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.
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: “handgrip portion” in claim 2, where “portion” is the placeholder and “handgrip” is the functional language.
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 7 and 13 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 7 recites the limitation "the second portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should read --a second portion.--
The term “smoothly” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothly” 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. The minimum degree of “evenness” or “uniformity” to meet the claim limitation is not known.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-15 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US20140346252).
With respect to claim 1, Davis discloses a system (Figs. 1-5) for (capable of) dispensing a liquid product (cleaning and disinfecting products. [0001]), comprising: a pouch (2), made from film material (Abstract, line 2), having a first (lower) end and a second (upper) end and comprising a first wall (front 14. Fig. 1), a second wall (rear 14) and a base wall (15) disposed between the first wall and the second wall at the first end, the pouch comprising a first weld (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) joining the first wall to the second wall, a second weld joining the first wall to the base wall and a third weld joining the second wall to the base wall, the first wall, the second wall and the base wall delimiting a containing space (of 1) holding the liquid product, the first wall and the second wall defining an opening (occupied by 3) in the pouch at the second end, the dispensing system comprising a bushing (3) inserted in the opening, the first and second walls being joined to the bushing at the opening, the bushing having a first (central) axis, the dispensing system comprising a sprayer (4) for dispensing the liquid product from the pouch, the sprayer being coupled to the bushing and comprising a pumping assembly (5 and 11), a lever (8) for (capable of) driving the pumping assembly, a diffuser unit (nozzle pointed by reference number 13. Fig. 1) in communication with the pumping assembly.
With respect to claim 2, Davis discloses wherein the pouch has a taper (at 21. Fig. 2) towards the second end, the taper defining a handgrip (holding) portion for the dispensing system.
With respect to claim 3, Davis discloses wherein the first and second walls are symmetrical about the first axis of symmetry (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 4, Davis discloses wherein the first weld comprises a first stretch (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) and a second stretch extending from opposite sides of the opening.
With respect to claim 5, Davis discloses wherein the first stretch and the second stretch are asymmetrical relative to the first axis of symmetry (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 6, Davis discloses wherein the first stretch comprises a first portion (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) having concavity facing the first axis of symmetry and a second portion (area defined by the outer surface of 21) having concavity facing the side opposite to (outward of) the first axis of symmetry.
With respect to claim 7, Davis discloses wherein the second portion delimits (defining) the handgrip portion of the dispensing system by contouring the pouch (Figs. 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 8, Davis discloses wherein the second stretch has concavity (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) facing towards the first axis of symmetry.
With respect to claim 9, Davis discloses wherein the base wall has a second (central) axis of symmetry.
With respect to claim 10, Davis discloses wherein the second axis of symmetry is parallel to the first axis of symmetry (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 12, Davis discloses wherein the base wall has a fold line (phantom line near 19 in Fig. 2), the base wall being foldable about the fold line between a position of minimum size (Fig. 2) and a position of maximum size (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 13, Davis discloses wherein the second and third welds each have a first polygonal portion (area at left 16) and a second polygonal portion (area at right 16) which are smoothly connected to each other (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 14, Davis discloses wherein the bushing comprises a collar (body of 3) inserted in the opening.
With respect to claim 15, Davis discloses the dispensing system according to claim 1, comprising a fourth weld (22 on the left and right of 3. Fig. 2), the fourth weld joining the first and second wall to the bushing.
With respect to claim 18, Davis discloses wherein the film material comprises a polylaminated (impermeable material which comprises two or more layers of different materials. Definition provided by the Applicant. Page 2, lines 15-16) film ([0013]) and/or a single-layer film .
With respect to claim 19, Davis discloses wherein the bushing comprises at least a first ring (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) protruding radially from the bushing itself.
With respect to claim 20, Davis discloses wherein the bushing comprises a second ring (pointed by reference “3” in Fig. 1) protruding radially from the bushing itself, the second ring delimiting (defining) with the first ring an annular groove (defined by first and second rings) which is preferably symmetrical about the axis of symmetry.
With respect to claim 21, Davis discloses a cleaning device (Figs. 1-5) comprising a dispensing system claim 1 and a liquid product (cleaning and disinfecting products. [0001]) placed inside the pouch from where it can be dispensed through the sprayer.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Schwandt (US20100155430).
With respect to claim 11, Davis discloses wherein the pumping assembly comprises a hose (12) for drawing the liquid from the pouch.
Davis fails to disclose the length of the hose being greater than the height of the pouch, measured between the first end and the second end.
However, Schwandt teaches a sprayer (Fig. 1-13d) having a container (20) comprising a first (lower) end and a second (upper) end, a pumping assembly (in 10) comprises a hose (14) for drawing the liquid from the container, wherein the length of the hose being greater than the height of the container, measured between the first end and the second end.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a longer hose, as taught by Schwandt, to replace Davis’ tube, in order to allow the sprayer to be operational at different orientation (Abstract and Figs. 4-7).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis.
With respect to claim 16, Davis discloses wherein the pouch and the bushing are made from the same plastic material (Abstract, lines 1-3).
Davis fails to disclose the sprayer is made from the plastic material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the sprayer of plastic material in order to form the sprayer. It has been 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 17, Davis discloses the dispensing system according to claim 1 except for wherein the first wall, the second wall and the base wall have a thickness between 30 µm and 80 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first wall, the second wall and the base wall having a thickness between 30 µm and 80 µm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
743
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a sprayer: Dickey, Achhammer, Hagihara, Totani, Richardson and Koesters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
December 11, 2025