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 Amendment filed 04/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-24 & 26-28 are pending in the application. Claim 28 is withdrawn. Claims 7, 9, 13, 16, 18, 21, 25 & 29 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-24 & 26-27 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 should read --A manually operable pump for cooperation with a container to reduce pressure inside the container; the pump comprising:
- a cylinder having a lower end for cooperation with the container;
- a piston movable inside the cylinder; and
- a single-piece closure element arranged around a lower end of the piston,
wherein the closure element comprises a wall and a bottom, the wall being configured to provide a seal between the piston and the cylinder, and the bottom being integrally formed with the wall, wherein the bottom is adaptable between a rest position when a pressure difference over the bottom is lower than a predefined threshold and an indicator position when the pressure difference equals or exceeds the predefined threshold.—
Claim 8 should read --The pump according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the bottom of the closure element is larger towards the wall than in a center of the bottom, and/or wherein the closure element is absent of predefined deformation lines.
Claim 11 should read --The pump according to claim 10, wherein the inwardly protruding wall connection element is a rib.—
Claim 19 should read --The pump according to claim 17, further comprising a sound deflector arranged inside of the piston to deflect and/or dampen and/or absorb sound waves generated by the bottom of the closure element; and/or wherein a user can partially or fully close the at least one through hole, so as to dampen the sound waves generated by the bottom of the closure element and/or so as to receive such sound waves as a tactile stimulus.--
Claim 24 should read --The pump according to claim 1, wherein a sudden adoption of the closure element from the rest position to the indicator position provides audible, visual, and/or haptic feedback to a user of the pump, and/or
generates a sound, which provides for the audible feedback to the user indicating that the predefined threshold is reached.--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 as follows,
“at least one inwardly protruding wall connection element” in Claim 10, where the generic place holder is “element”, the functional language is “wall connection”, and sufficient modifying structure is not provided; instant application Page 7, Lines 27-28, define the at least one wall connection element as a protruding finger, hook, or ring, providing sufficient modifying structure
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 10-12 & 14 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.
As to Claim 10, the limitation “the wall connection element”, in Line 5, is indefinite. It is not clear which one of the wall connection elements in the previously defined “at least one inwardly protruding wall connection element” the wall connection element in Line 5 is referring to.
The phrase “inwardly protruding”, is indefinite. The phrase is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase 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 phrase requires a reference structure, which is not provided. As such, it is not clear which direction is considered to be “inwardly protruding”.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-15, 20, 24 & 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao (U.S. PGPub 2021/0207647).
As to Claim 1, Liao teaches a manually operable pump (Figure 1) for cooperation with a container (17) to reduce pressure (via actuation of piston 3) inside (within 13/14, as shown in Figure 3) the container (17); the pump comprising:
- a cylinder (23) having a lower end (the bottom of 23, as viewed in Figure 3) for cooperation with (via 22, as shown in Figure 3) the container (17);
-a piston (3) movable (Paragraph 0016) inside (as shown in Figures 3/4) the cylinder (23); and
-a single-piece closure element (31) arranged around (as shown in Figure 3) a lower end (the bottom of 3, as viewed in Figure 3) of the piston (3),
wherein the closure element (31) comprises a wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) and a bottom (the bottom portion of 31, as viewed in Figure 6), the wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) being configured to provide a seal (as shown in Figure 3, where the wall is against cylinder 23) between (as shown in Figures 3/6) the piston (3) and the cylinder (23) and the bottom (the bottom portion of 31, as viewed in Figure 6) being integrally formed with (as shown in Figures 3/6) the wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3), wherein the bottom (the bottom portion of 31, as viewed in Figure 6) is adaptable between a rest position (Figure 3) when a pressure difference (the pressure below closure element 31 in Figure 3 minus the pressure above element 31 in Figure 3) over the bottom (the bottom portion of 31, as viewed in Figure 6) is lower than a predefined threshold (the pressure threshold which causes the bottom of 31 to radially contract, as shown in Figure 6) and an indicator position (Figures 4/6) when the pressure difference (the pressure below closure element 31 in Figure 3 minus the pressure above element 31 in Figure 3) equals or exceeds the predefined threshold (the pressure threshold which causes the bottom of 31 to radially contract, as shown in Figure 6).
As to Claim 2, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the bottom (the bottom portion of 31, as viewed in Figure 6) is adaptable between the rest position (Figure 3) and the indicator position (Figures 4/6) to provide an indication (a user would understand when the predefined threshold was reached, since the user would be able to tell if fluid was passing by the wall during a downward stroke, as viewed in Figure 6) to a user that the predefined threshold is reached (the pressure threshold which causes the bottom of 31 to radially contract, as shown in Figure 6).
As to Claim 3, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach at least a part (the part of the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) of the wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) of the closure element (31) is adaptable between a sealing position (Figure 3) in which the wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) provides for sealing (as shown in Figure 3, where the wall is against cylinder 23) between the piston (3) and the cylinder (23) and a free position (Figures 4/6) allowing for a passage of air (as shown in Figures 4/6, where the wall is spaced from cylinder 23, allowing air –indicated by the arrows in Figure 6—to pass between the wall and the cylinder) between the wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) and the cylinder (23).
As to Claim 4, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 3, and continues to teach the wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) is in the sealing position (Figure 3) when the piston (3) moves upwardly (as shown in Figure 3) with respect to the cylinder (23), and wherein the wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) is in the free position (Figures 4/6) when the piston (3) moves downwardly (as indicated by the arrow in Figure 4) with respect to the cylinder (23).
As to Claim 5, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the closure element (31) is from a resilient material (as shown between Figures 3/6, where closure element resiliently changes shape between the rest and indicator positions).
As to Claim 6, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach in the rest position (Figure 3), the bottom is in a concave position (as shown in Figure 3, where the top of the bottom is concave), and/or wherein in the indicator position, the bottom is in a convex position.
As to Claim 8, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach a thickness of the bottom (the bottom portion of 31, as viewed in Figure 6) of the closure element (31) is larger (as shown in Figure 6) towards the walls (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) than in a center (the center of the bottom portion of 31, as viewed in Figure 6) of the bottom (the bottom portion of 31, as viewed in Figure 6), and/or
wherein the closure element (31) is absent of predefined deformation lines (as shown in Figure 6).
As to Claim 10, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) of the closure element (31) is provided with (as shown in Figure 6) at least one inwardly protruding (as shown in Figure 6, where the connection structure is protruding radially inward with respect to the axis of piston 3, from the bottom) wall connection element (see Figure 6 below), and wherein the piston (3) comprises a corresponding piston connection recess (the recess between the skirt, piston outer wall and the structure above the piston outer wall in Figure 6 below) configured to receive (a shown in Figure 6 below) the wall connection element (see Figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
227
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liao Figure 6, Modified by Examiner
As to Claim 11, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 10, and continues to teach the inwardly protruding element (see Figure 6 in the Claim 10 rejection above) is a rib (as shown in Figure 6 in the Claim 10 rejection above).
As to Claim 12, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 10, and continues to teach the lower end (the bottom of 3, as viewed in Figure 3) of the piston (3) is provided with (as shown in Figure 6) an outwardly extending skirt (see Figure 6 in the Claim 10 rejection above), and wherein the skirt (see Figure 6 in the Claim 10 rejection above) provides for a wall (the skirt is shown as a wall on the bottom of the recess shown in Figure 6) of the piston connection recess (the recess between the skirt, piston outer wall and the structure above the piston outer wall in Figure 6 in the Claim 10 rejection above).
As to Claim 14, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 10 & 12, and continues to teach a thickness (see Figure 6 below) of the wall connection element (see Figure 6 in the Claim 10 rejection above) is larger than (as shown in Figure 6 below) a distance (see Figure 6 below) between the skirt (see Figure 6 in the Claim 10 rejection above) of the piston (3) and an inner wall (see Figure 6 below) of the cylinder (23).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
797
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liao Figure 6, Modified by Examiner
As to Claim 15, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 3, and continues to teach the wall (the side portion of 31 in contact with cylinder 23, as viewed in Figure 3) of the closure element (31) comprises an outer flange (as shown in Figure 6) that is configured to be adaptable between (as shown in the difference between Figures 3/4/6) the sealing position (Figure 3) and the free position (Figures 4/6).
As to Claim 20, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the cylinder (23) is provided with at least one cooperating element (24) at (as shown in Figure 3) the lower end (the bottom of 24, as viewed in Figure 3) thereof, wherein the cooperating element (24) is an end cap (24) adapted for cooperation with (as shown in Figure 5, via 14) the container (17).
As to Claim 24, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach a sudden adoption of the closure element (31) from the rest position (Figure 3) to the indicator position (Figures 4/6) provides audible, visual, and/or haptic feedback (a user would understand when the predefined threshold was reached, since the user would be able to tell if fluid was passing by the wall during a downward stroke, as viewed in Figure 6) to a user of the pump (Figure 1), and/or generates a sound, which provides for an audible feedback to the user indicating that the predefined pressure difference threshold is reached (the pressure threshold which causes the bottom of 31 to radially contract, as shown in Figure 6).
As to Claim 26, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the piston (3) has a hollow interior (as shown in Figure 4), such that sound waves (the sounds waves developed from the vibration of the pump during operation) can move from (as shown in Figure 4) the closure element (31) towards (as shown in Figure 4) a head of the pump (Figure 1).
As to Claim 27, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the lower end (the bottom of 23, as viewed in Figure 3) of the cylinder (23) is arranged for cooperation with (via 14/24) a bottle and/or a stopper (see Figure 3 below) inserted in (as shown in Figure 3) an opening (see Figure 3 below) of the container (17).
PNG
media_image3.png
717
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Liao Figure 3, Modified by Examiner
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao , in view of Van De Braak (U.S. PGPub 2004/0200863).
As to Claim 23, Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the closure element (31) is a single piece element (as shown in Figure 2).
Liao is silent on how the closure element is manufactured, so does not explicitly teach the closure element is manufactured by injection moulding, compression moulding, or 3D-printing.
Van De Braak describes a similar sealing closure element, and teaches the closure element (8) is manufactured by injection moulding (Paragraph 0010, where the “plate-like part” is bottom 14/15), compression moulding, or 3D-printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the closure element, as taught by Liao, via injection moulding, as taught by Van De Braak, since injection moulding is a well-known manufacturing method yielding predictable results, i.e., reliably and easily produced.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 17, 19 & 22 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 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 102 rejection for Claim 1, Applicant argues the Liao valve is entirely separate from the Liao valve. Although, it appears Applicant is misinterpreting the rejection.
Examiner is not relying upon Liao valve 26 as the closure element. Examiner is relying upon Liao Element 31 as the closure element, where closure element 31 is part of piston 3. This is clearly shown in at least Liao Figures 3-6, where Figure 6 shows a close up view of Element 31 as the closure element.
Applicant continues to argue Liao does not teach the bottom is adaptable between a rest position and an indicator position, as claimed. Since Applicant is arguing the incorrect element as the closure element, which has the bottom, it is not clear to Examiner how to respond directly to this argument. However, the Liao closure element 31 moves between a rest position and an indicator position, so the bottom of the closure element inherently also moves between a rest position and an indicator position.
Applicant continues to argue the claimed invention will “flip” its shape. However, this feature, or the bottom being deformable in any manner, has not been claimed.
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 BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights