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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 202 in Fig. 2A, and 204 in Fig. 2B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “indicating mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 and 14-16 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.
Claims 1 and 14 each recite “the pump actuation assembly” (line 17 of claim 1; lines 13-14 of claim 14). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims and their dependents will be interpreted to refer to the previously recited pump actuator assembly, according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morton et al. (US 7,621,273).
Morton et al. disclose the claimed method (see claims 55-68), including:
providing a liquid dispenser adapted to dispense a liquid personal care product from a product reservoir configured to receive and contain liquid product (see claim 55; Col. 10, lines 27-35);
actuating a pump actuator assembly to cause liquid product contained in the product reservoir to flow out an output portion of the liquid dispenser, the pump actuator assembly having an inlet and an outlet (see claim 55; Col. 10, lines 36-41);
detecting and displaying, by a product usage indicating mechanism, a usage condition, the product usage indicating mechanism configured to detect incremental use of the dispenser to dispense liquid product from the product reservoir and to indicate a usage status of the incremental usage (see claim 55; Col. 10, lines 48-60), the product usage indicating mechanism comprising a counter configured to count motion of the pump actuator assembly when pressed and to disregard motion of the pump actuation assembly upon release (pawl rotates ratchet wheel when cap member is depressed and ratchet wheel does not move when cap member is released; Col. 20, line 48 - Col. 21, line 23);
providing on the dispenser a clear view of the usage status indication (see claim 55; Col. 12, lines 33-40);
counting, by the product usage indicating mechanism, each actuation of the pump actuator assembly (see claim 55; Col. 41, lines 12-13); and
displaying, by the product usage indicating mechanism, in clear view from the exterior of the dispenser indicia from a set of indicia representing a usage status, wherein the set of indicia include a series of numbers (see claim 59; Col. 16, lines 10-14).
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 1-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stradella et al. (US 2009/0101150) in view of Dumont et al. (US 2016/0318054).
Regarding claim 1, Stradella et al. disclose a dispenser (B; Fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid product housing (51) defining an interior product reservoir (Paragraph 0040) configured to receive and contain liquid product (Paragraph 0039) and having an output portion (opening in which valve 52 is assembled; Paragraph 0040);
a pump actuator assembly (50; Fig. 1) comprising an outlet (55; Paragraph 0040); and
a product usage indicating mechanism (A) configured to detect incremental use of the dispenser to dispense liquid product from the product reservoir and to indicate a status of the incremental usage (see the Abstract), the product usage indicating mechanism comprising a counter (13; Fig. 2) configured to count motion of the pump actuator assembly when pressed and to disregard motion of the pump actuation assembly upon release (“an object of the present invention is to provide a dose indicator that counts at the beginning of the actuation stroke of the dispenser device with which it is associated, even if the initial stroke is very short”; Paragraph 0010).
Stradella et al. further disclose that the product usage indicating mechanism has a simple structure that may easily be incorporated into to any fluid dispenser (Paragraph 0056), and particularly to devices including a pump instead of the illustrated valve (Paragraphs 0039-0040). However, Stradella et al. are silent regarding the details of such a pump dispenser, and thus do not explicitly disclose a pump tube assembly supported by the neck or a tube interface component.
Dumont et al. teach a fluid dispenser having a liquid product housing (3 with 5 permanently attached; Paragraph 0049; Fig. 7) defining an interior product reservoir (interior of 3) configured to receive and contain liquid product (cosmetic product for spraying; Paragraph 0002) and having an output portion, the output portion including an outwardly protruding neck (5/6; Fig. 3) defining an opening and configured to receive and support a pump tube assembly (Fig. 2b);
the pump tube assembly (4 with 31) comprising an elongated tube portion (31) disposed within the liquid product reservoir and a pump actuator interface (upper portion of 4 including 14, 19) supported by the neck (via 15; Fig. 2b); and
a pump actuator assembly (2 with 9) comprising an outlet (7); the pump actuator assembly further comprising a tube interface component (2) adapted to mate with the pump actuator interface (via ribs 21 of 14; Paragraph 0047) to provide a path for liquid from the reservoir to pass through the pump tube assembly to the pump actuator assembly (Paragraph 0040).
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 Stradella et al. to have the structure taught by Dumont et al., in order to accurately count dispensed doses of a sprayable liquid product, even if only partially actuated. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results, especially considering that Stradella et al. teaches that the device would be applicable for this purpose in a pump-based device.
