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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 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.
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: “suction valve means” in claim 1 (and 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.
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, 3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toma et al (JP H10-146545) in view of Wesner et al (US 4,346,821) and Reeve (US 4,204,614).
Regarding claim 1, Toma discloses a trigger dispensing head for a dispensing device, comprising:
a frame (2, 3, outer shell) applicable to a bottle (container body) of the dispensing device;
a manually operable trigger (6, including its finger touch portion and pivotally mounted structure) comprising a lever (6, finger touch portion) having a front surface (front surface of trigger 6) suitable for supporting a user's fingers, and a rear surface (rear surface of trigger 6) opposite to the front surface;
a piston chamber (5) supported by the frame and a piston (7) sealingly slidable in the piston chamber along a piston axis (longitudinal axis of 5 and 7) through actuation by the manually operable trigger;
a dispensing duct (4, 11a), ending with a dispensing end (downstream end of 11a at its interface with 11b), in communication with the piston chamber to take a product being dispensed from the piston chamber towards an external environment;
a suction duct (Figs. 1, 7; liquid passage between the container and cylinder 5) in communication with the piston chamber to take the product being suctioned from the bottle to the piston chamber;
a locking member (18 including 18a and 18b) that protrudes from the front surface of the manually operable trigger; and
a nozzle (9) engaged to the frame having a nozzle axis, comprising:
a base (front/base portion of 9) positioned at the dispensing end, provided with a nozzle passageway (11b) and an outer port (10);
an annular gripping wall (15, 15a) extending from the base;
an actuation compartment (17) located on the annular gripping wall, suitable for receiving the locking member; and
an interference element (rear edge of engagement through hole 16) positioned on the annular gripping wall;
wherein the nozzle is positionable in a closing position (rotational position in which hook 18 engages the rear edge of engagement through hole 16), in which the locking member engages the interference element preventing an actuation stroke of the manually operable trigger, and in an opening position, in which the locking member is freely movable in the actuation compartment allowing the actuation stroke of the manually operable trigger, wherein the nozzle is rotatable about the nozzle axis between the closing position and the opening position.
Toma does not expressly disclose: 1) suction valve means adapted to operate between the piston chamber and the suction duct to allow a passage of the product being suctioned from the bottle to the piston chamber during a suction step and to prevent the product from returning from the piston chamber to the bottle during a dispensing step (please note that Toma does show an object resembling a suction valve means in Figs. 1 and 7, but does not provide identifying numbering or a discussion); and 2) wherein the nozzle comprises at least one backing wall radially protruding internally from the annular gripping wall, configured to contact the locking member to prevent further rotation of the nozzle in a same direction, upon the nozzle reaching the closing position and/or the opening position.
However, Wesner teaches: 1) suction valve means (54) adapted to operate between the piston chamber (chamber associated with 52) and the suction duct (72, 74) to allow a passage of the product being suctioned from the bottle to the piston chamber during a suction step. The advantage of using a suction valve means is to provide reliable one-way pumping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Toma’s suction duct (Toma, Figs. 1, 7; liquid passage between the container and cylinder 5) to include Wesner’s suction valve means (54), to provide reliable one-way pumping.
In addition, Reeve teaches: 2) wherein the nozzle (37) comprises at least one backing wall (52, 54) radially protruding internally from the annular gripping wall (41), configured to contact the locking member (49) to prevent further rotation of the nozzle in a same direction, upon the nozzle reaching the closing position. The advantage of using an internal nozzle backing wall is to prevent the nozzle from rotating beyond the closing position and maintain the nozzle at the intended closed rotational position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Toma’s nozzle (Toma, 9) to include Reeve’s internal backing wall (54, 52) radially protruding internally from the annular gripping wall (Toma, 15, 15a), configured to contact the locking member (Toma, 18) to prevent further rotation of the nozzle in the same direction, upon the nozzle reaching the closing position, in order to prevent the nozzle from rotating beyond the closing position and maintain the nozzle at the intended closed rotational position.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses wherein the locking member is made in one piece with the manually operable trigger (hook 18 integral with trigger 6; [0005]-[0006], [0010]; Figs. 1-3; please note that the claim does not require that the parts be co-molded, for example).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses wherein, in the opening position of the nozzle, the locking member is freely translatable parallel to the nozzle axis (hook 18 in notch 17; [0010]-[0011], [0015]; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses wherein the locking member comprises an end tooth suitable for snap-engaging the interference element (distal end of hook 18/rear edge 16; [0006], [0010], [0014]; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses wherein the locking member is positioned between the piston axis and the nozzle axis (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses wherein the annular gripping wall comprises an inner annular surface (inner surface of cylindrical portion 15a), wherein the locking member slides in contact with said inner surface when rotating the nozzle from the opening position to the closing position and vice versa (hook 18 contacts inner wall of 15a during rotation; [0006], [0010], [0014]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses wherein the annular gripping wall annularly defines a nozzle housing (outer peripheral wall 15/15a), and wherein the locking member is housed in said nozzle housing in the closing position of the nozzle (wall 15/15a houses hook 18; [0006], [0010]-[0011]; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses wherein the annular gripping wall comprises a free end opposite to the base, and wherein the actuation compartment is open at the free end (notch 17 rear-end opening; [0006], [0010], [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses wherein the actuation compartment passes radially through the annular gripping wall (notch 17 extends through outer peripheral wall 15a; Figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses wherein the nozzle comprises a locking compartment positioned on the annular gripping wall, suitable for accommodating at least partially the locking member in the closing position of the nozzle (through hole 16 receives hook 18; [0006], [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 14, Toma further discloses wherein the nozzle is provided with a locking compartment edge delimiting, at least partially, the locking compartment, and wherein the interference element is positioned on a portion of said locking compartment edge (rear edge of through hole 16; [0006], [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations of claim 14, Toma further discloses wherein the nozzle is provided with a locking compartment edge delimiting, at least partially, the locking compartment, and wherein a portion of said locking compartment edge constitutes the interference element (rear edge is interference element; [0006], [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma further discloses a dispensing device comprising: a bottle for containing a product to be dispensed; and the trigger dispensing head of claim 1 applied to the bottle (mounting cylinder 2 on container body; [0006], [0008]; Figs. 1-3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toma et al (JP H10-146545) in view of Wesner et al (US 4,346,821) and Reeve (US 4,204,614), further in view of Sweeton et al (US 8,517,221).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma as modified remains silent to the locking member has a T-shaped section along a section plane transverse to the annular gripping wall. However, Sweeton teaches the locking member has a T-shaped section along a section plane transverse to the annular gripping wall (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking member to include a T-shaped section. Such modification is a simple substitution of the locking member and trigger, which prevents actuation of the trigger during the closed position (Sweeton: col. 4, 11. 1-26 and col. 6, 11. 30-49), achieving a similar result to the locking member of Toma.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toma et al (JP H10-146545) in view of Wesner et al (US 4,346,821) and Reeve (US 4,204,614), further in view of Balderrama (US 5,366,160).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Toma as modified remains silent regarding the base of the nozzle has at least one connection window engageable by a foamer of the trigger dispensing head. However, Balderrama teaches the base of the nozzle (nozzle cap 22) has at least one connection window (open areas 44) engageable by a foamer (disrupter means 24) of the trigger dispensing head (col. 3 11. 29-49). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle to have connection windows engageable by a foamer. In doing so, the device advantageously can dispense foam of commercially acceptable quality (Balderrama: col. 2 11. 1-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 17 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.
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 DAVID ANGWIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 EST. 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.
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.
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights