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.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
The claim recites “the external surface of a sleeve” in lines 3-4 after reciting “a sleeve delimiting said pressure chamber, at least partially housed in the cylinder chamber, comprising an annular sleeve wall having an external surface” in claim 1, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
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 1-10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwara et al. (US 9,962,724).
Regarding claims 1-2, Fujiwara et al. disclose a trigger dispensing head (Fig. 1) applicable to a bottle of a trigger dispensing device for dispensing a product, the trigger dispensing head comprising:
a frame (11), suitable for supporting components of the trigger dispensing head, comprising a main opening (opening of 12) in communication with an internal compartment of the bottle (Fig. 1);
a cylinder chamber (portion of 11 receiving pump; Col. 4, lines 38-41) annularly delimited by a cylinder wall having an internal surface (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein a main vent passage (12b) is formed in the cylinder wall, putting in communication the main opening with the internal surface (Fig. 1);
a manually operable piston (24) for translating between an initial rest position and a final end-of-stroke position;
a pressure chamber (22c) in which said manually operable piston operates;
a sleeve (22a), delimiting said pressure chamber, at least partially housed in the cylinder chamber, comprising an annular sleeve wall, having an external surface and an internal surface (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a suction duct (P1) suitable for putting the internal compartment of the bottle in communication with the pressure chamber;
a dispensing duct (R1, P2) suitable for putting the pressure chamber in communication with an external environment;
valve means (31a, 32) for adjusting a flow of the product from the suction duct to the pressure chamber during a suction step and from the pressure chamber to the dispensing duct during a dispensing step (Col. 5, lines 4-37); and
a labyrinth seal (annular gap around 22a is formed by two seals of the external surface of the sleeve contacting the cylinder wall; air must flow around 22a to get from 38 to 12b) suitable for putting the main vent passage in communication with the external environment (Col. 6, lines 11-17), the labyrinth seal being formed on the external surface of the sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Fujiwara et al. annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 3, Fujiwara et al. further disclose that the sleeve is housed in a fixed angular position in the cylinder chamber (22a is part of 22, which is fixed to 11; Col. 4, lines 38-41).
Regarding claims 4-5, Fujiwara et al. further disclose that the labyrinth seal comprises a channel having a circumferential extension (the annular gap is circumferential), and that the sleeve comprises a continuous ridge that laterally defines the channel (continuous ridge defines one end of the annular gap; see annotated Fig. 1 above), said continuous ridge being positioned in contact with the internal surface of the cylinder wall (see annotated Fig. 1 above), thus creating a seal against product leakage therewith.
Regarding claim 6, Fujiwara et al. further disclose that the sleeve comprises at least one circumferential sealing ridge, projecting from the external surface of the sleeve and positioned in contact with the internal surface of the cylinder wall (see annotated Fig. 1 above), creating a seal against product leakage therewith.
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara et al. further disclose that the sleeve comprises a secondary vent passage (38), passing in the annular sleeve wall, and suitable for putting the main vent passage in communication with the external environment (see vent flow path in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Fujiwara et al. disclose the trigger dispensing head of claim 7, and further disclose that the sleeve comprises at least one circumferential sealing ridge (see annotated Fig. 1 above) projecting from the external surface of the sleeve and positioned in contact with the internal surface of the cylinder wall, creating a seal against product leakage therewith, and wherein the secondary vent passage is positioned between the labyrinth seal and the at least one circumferential sealing ridge (38 is located between the continuous ridge and the circumferential sealing ridge).
Regarding claim 9, Fujiwara et al. disclose the trigger dispensing head of claim 7, and further disclose that the manually operable piston comprises a main piston seal and a secondary piston seal (see annotated Fig. 1 above) that sealingly and slidably engage the internal surface of the annular sleeve wall (Col. 4, lines 51-55), and wherein the secondary vent passage is open on the internal surface of the annular sleeve wall, between the main piston seal and the secondary piston seal in the initial rest position of the manually operable piston (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Fujiwara et al. further disclose that the sleeve comprises a bottom lip projecting with respect to the annular sleeve wall (see annotated Fig. 1 above), suitable for sealingly engaging the internal surface of the cylinder wall.
Regarding claim 17, Fujiwara et al. further disclose that the cylinder chamber has a variation in diameter that determines an annular compartment with a larger diameter (see groove in cylinder wall accepting sealing ridge/axial rib in annotated Fig. 1), and wherein the sleeve comprises at least one axial rib projecting radially from the external surface of a sleeve housed in said annular compartment (sealing ridge/axial rib in annotated Fig. 1 is a projection outward from the external surface of 22a).
Regarding claim 19, Fujiwara et al. further disclose that the external surface of the sleeve has a frustoconical shape (it is apparent from Fig. 1 that 22a converges at the rear, i.e., the right end in Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “A person of ordinary skill would not consider Fujiwara's annular gap to be a labyrinth seal” because it does not disclose “multiple interlocking or tortuous flow paths” (Remarks, Pages 6-7). Examiner maintains that Fujiwara meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “labyrinth seal” in the context of claim 1, which defines the seal in terms of its ventilation function.
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., the “tortuous path that allows air ingress while hindering liquid leakage” described on Page 7 of the Remarks, and the “structure intended to prevent liquid leakage” noted on Page 8 of the Remarks) 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).
Applicant offers support for the argument via a definition attributed to the "Pump Users Handbook (Fourth Edition), 1995" stating that a labyrinth seal “consists of a series of interlocking paths” (Remarks, Pages 6-7). Examiner was unable to locate such a definition in the cited reference, but a relevant chapter from the same is attached to demonstrate that a labyrinth seal would be more commonly understood to have a particular type of structure in machine applications having at least one rotating member, such as a shaft turning in a bearing (see Figs. 5.30 and 5.19 in the attached NPL reference). Further, both the Applicant-provided definition and the Figures in the attached reference describe multiple “interlocking” features between interacting components, which does not appear to resemble the structure of the instant invention.
Applicant additionally argues that “Fujiwara explicitly describes the annular gap as a simple vent path” (Remarks, Page 7) and “If liquid enters Fujiwara's annular gap-whether through vent holes 12b/12c or due to inverted use-it would simply run downward and drip directly out of air intake hole 38. Fujiwara provides no sealing features to prevent such leakage. This behavior is the opposite of the function of the claimed labyrinth seal, which is specifically designed to hinder leakage by forcing liquid to traverse a tortuous path” (Remarks, Page 8). Examiner agrees that Fujiwara does not explicitly describe the annular gap as a sealing feature, but notes that Fujiwara places air intake hole 38 in a location that is only open to the external environment when the trigger is being actuated and air is being drawn into the gap (see Col. 6, lines 8-10; Fig. 1), thus preventing the leakage to which Applicant refers. Examiner further notes that any fluid reaching air intake hole 38 must follow a relatively narrow/shallow path, changing directions and traversing at least approximately 180 degrees around the circumference of the sleeve in either direction from its entry point. According to Examiner’s best understanding, this represents a circumferential extension, as described in Paragraph 0034 of the specification.
For the above reasons, and as noted below with respect to the prior art, Examiner submits that a ”labyrinth seal” as claimed would not be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art to require any particular structures of the instant invention that are not present in some form in the Fujiwara reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Specifically, Gohring et al. (US 2008/0029619; see 42 in Fig. 11), Carstens et al. (US 2023/0191441; see 118 in Fig. 1), Klaeger (EP 0441377; see 36 in Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0013, 0015 of the attached machine translation EP0441377-MT), Muntean et al. (US 5,042,721; see Col. 2, lines 46-50; gap “x” in Fig. 3) and Hess et al. (US 2023/0249202; see 17 in Fig. 1) provide examples of “labyrinth seals” known in the art that have widely varying structures and/or functions.
In contrast, Linet (EP 0453434) discloses a “serpentine path” (see helical groove 8 in Figs. 5-7; and Paragraphs 0024, 0027 of the attached machine translation EP0453434-MT), and Balderrama (US 5,353,969; previously cited) discloses a “spiral vent groove” (46 in Fig. 2) that more closely resemble the “labyrinth seal” feature described in the instant application in both function and structure (a simple vent path that is extended in length by wrapping around a cylindrical member in a spiraling manner).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 March 13, 2026