Regarding claims 2-4, Stradella et al.-Dumont et al. in combination disclose the liquid dispenser of claim 1. The counter of the product usage indicating mechanism of the combined invention would thus be adapted to count each actuation of the pump actuator assembly, in accordance with claim 2. Stradella et al. further disclose a display visible from the exterior of the dispenser and showing in successive manner one indicia from a set of indicia representing a usage status (viewing window; Paragraph 0041); and that the set of indicia include a series of numbers (see Fig. 2), in accordance with claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claims 5-7, Stradella et al. further disclose a display wheel (13) on which is disposed for sequential viewing a set of indicia (Paragraph 0045; Fig. 2); a primary gear wheel (16) connected to the display wheel in a co-axial manner (Fig. 6) and configured to drive the display wheel in a rotating fashion about a common axis; a tab (2; Fig. 3) configured to cause the primary gear wheel to rotate upon a pre-defined number of pumping actions of the pump actuator assembly (2 causes 7 to rotate and “on each rotation of the rotary transmission element 7, there is a corresponding rotation of the first rotary counter element 13”; Paragraphs 0047, 0050); and a secondary gear wheel (7 with 8/9) configured to rotate about a second axis (see Figs. 2-3), and wherein the tab causes the secondary gear wheel to rotate upon a predefined number of instances of pumping actions of the pump actuator assembly (first flexible tab 2 adapted to co-operate with the first drive gear 8 provided on the rotary transmission element 7 to cause said rotary transmission element 7 to turn in the drive direction each time the indicator is actuated). Thus, Stradella et al.-Dumont et al. in combination disclose the liquid dispenser of claims 5-7.
Regarding claim 8, Stradella et al.-Dumont et al. in combination disclose the liquid dispenser of claim 6. Stradella et al. further disclose that the product usage indicating mechanism has a gear and axis base (100) configured to support the display wheel and the primary gear wheel (Paragraph 0046). As described above regarding claim 1, Stradella et al. teach that the product usage and indicating mechanism may be easily incorporated into an existing device.
When implementing this feature in a device having a pump actuator assembly as taught by Dumont et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the gear and axis base within the tube interface of the pump actuator assembly, since this is where the motion of actuation is realized (i.e., the downward motion of button 9 in groove 22 of Dumont et al.; see Fig. 2b). One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification (e.g., by expanding the outer surface of the tube interface to incorporate at least a portion of body 100 of Stradella such that the tab is operated by the movement of the actuator button) with predictable results (namely, improved functionality and/or aesthetics by integrating the features).
Regarding claim 9, the elongated tube portion taught by Dumont et al. includes a first end (connected at 4; see Fig. 2a) supported by the pump actuator interface and defining an outlet (product enters pump through first end), and a second end (at bottom of 3 in Fig. 2b) defining an inlet in communication with liquid product contained in the reservoir (Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 10, the pump actuator interface and the tube interface taught by Dumont et al. provide a continuous path for liquid from the reservoir to pass into and through the pump tube assembly and the pump actuator assembly and upon actuation of the pump actuator assembly, cause liquid product contained in the reservoir to be drawn into the tube portion via a tube inlet, flow through the pump tube assembly, through the pump actuator assembly, and exit the pump actuator outlet for dispensing of the liquid product for use by a user (Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 11, in the dispenser structure taught by Dumont et al., the neck includes a threaded exterior and the pump actuator assembly includes an internal threaded portion adapted to threadingly mate with the threaded exterior of the neck (“the second fixing means 13, 23 in this case comprise a first thread 13 which is arranged on the retaining member 2 and a second thread 23 which is arranged on the holding ring 5, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3”; Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claims 14-16, the combined invention of Stradella et al. and Dumont et al., as described above, will perform the method recited in claims 14-16 during normal operational use of the dispenser, including:
providing a liquid dispenser adapted to dispense a liquid personal care product from a product reservoir configured to receive and contain liquid product (see above rejection regarding claim 1);
actuating a pump actuator assembly to cause liquid product contained in the product reservoir to flow out an output portion of the liquid dispenser, the pump actuator assembly having an inlet and an outlet (see above rejection regarding claim 10);
detecting and displaying, by a product usage indicating mechanism, a usage condition, the product usage indicating mechanism configured to detect incremental use of the dispenser to dispense liquid product from the product reservoir and to indicate a usage status of the incremental usage, the product usage indicating mechanism comprising a counter configured to count motion of the pump actuator assembly when pressed and to disregard motion of the pump actuation assembly upon release (see above rejection regarding claim 1);
providing on the dispenser a clear view of the usage status indication (see above rejection regarding claim 3);
counting, by the product usage indicating mechanism, each actuation of the pump actuator assembly (see above rejection regarding claim 2); and
displaying, by the product usage indicating mechanism, in clear view from the exterior of the dispenser indicia from a set of indicia representing a usage status, wherein the set of indicia include a series of numbers (see above rejection regarding claim 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see last two paragraphs of Page 9, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112, have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the amendments to the claims and Applicant’s clarifications, the claims are sufficiently definite. The rejections of claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant further argues that “the rejections of patentability under 35 USC 102 & 103 are moot. None of the cited references discloses a product usage indicating mechanism comprising a counter configured to count motion of a pump actuator assembly when pressed, and which is further configured to disregard motion of the pump actuation assembly upon release” (Remarks, Page 10).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Wong et al. reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 14 distinguish the claimed invention from that of Wong et al., but upon further search and consideration necessitated by the amendments, the Stradella and Dumont references (previously cited in the Office Action dated 9/30/2025) were found to disclose the claimed features in combination. Thus, the pending claims are now rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 14-16 as anticipated by Morton et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As cited in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Morton et al. anticipates the claimed method, including the limitations added in the amendment dated 3/30/2026.
Conclusion
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
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights