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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on December 5, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the first part 110 being provided with an opening, does not reasonably provide enablement for (1) the second part 120 being provided with an opening or (2) the first part 110 and the second part 120 being provided with an opening. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification discloses, on page 8, an “opening O of the first housing part 110.” The specification does not disclose an opening in the second part 120. The specification also does not disclose an opening in the first part 110 and the second part 120.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first part and/or the second part is provided with an opening” in lines 7-8. The recitation “and/or” is a customary and ordinary way for defining: (1) wherein the first part and the second part is provided with an opening; or (2) wherein the first part or the second part is provided with an opening. The claim is limited to “an opening” (singular). Applicant argues that the limitation should be interpreted to mean: only the first part has an opening, only the second part has an opening, or both part having openings. This difference of interpretation is evidence that the limitation is indefinite. If Applicant desires an interpretation where only the first part has an opening, only the second part has an opening, or both part having openings, Applicant can amend the claim to recite as such. This rejection is solely based on Applicant’s argument.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a medically active ingredient" in line 2. The interpretation of “medically active” requires a subjective determination. What may be considered “medically active” to one person may not be considered “medically active” to another person.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said one or more locking mechanisms are arranged to be operated by a user from the outer side of the housing when the housing is in the closed position” in lines 3-5. The claim fails to recite structure that accomplishes the function. The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "medically active ingredient" in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “medically active ingredient” recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “when seen” in line 1. It is uncertain what is “seen.” If “when seen” refers to the “each part of the circumferential distal edge is spaced apart from the spray axis by at least 3 cm,” the comma following “rotation” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "projection" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a blocking mechanism” in lines 1-2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the pump 20 and/or the container 10 because the groove 17 is an element of the container 10 and the protrusion 47 is an element of the pump 20.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10, 11 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dobbs et al. (2005/0100391).
Dobbs et al. disclose a hand-held underarm spray delivery device comprising:
a container 22 for containing a medically active ingredient (cleaning solution);
an actuatable pump 21 connected to the container and comprising a spray dispensing orifice (orifice of stem 19) with a spray axis (axis of stem 19), wherein the pump is adapted for upon an actuation releasing a spray comprising the medically active ingredient through said orifice along the spray axis;
a housing comprising a first part 11, 14, 26, a second part 15, and a flexible shroud 16 attached to the first part and the second part, wherein the pump is arranged within the housing, and wherein the first part and/or the second part is provided with an opening 12 aligned with the spray dispensing orifice for allowing the spray released through the dispensing orifice to pass through,
wherein the second part is rotatable about an axis (hinge axis) relative to the first part between an open position (open position of cap 15) in which spray can pass out of the housing, and a closed position (closed position of cap 15) in which the spray is prevented from passing out of the housing;
wherein the first part and/or the second part of the housing is provided with one or more locking mechanisms 27 adapted for locking the first part and the second part in the closed position, wherein said one or more locking mechanisms are arranged to be operated by a user from an outer side of the housing when the housing is in the closed position;
further comprising a biasing element 17 for biasing the second part to the open position;
wherein the container comprises a circumferential portion (circumferential opening mounted to the pump) arranged within the housing, and an end surface (bottom closed surface) spaced distally from the dispensing orifice and arranged to be pressed towards the spray dispensing orifice by a user for actuating the pump;
further comprising a blocking mechanism 27 adapted for preventing the actuation of the pump when the second part is in the closed position;
wherein the pump is releasably arranged within the housing to allow the pump or the pump and container connected thereto to be replaced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobbs et al. (2005/0100391).
Dobbs et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a transparent material and a see-through portion. Both are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the container from a transparent material and provided a see-through portion in the housing in the device of Dobbs et al. for visibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant argues that the limitation should be interpreted to mean: only the first part has an opening, only the second part has an opening, or both part having openings. The recitation “and/or” is a customary and ordinary way for defining: (1) wherein the first part and the second part is provided with an opening; or (2) wherein the first part or the second part is provided with an opening. The claim is limited to “an opening” (singular). If Applicant desires an interpretation where only the first part has an opening, only the second part has an opening, or both part having openings, Applicant can amend the claim to recite as such.
Regarding Applicant’s argument to the indefiniteness of “medically active ingredient,” the specification cannot be imported into the claim as a limitation.
Applicant argues the difference in images between the present application and Dobbs et al. The claimed invention is limited by the claim limitations and not by the figures/images.
Applicant agues that Dobbs et al. fail to disclose a flexible shroud attached to both the first and second parts of the housing. Dobbs et al. disclose a flexible shroud 16 attached to the first part 11, 14, 26 and the second part 15.
Applicant argues that Dobbs et al. fail to disclose any of the essential method steps recited in claim 1 as amended. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and not a method.
Applicant argues that the Office has not adequately shown that Dobbs et al. disclose the specific structural arrangement recited in claim 1. This Office action and the prior Office action reproduced the claims in their entirety and specifically identified the elements of the claimed invention. Adequacy appears to be a matter of opinion.
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 CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK