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 .
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 identified and is not indicative of any specific known, limiting feature.
B) “Means” is modified by the functional language “piercing.”
C) Sufficient structure for achieving the claimed function follows the aforementioned limitation, as 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 (and dependent claims).
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 1-19 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 1, the claim recites “wherein the assembly comprising a rotary member which comprises one of the cam track and the lug” in lines 8-9. This is grammatically unclear (i.e., it is unclear whether Applicant intends to refer to the assembly recited in line 3 or to recite a new “assembly comprising a rotary member”). Examiner notes that claims 4 and 13 are dependent upon claim 1 and appear to recite rotary members that are part of the reservoir, rather than the assembly recited in line 3. However, for purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted (according to Examiner’s best understanding) as --wherein the assembly comprises a rotary member, the rotary member comprising one of the cam track and the lug--. Claims 2-19 are dependent on claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the rotary member is a rotary ring of the reservoir” in lines 1-2. This limitation is unclear, as it appears to contradict either the limitation of claim 1 “wherein the assembly comprising a rotary member” or the limitation of claim 1 “the cam track being integral with one of the fluid product reservoir and the assembly and the lug being integral with the other of the fluid product reservoir and the assembly” (i.e., since the claim also requires the lug to be formed by the assembly, the rotary member forming the cam track cannot be part of the assembly). For purposes of examination only, claim 4 and its dependent claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding of Applicant’s intent with respect to the instant claim (i.e., to require all of the limitations of claim 1, except that the rotary member is not required to be a component of the assembly).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the rotary member being rotatably mounted on the external skirt” in lines 3-4. As with claim 4 above, this appears to contradict claim 1 since the instant disclosure appears to meet such a limitation only with a rotary member that is not part of the assembly (e.g., see Fig. 9). For purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted in accordance with the interpretation described above for claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chernov et al. (US 11,457,580).
Regarding claim 1, Chernov et al. disclose the claimed invention, as best understood by the examiner (see rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). Chernov et al. disclose a fluid product dispenser (Figs. 9-17) comprising: a fluid product reservoir (326) comprising a neck (Fig. 12), and an assembly (system 300 with manifold 324) comprising a dispensing member (coupling to pump 306, Fig. 9), 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 (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, the rotary member comprising the lug (Col. 12, line 63 - Col. 13, line 3).
Regarding claim 2, Chernov et al. further disclose that the rotary member is 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, Chernov et al. further disclose that the assembly comprises a casing (cartridge receptacle 328), wherein the rotary socket is axially retained (Figs. 15-16).
Regarding claim 6, Chernov et al. further disclose that the at least one cam track (see Fig. 17) comprises: a locking housing (352), wherein the at least one 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 at least one 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, Chernov et al. further disclose 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, Chernov et al. further disclose that the assembly comprises a case (324) provided with an insertion/extraction opening (328, Figs. 9-10) and defining an insertion/extraction axis (A, Figs. 9-10), the fluid product reservoir being engaged in the case through the insertion/extraction opening (Fig. 10), the reservoir comprising a bottom (346) accessible at the insertion/extraction opening to exert an axial thrust on the reservoir against the spring (Col. 12, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 14, Chernov et al. further disclose that the dispensing member is a pump (306, Fig. 9).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov et al. in view of Fitzwater (US 4,676,287).
Chernov et al. disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) (see also the interpretation described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). The illustrated embodiment of Chernov et al. disclose a fixed ring of the reservoir forming a cam track and a rotary member of a shell of the assembly forming the lug (Figs. 12-16). Chernov et al., however, also discloses that that the lugs may instead be fixed, and thus formed by a shell (328) of the assembly (Col. 13, lines 5-9).
Chernov et al. further notes 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. does not explicitly disclose that the rotary member is a rotary ring of the reservoir forming the cam track.
Fitzwater teaches a fluid cartridge having a rotary member for attachment to a docking port (see the Abstract, Figs. 18-21) wherein the rotary member is a rotary ring (collar 66) of a reservoir (cartridge 64) forming a cam track (camming recesses 220). Fitzwater further teaches that the rotary ring is rotatably mounted around the neck (202) of the reservoir (Col. 9, lines 29-37). Fitzwater notes the beneficial effect of achieving a secure and airtight aligned connection without requiring rotation of the cartridge (Col. 9, lines 51-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the reservoir and assembly illustrated by Chernov et al. to have a rotary ring rotatably mounted around the neck of the reservoir, forming a cam track, as taught by Fitzwater, to engage with a fixed lug formed by a shell of the assembly. Considering that Chernov et al. already contemplated such a configuration, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making the modification in order to simplify the assembly while still providing a secure and airtight connection between the reservoir and the assembly with only axial movement required.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov et al. in view of Turbett et al. (US 5,875,936).
Regarding claim 9, Chernov et al. disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Chernov et al. discloses that the neck of the reservoir defines 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 disclose that the blocking member has a flexible seal (386) which is disposed inside the neck axially away from the upper annular edge (see annotated Fig. 13 below), and that the assembly has a means (380) for displacing said seal (Col. 15, lines 31-36) at the lower end of a sheath (328) in which the dispensing member is received (380 includes coupling to pump; Col. 15, lines 26-30; Figs. 9-11).
Chernov et al. 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. teaches 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).
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 Chernov et al. with a pierceable membrane, as taught by Turbett et al., as the flexible seal, and, correspondingly, to provide the means for displacing the seal of Chernov et al. with a piercing tip (i.e., providing a sharpened tip on 380), 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
724
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 13 of Chernov et al., annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 10, Chernov et al., modified by Turbett et al., as described above, renders the dispenser of claim 9 obvious. Chernov et al. further discloses that the blocking member comprises a sleeve (384 with 344) which extends into the neck from the upper annular edge (see annotated Fig. 13 above). When modified by Turbett et al., as described above, the pierceable membrane would be connected to a lower end of the sleeve (in the location of 386), and the sheath would come into sealed annular radial contact with the sleeve (via 380).
Regarding claim 11, Chernov et al., modified by Turbett et al., as described above, renders the dispenser of claim 10 obvious. Chernov et al. further discloses that the neck projects from a shoulder (see annotated Fig. 13 above). When modified by Turbett et al., as described above, the pierceable membrane would extend below this shoulder (in the location of 386), with the sleeve extending along a height of the neck.
Regarding claim 12, Chernov et al., modified by Turbett et al., as described above, renders the dispenser of claim 11 obvious. Chernov et al. further discloses that the reservoir has a ring (cylindrical outer surface 332) forming the cam track (Col. 12, lines 57-60), but is silent as to the means of connecting the reservoir to the sleeve. Thus, the modified invention described above lacks an annular collar resting on the upper annular edge.
Turbett et al. teaches a blocking member (160) with an annular collar (167) which rests on an upper annular edge of a reservoir (Fig. 12), and a sleeve (176 with 166) being connected to the annular collar (Fig. 12), the reservoir further comprising a ring (165) which engages with the annular collar to press it on the upper annular edge (Col. 7, lines 1-5). 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 blocking member of Chernov et al. with an annular collar around the peripheral edge of the sleeve and engaging with the ring, as taught by Turbett et al., in order to securely connect the sleeve of the blocking member to the reservoir. Considering that the reservoir of Chernov et al. is a replaceable cartridge having liquid in a flexible bag (see the Abstract, Fig. 10) 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernov et al. in view of Turbett et al., and further in view of Fitzwater.
Chernov et al., modified with the pierceable membrane taught by Turbett et al., as described above, renders the dispenser of claim 11 obvious (see also the interpretation described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). The blocking member of the modified invention does not include an external skirt which is engaged around the neck of the reservoir, and it does not include a rotary member being rotatably mounted on the external skirt.
Fitzwater teaches a rotary member (66) being rotatably mounted around the neck of the reservoir (Col. 9, lines 29-37), as described in the above rejection of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103. The same motivation and obviousness analysis applied to the invention of Chernov et al. according to claim 1 would also apply to the invention of Chernov et al. modified with the pierceable membrane taught by Turbett et al. according to claim 11.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to further modify the reservoir of the modified invention to have a rotary member being rotatably mounted around the neck of the reservoir, as taught by Fitzwater.
Doing so would separate the ring from the rest of the neck, requiring the blocking member to be sealed around the upper annular edge inside of the rotary member. Turbett et al. teaches a blocking member with a peripheral edge (167) extending over the upper annular edge of a reservoir and around the outside of the reservoir (Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, after modifying the reservoir to include a rotary member separate from the rest of the neck, to further modify the blocking member by extending its peripheral edge over the upper annular edge and along the outside of the neck, as taught by Turbett et al., in order to create a seal and retain the blocking member on the neck. Doing so would form an external skirt engaged around the neck of the reservoir, and the rotary member would thus be rotatably mounted on the external skirt, arriving at the invention of the instant claim.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 14-19 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) 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 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 comprises a rotary member, the rotary member comprising the lug (4’’ turns with 7; Col. 7, lines 31-35).
Michaux et al. disclose an embodiment having a pump with an internal spring (Col. 4, lines 14-23), which may act to urge the lug out of the cam track in normal operation, but this function is not explicitly disclosed. However, Lefevre et al. teach a dispenser (Figs. 1-3) having a cam track and lug mechanism (see 163 and 183 in Fig. 1) including a spring (15) for urging the lug out of the cam track (Col. 8, lines 15-60). 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.
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 15, Michaux et al. further disclose that the dispensing member is a pump (Col. 3, lines 65-66) comprising a pushbutton (4, 4’’) that, when depressed, actuates the pump to dispense fluid product from the fluid product reservoir (Col. 3, line 67 - Col. 4, line 1).
Regarding claim 16, Michaux et al. further disclose that the dispensing member is a valve (Col. 3, lines 65-66) comprising a pushbutton (4, 4’’) that, when depressed, actuates the valve to dispense fluid product from the fluid product reservoir (Col. 3, line 67 - Col. 4, line 1).
Regarding claim 17, Michaux et al. further disclose that the dispensing member is inserted in the neck of the fluid product reservoir (Col. 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Michaux et al. disclose the fluid product dispenser according to claim 17, and 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 (see also the interpretation described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). Michaux et al. further discloses the lug being formed by a shell of the assembly (48 formed by 4’’), but neither reference discloses that the rotary member is a rotary ring of the reservoir forming the cam track. Michaux et al. instead describes an embodiment in which rotation of an outer component (7) is correlated with rotation of an internal component (4’’) forming the lug, while the internal component forming the cam track (8) remains in a stationary position mounted around the neck of the reservoir. 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). An internal component (30) forming a lug (31b) translates axially during rotation of the rotary ring (caused by relative rotation between 81 and 30; Col. 11, lines 40-67). 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). Bae notes that this configuration provides an improvement over prior art devices by enabling a more stable and convenient assembly (Col. 5, lines 31-52).
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 internal component forming the cam track (8) rotates while the internal component forming the lug (4’’) is limited to axial translation, as taught by Bae, as an alternative configuration for exposing/retracting the dispensing end. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results (for example, by changing the shapes of 4’’ and 8 so that 8 turns with 7 instead of 4’’). Doing so would result in a rotary ring rotatably mounted around the neck of the reservoir, thus arriving at the claimed inventions of claims 4 and 5.
Claims 9-12 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).
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, 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.
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 claim 12, 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 discloses that that the reservoir has a ring (8) forming the cam track and surrounding the upper annular edge (Figs. 5a-5b).
Turbett et al. further teaches that the blocking member comprises an annular collar (167) which rests on an upper annular edge of a reservoir (Fig. 12), the sleeve being connected to the annular collar (Fig. 12). Thus, when modified by Turbett et al., as described above, the combined invention would include the blocking member as claimed. Turbett et al. further teaches that the reservoir includes a ring (165) which engages with the annular collar to press it on the upper annular edge (Col. 7, lines 1-5). 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, when modifying the combined invention of Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al. with the blocking member of Turbett et al., to engage the ring disclosed by Michaux et al. with the annular collar, as taught by Turbett et al., in order to securely connect the sleeve of the blocking member to the reservoir. 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 for use with a flexible bag.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaux et al. in view of Lefevre et al. and Turbett et al., as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bae.
Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al.-Turbett et al. in combination renders the dispenser of claim 11 obvious (see also the interpretation described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). Turbett et al. further teaches that the blocking member includes a peripheral edge (167) extending over the upper annular edge of a reservoir and around the outside of the reservoir (Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, when modifying the combined invention of Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al. with the blocking member of Turbett et al., to include the peripheral edge over the upper annular edge and along the outside of the neck, as taught by Turbett et al., in order to create a seal and retain the blocking member on the neck. Doing so would form an external skirt engaged around the neck of the reservoir, but the rotary member as disclosed by Michaux et al. would not be rotatably mounted on the external skirt. Instead, the external skirt would provide a mounting surface for the reservoir component forming the cam track.
However, as described above regarding claim 4, Bae teaches a rotary member forming a cam track that is mounted around the neck of a reservoir, and there is motivation to modify the combined invention in this way. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, for the same reasons described above regarding claim 4, to modify the combined invention of Michaux et al.-Lefevre et al.-Turbett et al. according to claim 11 so that the reservoir component forming the cam track (8 in Michaux et al.) is the rotary member being rotatably mounted on the external skirt, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claims 1-13. Applicant argues that Chernov et al. does not anticipate the claims due to certain differences from the claimed invention. Applicant further argues that Chernov et al. would not have rendered obvious the claimed invention due to its application in a different technical field. Each argument will be addressed below.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a directionality of the reservoir, the pump being coupled to the reservoir, and a pusher on the pump for actuating it; Remarks page 11, third paragraph) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Chernov et al. is nonanalogous art (“belongs to a entirely difference technical field” and not “directed to a problem addressed by the present invention”; Remarks page 11, last paragraph - page 12, first paragraph), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Chernov et al. and the claimed invention are concerned with attachment of a removable reservoir holding fluid which is to be dispensed. More particularly, the reservoirs of each invention are intended to be attached in such a way to require only axial pressure by the user. The problems intended to be solved by both inventors are not related to the type of fluid being dispensed or the environment in which they are intended to be used. Thus, Chernov et al. clearly represents an invention reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor of the instant application was concerned.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the independent claim recites a “fluid product dispenser” having relatively generic structural features related to dispensing a fluid product. As described in the above rejections, Chernov et al. discloses those features and additionally meets the claimed intended use of dispensing a fluid product.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s comments (Remarks page 10) have sufficiently clarified the intent of the language “the cam track being integral with one of the fluid product reservoir and the assembly and the lug being integral with the other of the fluid product reservoir and the assembly” and the amendment dated 10/16/2025 has resolved the indefiniteness cited in the Office Action dated 7/16/2025 (specifically, the removal of the “at least one” limitations). However, Examiner notes that the amended claim language has introduced an additional issue described in the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Edenilson (US 2017/0001211), Presche (US 9,010,581), and Lamboux (US 2021/0283629) disclose dispensers with cam track/lug mechanisms and/or rotary members relevant to the independent and dependent claims of the instant application. Sugawara (US 12,179,993) and Klingaman (US 3,966,089) disclose features relevant to claims 9-13.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights