim 13.
However, Turbett et al. further teach that the blocking member comprises an annular collar (see upper portion of 167 in annotated Fig. 12 above) which rests on an upper annular edge of a reservoir, the sleeve being connected to the annular collar (via 166), and an external skirt (see lower portion of 167 in annotated Fig. 12 above) which is engaged around the neck of the reservoir (165 of Turbett et al. represents the neck forming the upper annular edge of the reservoir in the combined invention). Turbett et al. teach these features as a means for connecting the blocking member to the reservoir (Col. 7, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the blocking member of the combined invention with an annular collar and an external skirt around the peripheral edge of the sleeve, as taught by Turbett et al., in order to securely connect the sleeve of the blocking member to the reservoir. Having done so, the ring disclosed by Michaux et al., which forms the cam track and surrounds the upper annular edge, would engage with the annular collar to retain it on the upper annular edge. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results and, having done so, the combined invention of Michaux-Lefevre-Turbett would satisfy the limitations of both claims 12 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Chernov reference, Applicant notes in the Remarks filed 4/13/2026 that claim 1 has been amended to include features that render the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 103 moot. Examiner agrees, but notes that the addition of features that were previously recited in separate dependent claims has changed the scope of the claim such that further search and consideration was necessitated, resulting in the new rejections presented above using the Pouliaude reference in view of Chernov.
Regarding the Michaux and Lefevre references, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that "neither Michaux nor Lefevre shows a lug configured to be urged out of the cam track or path, even their combination cannot lead to structure of claim 1" (Remarks, second paragraph of Page 10). Applicant supports this argument first by asserting that the internal spring of Michaux does not satisfy the limitation "a spring for urging the lug out of the cam track" (Remarks, Pages 8-9). In consideration of Applicant's argument, Examiner agrees that Michaux does not disclose such a spring. However, the grounds for rejection of claim 1 did not rely on this feature being present in Michaux, as it was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as an obvious modification to the device of Michaux using the spring taught by Lefevre et al. to explicitly perform the recited function.
Applicant further argues that Lefevre et al. does not teach such a spring because the cam path in the device of Lefevre et al. "is a closed loop with a heart shape, so that the pin 183 cannot escape from the cam path 163" (Remarks, Page 9). First, Examiner asserts that Lefevre et al. separately define the portions of feature 163 such that when the spring urges the lug into portion 166 (position PS2 in Fig. 4 reproduced in the Remarks), the lug has been urged out of the cam track (i.e., the cam track may comprise portions 164 and 165, and not 166). Second, Lefevre et al. is being used only for the teaching of a spring for biasing the mechanism to a deployed position, as described in the rejection, and thus it is not required or suggested to employ the cam track of Lefevre et al. in the device of Michaux et al. in order to render claim 1 obvious. The spring of Lefevre et al., when implemented in the device of Michaux et al., would urge the lug out of the cam track, as described in the above rejection of claim 1 with additional details regarding Examiner’s interpretation of the claim. If Applicant wishes to distinguish the instant invention from the prior art based on these features, the relevant structure(s) should be further delineated in the claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of dispensers having features relevant to the claims of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights