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 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 2, 8-13, and 15 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the plunger that is movable within the chamber” in line 2 after reciting “a plunger within the chamber and movable” in claim 1. This appears to be grammatically incorrect in the context of the claim, and it is unclear whether/how Applicant intends this clause to further limit or define the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the first end” in lines 7, 8, and 11; and “the second end” in lines 9 and 11. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to refer to the first end/second end of the body (see lines 3-4) or of the plunger (see line 7).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “a second portion between the first portion and the second end, and wherein the second portion is a blocked section of fused threading” in lines 4-6. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to refer to one of the second ends recited in claim 8, or the second end of the drive screw (see line 2). In any case, the limitation appears to be inconsistent with the written description (see Paragraph 0111 describing thread 304, first end 306, and second end 308 of the elongated shaft; and Paragraph 0132 describing blocked section 318) and the drawings (see Fig. 48, showing 318 at the opposite end of the shaft from 308, with 304 in between). According to Examiner’s best understanding, the claim will be interpreted to instead read --a second portion between the first portion and the first end--.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “wherein the plunger positioned” in lines 1-2. The claim appears to be grammatically incorrect and it is thus unclear how Applicant intends to further limit the claimed structure. According to Examiner’s best understanding, the claim will be interpreted to instead read --wherein the plunger is positioned--.
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.
(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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nasu et al. (US 2009/0324321).
Regarding claim 1, Nasu et al. disclose a metering dispenser (Paragraph 0001) comprising:
a body (1) comprising: a first end (see annotated Fig. 1 below); a second end opposite from the first end (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the first end is a dispensing end of the body (product is dispensed from inner lid 9 at first end; Paragraph 0035); and a chamber between the first end and the second end (47);
a plunger (12) within the chamber (Figs. 1 and 3) and movable between the first end and the second end (Paragraph 0038); and
a drive screw comprising an elongated shaft (4) defining an end of the drive screw and extending into the chamber (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the drive screw extends through the second end of the body of the metering dispenser (4 extends through 1 to connect with 3 below; Paragraph 0028), and wherein the elongated shaft comprises: a first portion (26) within the chamber and having at least one external thread (Figs. 1 and 3); and a second portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below) within the chamber between the first portion and the end of the drive screw, wherein movement of the drive screw moves the plunger along an axis within the chamber between the first end and the second end (Paragraph 0038; Figs. 1 and 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Nasu et al. annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, Nasu et al. further disclose a base (3) coupled to the body (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the plunger (12) that is movable within the chamber, and an administering tool (9 with holes 46 for administering a viscous cosmetic; Paragraph 0035) engaged with the first end of the body (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Nasu et al. further disclose that the plunger is coupled to the elongated shaft (Paragraph 0024; Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Nasu et al. further disclose that the drive screw extends through the plunger (Paragraph 0024; Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 5-6, Nasu et al. further disclose that the first end of the body defines a chamber opening providing access to the chamber (opening of body at 14; see Figs. 1-3), wherein the second end of the body comprises an end wall (11) that at least partially defines the chamber of the body (Fig. 2); and that the end wall of the second end defines an aperture (19; Paragraph 0025), and wherein the drive screw extends through the aperture (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, Nasu et al. further disclose a base (3) rotationally coupled to the second end of the body (Paragraph 0024), wherein the end of the drive screw is a first end (see annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the drive screw further comprises a cog (23) defining a second end of the drive screw, and wherein the base is coupled to the cog of the drive screw (Paragraphs 0028-0029).
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 8-9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasu et al. in view of Springhorn et al. (US 2010/0001026).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Nasu et al. disclose a metering dispenser comprising:
a body (1) comprising: a first end (see annotated Fig. 1 above); a second end opposite from the first end (see annotated Fig. 1 above); and a chamber between the first end and the second end (47);
a plunger (12) within the chamber and movable between the first end and the second end (Paragraph 0038; Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the plunger comprises a first end (defined at upper wall 30) and a second end (defined at bottom of outer wall 32), wherein the first end comprises an end surface (30), wherein a sidewall (32) extends from the first end to the second end (Figs. 1-3), and
a drive screw comprising an elongated shaft (4) defining an end of the drive screw and extending into the chamber (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the drive screw is coupled to the plunger (Paragraph 0024; Figs. 1 and 3), wherein movement of the drive screw moves the plunger along an axis within the chamber between the first end and the second end (Paragraph 0038; Figs. 1 and 3).
Nasu et al. does not disclose at least four ribs extending outwards from the sidewall of the plunger. However, Nasu et al. disclose two ribs (55) extending outwards from the sidewall of the plunger and that each rib is an outermost extent of the plunger between the first end and the second end (see Figs. 1-3; it is apparent from the Figures that 12 only contacts the inner surface of the body at 55 and that this contact area extends in from both the first end and the second end).
Springhorn et al. teach a plunger (10; see the embodiment of Figs. 4-5) having a sidewall (76) and ribs resembling those of Nasu et al. extending outwards from the sidewall (Paragraph 0042) near a first end (surface 93 of sealing lip 86; Paragraph 0037) and near a second end (wiper 124), as well as additional ribs (see 110, 120, 122 in Fig. 5). Thus, Springhorn et al. teach a plunger having at least four ribs extending outwards from the sidewall of the plunger, and wherein each rib of the at least four ribs is an outermost extent of the plunger between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 5). Springhorn et al. further teach that a profile of a first rib (e.g., 110) is different from a profile of another rib (e.g., 120) of the at least four ribs. Springhorn et al. teach this configuration as a design that reduces blow-by and leakage (Paragraph 0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the plunger of Nasu et al. to have at least four ribs comprising at least two different profiles, as taught by Springhorn et al., in order to reduce blow-by and leakage during operation of the dispenser.
Regarding claim 9, Nasu et al. further disclose a base (3) rotationally coupled to the second end of the body (Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 11, Nasu et al. further disclose the plunger is positioned within the chamber and coupled to the elongated shaft of the drive screw such that the plunger is movable along the elongated shaft through the chamber when the drive screw is rotated (Paragraph 0038; Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, Nasu et al. further disclose that an end wall (11) of the second end defines an aperture (19; Paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 13, Nasu et al. further disclose that the drive screw extends through the plunger (Paragraph 0024; Figs. 1 and 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasu et al. in view of Springhorn et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hollberg (US 4,921,130).
Nasu et al.-Springhorn et al. in combination render obvious the metering dispenser of claim 8. Nasu et al. further disclose that the drive screw comprises a first end (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and a second end (portion including 23; see annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the elongated shaft comprises the second end of the drive screw (see annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the elongated shaft comprises an outer surface comprising a first portion having at least one external thread (26) and a second portion between the first portion and the first end (see Figs. 1 and 3 and the interpretation described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above). Neither Nasu et al. nor Springhorn et al. disclose that a second portion is a blocked section of fused threading.
Hollberg teaches a similar dispenser including a drive screw having an elongated shaft (14) with a threaded first portion (42) and a second portion that is a blocked section of fused threading (see unthreaded portion of the shaft at 40 in Fig. 2 and integrally formed washer portion 37; according to Examiner’s best understanding, this structure would meet the claim since it blocks further movement of the plunger past the threaded portion and may be formed by fusing material to the threading). Hollberg teaches this configuration as a means to enable low friction rotation of the shaft in a seat formed in a cover (seat 38 in top cover 11 constrains the shaft; see Col. 4, lines 62-68 and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the dispenser of Nasu et al. with a second portion having a blocked section of fused threading, as taught by Hollberg, in order to interact with a corresponding seat formed in a cover (such as element 9 in Nasu et al.) to stabilize and control lateral movement of the shaft while allowing free rotation. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results, and would recognize the additional stability of the shaft to be an improvement to the device of Nasu et al. As an alternative to the integrally formed washer cited above, one having ordinary skill in the art could use another teaching of Hollberg (nut 45 at the opposite end of the shaft) to make this blocking feature removable to facilitate assembly of the device. According to Examiner’s best understanding, such a configuration would also meet the claimed limitation, as the nut would effectively block the threads when attached.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,919,073 in view of Nasu et al. Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,919,073 disclose all the features of claims 1-7 of the instant application except that “the first end is a dispensing end of the body” and “the drive screw extends through the second end of the body of the metering dispenser” as claimed in claim 1; and “the drive screw extends through the plunger” as claimed in claim 4.
Nasu et al. teach these features, as described above in the rejections of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the device of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,919,073 with the structures taught by Nasu et al., since claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,919,073 is silent as to a dispensing end of the body and the extension of the drive screw through the second end of the body and the plunger, and Nasu et al. teach a suitable example of a dispensing end and drive screw in a similar device.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,507 in view of Nasu et al. Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,507 disclose all the features of claims 1-7 of the instant application except that “the first end is a dispensing end of the body” and “the drive screw extends through the second end of the body of the metering dispenser” as claimed in claim 1.
Nasu et al. teach these features, as described above in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the device of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,507 with the structures taught by Nasu et al., since claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,507 is silent as to a dispensing end of the body and the extension of the drive screw through the second end of the body, and Nasu et al. teach a suitable example of a dispensing end and drive screw in a similar device.
Claims 8-13 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,507 in view of Springhorn et al. Claims 1, 8-13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,507 disclose all the features of claims 8-13 and 15 of the instant application except that “at least four ribs extend outwards from the sidewall of the plunger, and wherein each rib of the at least four ribs is an outermost extent of the plunger between the first end and the second end” as claimed in claim 8.
Springhorn et al. teach these features, as described above in the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the device of claim 1 or claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,507 with the structures taught by Springhorn et al., for the same reasons described above with respect to modifying the plunger of Nasu et al. in accordance with claim 8 (i.e., improved sealing of the plunger).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Nasu et al. fails to teach or suggest the limitation “the drive screw extends through the second end of the body of the metering dispenser" since the drive screw of Nasu et al. is “completely contained within the body” (Remarks, Page 9). As cited in the rejection of claim 1 above and in the Office Action dated 10/2/2025, the body of the metering dispenser is represented in Nasu et al. by element 1. Examiner’s best understanding of the argument is that Applicant either considers element 3 to be part of the body, or considers the drive screw and second end of the body of Nasu et al. to be coplanar and thus the drive screw does not extend “through” the second end of the body as claimed. Nasu et al. makes clear that element 3 is separate from the body and rotates with respect to the body (see Paragraph 0024). The second end of the body is defined in the claim by the following limitations: “a second end opposite from the first end”, and “a chamber between the first end and the second end” (lines 4-6). The surface of “bottom wall 11” having “opening section 19” as indicated in Fig. 2 of Nasu et al. appears to meet these limitations, since it defines the bottom of the chamber. It is clear from Fig. 1 that the drive screw extends past the chamber and through opening 19 to connect to element 3. Thus Nasu et al. is considered to teach the limitation “the drive screw extends through the second end of the body of the metering dispenser" as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 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. As noted above in the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner maintains that elements 55 of Nasu et al. are “ribs”, as each provides contact areas between the end surfaces of the plunger. Examiner further notes the similarity of these features to “upper lip 416A” (as shown in Figs. 16-18) of the instant invention. In any case, the current rejection relies on the teaching of Springhorn et al., which discloses at least four ribs extending outwards from the sidewall of the plunger, as described above.
Regarding the information disclosure statement dated 6/25/2024, the items for which copies were not provided (NPL items 21-25) have been accessed via the application file for Application No. 17/171,635, and have thus been considered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular: Baines et al. (US 8,690,467; previously cited) provides an alternative teaching wherein the drive screw extends through the second end of the body; and Bublewitz et al. (US 2013/0265846; previously cited) and Brennan (US 2005/0029306) provide alternative teachings of a plunger with at least four ribs extending outwards from the sidewall.
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 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 6, 2026