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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 25-29) in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-24 and 30-39 have been cancelled.
Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment dated 12/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 25-29 and 40-52 will be examined on the merits.
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 25-29 and 40-52 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 claims 25, 42, and 48, each claim recites “the relaxed state” and “the basic component” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claims 26-29, 40-41, 43-47, and 49-52 are dependent upon these claims and thus inherit the deficiencies of claims 25, 42, and 48.
Regarding claims 26-27, 40, 42-44, and 49-50, each claim recites “the additional component” after reciting “at least one additional component” in the respective claim or a claim upon which the respective claim depends. It is unclear if the limitation “the additional component” is intended to refer to the previously recited “at least one additional component” or to further limit the claim with respect to a single additional component, thus rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
Regarding claims 29, 46, and 52, the term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope of “essentially hollow cylindrical” in each claim is unclear.
In light of the indefiniteness issues described above, the claims will be interpreted 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.
(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 25-27, 29, 40, 42-44, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cassoni et al. (US 11,267,009).
Regarding claim 25, Cassoni et al. discloses a dispensing apparatus comprising: a spring made of plastic (150 or 210), the spring having a resilient section which has a length L in the relaxed state (Col. 7, lines 19-23; Col. 16, lines 20-35), wherein the plastic is a material mixture with polypropylene as the basic component and at least one additional component (150 and 210 may comprise polypropylene mixed with another material, e.g., polyethylene; Col. 9, lines 19-26; Col. 18, lines 26-36).
Cassoni et al. further discloses that the density of the plastic is “less than 1 g/cm3” and ”can be decreased to a desired level by including lightweight fillers or using a foam structure” with a particular consideration for facilitating separation of materials in a float separation recycling process (Col. 6, lines 36-61; Col. 14, lines 57-67). Examiner notes that the density of polypropylene itself would be very close to the claimed range (approximately 0.905 g/cm3; see entry for “Polypropylene” in attached Non-Patent Literature Encyclopedic Dictionary of Polymers) and that some forms of polyethylene would have a density less than 0.9 g/cm3 (for example, ULDPE as low as 0.86 g/cm3; see entry for “Ultra-low-density-polyethylene” in attached Non-Patent Literature Encyclopedic Dictionary of Polymers). Examiner further notes that Cassoni et al. discloses that the plastic could be a thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer, TPO (Col. 6, lines 15-35; Col. 14, lines 42-56). TPO contains polypropylene and at least one additional component, and may be formulated to have a density within the claimed range (the average density of TPO is 0.89 g/cm3; see entry for “TPO (THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER POLYOLEFIN)” in attached Non-Patent Literature Condensed Encyclopedia of Polymer Engineering Terms). Thus, it appears that at least one combination of materials suggested by Cassoni et al. would result in a density within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 26, Cassoni et al. further discloses that the additional component comprises or consists of polyethylene (as noted above regarding claim 25; Col. 9, lines 19-26; Col. 18, lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 27, Cassoni et al. further discloses that the modulus of elasticity of the basic component is greater than 1000 MPa (the modulus of elasticity of polypropylene is approximately 1500 MPa; see tensile modulus of polypropylene homopolymer in Table 19.1 in attached Non-Patent Literature Polypropylene - The Definitive User's Guide and Databook).
Regarding claim 29, Cassoni et al. further discloses that the resilient section is at least essentially hollow cylindrical (Col. 9, lines 41-46; Col. 14, lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 40, Cassoni et al. further discloses that the density of the additional component is less than the density of the basic component (as described above regarding claim 25, lightweight fillers or a low-density polyethylene may be used as an additional component to reduce the density of the polypropylene-based material mixture).
Regarding claims 42-44 and 46, Cassoni et al. discloses a dispensing apparatus comprising: a spring made of plastic, the spring having a resilient section which has a length L in the relaxed state, wherein the plastic is a material mixture with polypropylene as the basic component and at least one additional component, as described above regarding claim 25. Cassoni et al. further discloses that the density of the additional component is less than the density of the basic component (as described above regarding claim 25, lightweight fillers or a low-density polyethylene may be used as an additional component to reduce the density of the polypropylene-based material mixture).
As described above regarding claims 26, 27, and 29, Cassoni et al. further discloses that the additional component comprises or consists of polyethylene, that the modulus of elasticity of the basic component is greater than 1000 MPa, and that the resilient section is at least essentially hollow cylindrical.
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 28, 41, 45, 47, and 48-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassoni et al. (US 11,267,009).
Regarding claims 28 and 45, Cassoni et al. discloses the dispensing apparatus according to claims 25 and 42, but does not explicitly disclose that at least 50 % by weight and at most 95 % by weight of the material mixture is formed from the basic component.
However, as noted above regarding claim 25, Cassoni et al. further disclose that the material mixture may be adjusted to achieve a desired density, or that the material mixture may be thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer, TPO (Col. 6, lines 15-35; Col. 14, lines 42-56). TPO may be up to 85% polypropylene (see entry for “Thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO)” in attached Non-Patent Literature Encyclopedic Dictionary of Polymers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to construct the spring of Cassoni et al. from a material mixture that is at least 50 % by weight and at most 95 % by weight formed from the basic component. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular proportion, and it appears that the spring of Cassoni et al. would work appropriately if constructed from a material mixture with the claimed properties. Additionally, the court has held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 1255 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed invention through routine experimentation in accordance with the teachings of Cassoni et al. regarding density adjustment, or by selecting a material such as a TPO having a polypropylene proportion in the claimed range.
Regarding claims 41 and 47, Cassoni et al. discloses the dispensing apparatus according to claims 25 and 42 having polypropylene as the basic component, but does not explicitly disclose that the modulus of elasticity of the plastic is less than 1500 MPa.
However, as noted above regarding claim 25, Cassoni et al. further discloses that the material mixture may include polyethylene, or that the material mixture may be thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer, TPO. As noted above regarding claim 27, polypropylene has a modulus of elasticity of approximately 1500 MPa, so a mixture having an additional component with a lower modulus of elasticity would result in a plastic having a modulus of elasticity less than 1500 MPa. As described above regarding claim 25, a low-density polyethylene, which would have a significantly lower modulus of elasticity (e.g., VLDPE may have a modulus of elasticity of 95 MPa; see Table 5 in attached Non-Patent Literature Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry - Polyethylene), may be used as an additional component, either to reduce the density of the plastic, or in addition to lightweight fillers used to reduce the density of the plastic in accordance with claim 25. Additionally, as described above, Cassoni et al. teaches that TPO may be selected as the plastic, which may have a modulus of elasticity less than 1500 MPa (TPO having an average modulus of elasticity of approximately 742 MPa; see attached Non-Patent Literature MatWeb - Overview of materials for TPO).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to construct the spring of Cassoni et al. from a plastic having a modulus of elasticity less than 1500 MPa, since it appears that at least one combination of materials suggested by Cassoni et al. would result in a plastic having this property. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular value (noting only that the claimed range provides “good spring properties”; Page 4, lines 9-13 of the specification), and it appears that the spring of Cassoni et al. would work appropriately if constructed from a material mixture with the claimed properties. Additionally, the court has held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 1255 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed invention through routine experimentation in accordance with the teachings of Cassoni et al. regarding density adjustment, or by selecting a material such as a TPO having a modulus of elasticity in the claimed range.
Regarding claims 48-52, Cassoni et al. discloses a dispensing apparatus comprising: a spring made of plastic, the spring having a resilient section which has a length L in the relaxed state, wherein the plastic is a material mixture with polypropylene as the basic component and at least one additional component, as described above regarding claim 25.
Cassoni et al. does not explicitly disclose that the modulus of elasticity of the plastic is less than 1500 MPa. However, as described above regarding claims 41 and 47, Cassoni et al. discloses at least one combination of materials that would have the claimed property. Thus the invention as claimed in claim 48 is rendered obvious for the reasons described above regarding claims 41 and 47, since the scope of those claims is narrower (based on their dependence upon claims 25 and 42, respectively) than that of claim 48.
Claims 49-52 are similarly rendered obvious since the limitations of these claims are either anticipated by or rendered obvious by Cassoni et al., as described above regarding claims 26-29.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Santagiuliana (US 2017/0326567) teaches a dispensing apparatus having a plastic spring chosen based on modulus of elasticity, and Peterson et al. (US 5,439,178) teaches the use of low density and/or low modulus of elasticity materials for a spring in such a dispenser.
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 February 12, 2026