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 III (claims 1 and 10-13) in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. Claims 2-9 and 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The examiner notes that upon the finding of an allowable generic claim, all non-elected claims depending from the allowable generic claim will be considered for rejoinder.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 110510178) in view of Sams (US 5,304,152).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a system for containing and dispensing a cosmetic substance, the system comprising:
a container (7) having a first end (press cap end) and a second end (base cover end) and defining a container cavity (internal cavity of 7) adapted to receive a cosmetic substance,
a dispensing assembly (Fig. 3, items 3 and 5) operably coupled with the first end of the container, the dispensing assembly including an inlet (Fig. 3, flow path into plug 5) adapted to receive the cosmetic substance and an outlet (Fig. 3, outlet formed by deformation of plug 5) adapted to dispense the cosmetic substance;
an urging assembly (Figs. 1 & 2, items 6 and 8) at least partially disposed within the container cavity and being operably coupled with the dispensing assembly; and
a dose selection assembly (Figs. 1 & 4, item 10) being movably coupled with the second end of the container and the urging assembly (Fig. 4, base cover 10 mechanically coupled with screw rod 8);
wherein moving a portion of the dose selection assembly (Fig. 4, rotation of base cover) relative to the container engages and causes the urging assembly (Fig. 2, items 6 and 8) to advance, thereby urging a desired quantity of cosmetic substance from the container cavity to the dispensing assembly, and
moving a portion of the dispensing assembly (Fig. 3, movement of plug 5 under pressure) causes the desired quantity of cosmetic substance to be dispensed from the outlet.
Huang is silent with respect to at least some of wherein 1) moving a portion of the dose selection assembly relative to the container engages and causes the urging assembly to advance (“engagement” function); and 2) moving a portion of the dispensing assembly causes the desired quantity of cosmetic substance to be dispensed from the outlet (“dispensing” function). To the extent that Huang does not expressly disclose these features, Sams teaches 1) a dose selection mechanism (53) causes advancement of a plunger (23) related to a selected dose amount (col. 8, ll. 4-8); and 2) an axial dispensing movement causes dispensing of the chosen dose (col. 7, ll. 52-65 to col. 8, ll. 1-8). Sams is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention because it is directed to controlled, user selectable dispensing of a predetermined quantity of a flowable substance using a mechanically actuated urging assembly, which is the same problem addressed by the cosmetic dispensing system of the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dose selection assembly of Huang to incorporate the dose selection mechanism taught by Sams, by performing the above described engagement and dispensing functions, as both Huang and Sams use mechanical urging members, and incorporating the engagement and dispensing function as taught by Sams into Huang would cause predictable results, by controlling movement of the urging assembly for a selected dose, without requiring substantial redesign of the Huang basic structure.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Huang further discloses wherein the dose selection assembly includes: an urging shell (Figs. 1 & 4, item 10 (portion of dose selection assembly mapped above)) having a cavity (internal cavity of base cover 10), the urging shell being operably coupled with the second end of the container (base cover 10 coupled to bottle body 7); and a guide member (Figs. 1 & 2, item 8) being at least partially disposed within the cavity of the urging shell and being operably coupled with the urging shell, the guide member including an urging assembly coupling portion (Fig. 2, lower end of screw rod 8) adapted to operably couple with a portion of the urging assembly (Fig. 2, crew rod 8 coupled to piston 6). Huang is silent with respect to at least a portion of the guide member includes an urging assembly coupling portion adapted to operably couple with a portion of the urging assembly. To the extent that Huang does not expressly disclose these features, Sams teaches a guide member (Figs. 3A & 3B; unnumbered in Sams; drive member operatively coupled to dose setting sleeve 53) that includes a coupling portion adapted to operably couple with an urging assembly wherein a portion of the guide member is configured to mechanically engage and drive a plunger forming part of the urging assembly (col. 6 l. 55 to col. 7, l. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dose selection assembly of Huang to include a guide member having an urging assembly coupling portion as taught by Sams, in order to ensure reliable mechanical engagement between the guide member and the urging assembly during dose selection. Such a modification relies on well known mechanical coupling principles and would have predictably resulted in controlled advancement of the urging assembly corresponding to movement of the dose selection assembly, without altering the basic operation of the system.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations in claim 10, Huang is silent with respect to at least a portion of a full dose indicator adapted to generate tactile feedback upon moving the dose selection assembly to a position corresponding to a maximum dispensable quantity of cosmetic substance. To the extent that Huang does not disclose these features, Sams teaches a full dose indicator (Figs. 3A & 3B, unnumbered; end-of-travel stop that limits movement of dose setting mechanism; cols. 6-8) adapted to generate tactile feedback upon movement of a dose selection assembly to a maximum dose position, wherein resistance detents, or end-of-travel feedback inform the user that a maximum selectable dose has been reached. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the does selection assembly of Huang to include a full dose indicator as taught by Sams, in order to provide the user with tactile feedback indicating that a maximum dispensable quantity has been selected. Such tactile indicators are well known in mechanical dose settings systems and would have predictably improved functionality without altering the basic operation of the Huang device.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations in claim 10, Huang is silent with respect to at least a portion of the urging assembly coupling portion includes a keyed member. To the extent that Huang does not disclose this feature, Sams teaches the use of keyed members (Figs. 3A & 3B; anti-rotation guide features working with dose setting sleeve 53) in coupling portions between guide members and an urging assembly, wherein rotational movement is constrained while axial advancement is permitted, ensuring reliable transmission of force to the urging assembly (Figs. 3A & 3B; col. 6, ll. 60-65; col 7, ll. 34-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a keyed member in the urging assembly coupling portion of Huang’s guide member, as taught by Sams, to prevent relative rotation and ensure controlled axial advancement of the urging assembly. Such keyed couplings are well known mechanical features and their use would have yielded predictable results without requiring substantial redesign of the Huang device.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Huang does not expressly disclose a valve positioned between the urging assembly and the dispensing assembly. Instead, Sams teaches a piston/cartridge arrangement (Figs. 1, 3A, 3B, & 4A, items 11, 13, and 23) prevents fluid from being dispensed when the device is at rest and permits dispensing only upon controlled movement of the dispensing mechanism, where advancement of the plunger drives the cartridge piston to permit fluid to exit the outlet (Figs. 3A, 3B, & 4A; col. 7, l. 52 to col. 8, l. 8). Thus, the piston/cartridge arrangement selectively permits fluid flow in response to actuation and therefore functions as a valve positioned between the urging assembly and the dispensing assembly. As a result, it would have been obvious to rely upon such flow controlling structure to regulate dispensing, as the use of displacement-based valving mechanisms is well known and yields predictable results in the field of dispensing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPE DAVID ANGWIN whose telephone number is (571)-270- 3735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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 P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754