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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites “and to elastically return an undeformed state” however for grammatical correctness this should recite --and to elastically return to an undeformed state--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10, 16-20 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGhie et al. (US Pat No 3,795,366).
Re claim 1, McGhie shows an apparatus (Figs. 10-18) comprising:
a dial (112/113) having a planar surface (see annotated figure);
a plurality of nozzles (116/122) recessed within the surface of the dial, each of the nozzles having a fluid channel (118/124) extending in a direction that is aligned in parallel with the fluid channels of the other nozzles, the dial being configured to rotate (abstract) for selectively aligning each of the respective nozzles (116/122) with a fluid supply channel (Fig. 1, 26); and
a gear (99), coupled to the dial (112/113) and configured to rotate (abstract) with the dial, the gear (99) having a plurality of cogs (104/105) and recessed regions between adjacent ones of the cogs (104/105) and being configured to:
prevent passage (col. 7, lines 13-19) of fluid from the fluid supply channel (26) when the dial (112/113) is positioned with the nozzles (116/122) out of alignment with the channel (26); and
facilitate dispensing of fluid from the fluid supply channel (26) through one of the nozzles (116/122) when the dial (112/113) is positioned such that the fluid channel (118/124) of the one of the nozzles (116/122) is aligned with the fluid supply channel (inside 12; col. 6, lines 50-67 through col. 7, lines 1-12).
Re claim 2, McGhie shows a mechanical stop (93) configured and arranged with the gear (99) to facilitate:
engaging of one of the cogs (104/105) with the mechanical stop (93) to prevent the passage of the fluid from the fluid supply channel (26) when the dial (112/113) is positioned with the nozzles (116/122) out of alignment with the channel (26; col. 7, lines 13-19); and
engaging of one of the recessed regions with the mechanical stop (93) to facilitate the dispensing of the fluid from the fluid supply channel (26) through the one of the nozzles (116/122) when the dial (112/113) is positioned such that the fluid channel (118/124) of the one of the nozzles is aligned with the fluid supply channel (26).
Re claim 3, McGhie shows an actuator (95) coupled to the dial (112/113) to facilitate the dispensing of the fluid from the fluid supply channel (26) through the one of the nozzles (116/122) via movement of the actuator (95) and dial (112/113) for dispensing the fluid, when the one of the recessed regions is engaged with the mechanical stop (93).
Re claim 4, McGhie shows the actuator (95) is configured to engage with a valve (Fig. 1, 28) operable to dispense the fluid into the channel in response to movement of the actuator and dial relative to the valve.
Re claim 5, McGhie shows the dial (112/113) and the fluid channel (118/124) are configured to move vertically in response to pressure applied thereto, and to operate the valve (28) to dispense the fluid in response to vertical movement.
Re claim 6, McGhie shows the dial (112/113) and fluid channel (118/124) are configured to move vertically in response to pressure applied thereto, for dispensing fluid through the fluid channel and one of the nozzles (116/122) aligned to the fluid channel.
Re claim 7, McGhie shows the fluid supply channel (26) is configured to move with the dial (112/113) in response to force applied thereto (col. 6, lines 56-60).
Re claim 8, McGhie shows the fluid supply channel (26) includes a portion extending vertically and another portion extending horizontally aligned to the nozzles (116/122), and is configured to move vertically with the dial (112/113) in response to force applied thereto (col. 6, lines 56-60).
Re claim 9, McGhie shows the fluid supply channel (26) and an actuator (95) configured and arranged to actuate a valve (28) to release propelled liquid through the fluid supply channel and into the fluid channel (118/124) of one of the nozzles (116/122) aligned to the fluid supply channel, wherein the fluid supply channel (26) includes a portion extending vertically and another portion extending horizontally aligned to the nozzles, and is configured to move vertically with the dial (112/113) in response to force applied thereto via the actuator for actuating the valve and releasing the propelled liquid (col. 6, lines 56-60).
Re claim 10, McGhie shows the fluid supply channel (26) is configured to engage and disengage with a valve stem (28) of a pressurized vessel (11) for dispensing the propelled liquid into the fluid supply channel, including providing a seal to the pressurized vessel while a force is applied to the actuator (95) and releasing the seal when less or no force is applied to the actuator (95).
Re claim 16, McGhie shows a flow restrictor configured to reduce the pressure of fluid provided through one or more of the plurality of nozzles (col. 2, lines 40-42 & col. 6, lines 23-28).
Re claim 17, McGhie shows the flow restrictor is configured to restrict flow for a particular one of the nozzles (116).
Re claim 18, McGhie shows the flow restrictor is configured to restrict flow for all of the nozzles (116/122).
Re claim 19, McGhie shows a first flow restrictor (col. 6, lines 23-28) configured to restrict fluid flow to a particular one of the nozzles (116), and a second flow restrictor (col. 2, lines 40-42) configured to restrict fluid flow to all of the nozzles (116/122).
Re claim 20, McGhie shows a mechanical feedback component (133/133’/134) configured to provide tactile feedback to a user in response to movement of the dial (112/113) relative to positions at which one of the nozzles is aligned to the fluid supply channel (26).
Re claim 23, McGhie shows the dial (112/113), nozzles (116/122) and gear (99) are coupled to a spray button housing (81) configured to couple to an aerosol can (11) for dispensing fluid upon depression of the spray button housing, dial and gear, in a direction toward the aerosol can.
Re claim 24, McGhie shows the dial, nozzles and gear are molded (col. 6, lines 44-48) into a spray cap (Fig. 12) configured to couple to an aerosol can (11).
Re claim 25, McGhie shows an apparatus (Figs. 10-18) comprising:
a dial (112/113) having a plurality of nozzles (102/103) recessed within a surface thereof, each nozzle having a fluid channel (118/124) extending in a horizontal direction that is aligned in parallel with the fluid channels of the other nozzles, the dial being configured to rotate (abstract) and to move in a vertical direction (col. 7, lines 9-11);
a mechanical stop (93) that is fixed in place relative to the dial and vertical movement thereof; and
a gear (99), coupled to the dial and configured to rotate with the dial, the gear having a plurality of cogs (104/105) and recessed regions between adjacent ones of the cogs and being configured to:
prevent movement the dial in a vertical direction when the dial is positioned with one of the cogs aligned with the mechanical stop such that the mechanical stop engages with the one of the cogs and prevents vertical movement of the dial (col. 7, lines 13-19); and
facilitate vertical movement of the dial when one of the recessed regions is aligned with the mechanical stop (col. 6, lines 50-67 through col. 7, lines 1-12).
Re claim 26, McGhie shows the dial (112/113) and nozzles (102/103) are configured to dispense fluid from a fluid supply channel (26) through one of the nozzles when the dial is positioned such that the fluid channel (118/124) of the one of the nozzles is aligned with the fluid supply channel when one of the recessed regions is aligned to the mechanical stop (93).
Re claim 27, McGhie shows the mechanical stop (93) is configured to prohibit dispensing of the fluid from the fluid supply channel (26) when one of the cogs (104/105) is aligned with the mechanical stop (93), by preventing the dial from moving in the vertical direction (col. 7, lines 13-19).
Re claim 28, McGhie shows the fluid supply channel (26), wherein the fluid supply channel is configured to move vertically with the dial (112/113), and to engage with a fluid supply valve (28) and to dispense fluid from the fluid supply valve (28) into the fluid supply channel (26) in response to the dial (112/113) and fluid supply channel (26) moving vertically toward the fluid supply valve (28).
Claims 1 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US Pat No 7,080,795 B2).
Re claim 1, Chen shows an apparatus (Figs. 2-7B) comprising:
a dial (23) having a planar surface;
a plurality of nozzles (231) recessed within the surface of the dial (23), each of the nozzles (231) having a fluid channel extending in a direction that is aligned in parallel with the fluid channels of the other nozzles (231), the dial being configured to rotate for selectively aligning each of the respective nozzles with a fluid supply channel (221); and
a gear (82), coupled to the dial (23) and configured to rotate with the dial (23), the gear (82) having a plurality of cogs (col. 2, lines 39-40) and recessed regions between adjacent ones of the cogs and being configured to:
prevent passage of fluid from the fluid supply channel when the dial (23) is positioned with the nozzles (231) out of alignment with the channel; and
facilitate dispensing of fluid from the fluid supply channel through one of the nozzles (231) when the dial (23) is positioned such that the fluid channel of the one of the nozzles (231) is aligned with the fluid supply channel (221).
Re claim 20, Chen shows further including a mechanical feedback component (94/95) configured to provide tactile feedback to a user in response to movement of the dial (23) relative to positions at which one of the nozzles (231) is aligned to the fluid supply channel (221).
Re claim 21, Chen shows the mechanical feedback component (94/95) is configured to provide increased resistance to rotation of the dial (23) as the dial (23) is rotated away from a first position in which one of the nozzles (231) is aligned to the fluid supply channel (221), and to provide decreased resistance to the rotation of the dial (23) as the dial (23) is rotated to a second position in which another one of the nozzles (231) is aligned to the fluid supply channel (221).
Re claim 22, Chen shows the mechanical feedback component (94/95) includes an elongated elastic post (95) protruding into the rotational path of the dial (23), and is configured to deform as the dial (23) is rotated away from the first position and therein provide the increased resistance, and to elastically return an undeformed state as the dial (23) rotates into the second position and therein provide decreased resistance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGhie et al. (US Pat No 3,795,366) in view of Hayashi (JP H10113585 A).
Re claim 12, McGhie discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach an audible feedback component configured to provide audible feedback to a user in response to movement of the dial relative to positions at which the one of the nozzles is aligned to the fluid supply channel.
However, Hayashi shows a rotating nozzle head including an audible feedback component (4) configured to provide audible feedback to a user in response to movement of the dial (3; paragraphs 0063-0064) relative to positions at which the one of the nozzles (Figs. 3a-3f) is aligned to the fluid supply channel (22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzle of McGhie include an audible feedback component as taught by Hayashi to confirm an on/off state of the nozzle (Hayashi - paragraph 0007).
Re claim 13, McGhie as modified by Hayashi shows the audible feedback component (Hayashi - 4) includes an elastic protrusion (Hayashi - 61, 62, 63) configured to: deform away from a first position as the dial is rotated away from a position in which one of the nozzles is aligned with the fluid supply channel; and return to the first position as the dial is rotated into a position in which the fluid channel of another one of the nozzles is aligned with the fluid supply channel, including generating an audible sound in response to returning to the first position (Hayashi – paragraph 0053).
Re claim 14, McGhie as modified by Hayashi shows the elastic protrusion (Hayashi – 61, 62, 63) is configured to generate the audible sound by snapping back into the first position and therein making contact with a portion (Hayashi – 71, 72) of the apparatus in a manner that generates the audible sound (Hayashi – paragraph 0053).
Re claim 15, McGhie as modified by Hayashi shows the audible feedback component includes an elastic post (Hayashi – 61, 62, 63) and a protrusion (Hayashi – 71, 72), the elastic post being configured to: deform away from a first position as the dial is rotated (Hayashi – paragraphs 0063-0064) in a manner that engages the elastic post with the protrusion in a manner that deforms the elastic post; and upon rotating past the protrusion, elastically return to the first position and therein generate an audible sound (Hayashi – paragraph 0053).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pat No 7,080,795 B2) in view of Hayashi (JP H10113585 A).
Re claim 12, Chen discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach an audible feedback component configured to provide audible feedback to a user in response to movement of the dial relative to positions at which the one of the nozzles is aligned to the fluid supply channel.
However, Hayashi shows a rotating nozzle head including an audible feedback component (4) configured to provide audible feedback to a user in response to movement of the dial (3; paragraphs 0063-0064) relative to positions at which the one of the nozzles (Figs. 3a-3f) is aligned to the fluid supply channel (22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzle of Chen include an audible feedback component as taught by Hayashi to confirm an on/off state of the nozzle (Hayashi - paragraph 0007).
Re claim 13, Chen as modified by Hayashi shows the audible feedback component (Hayashi - 4) includes an elastic protrusion (Hayashi - 61, 62, 63) configured to: deform away from a first position as the dial is rotated away from a position in which one of the nozzles is aligned with the fluid supply channel; and return to the first position as the dial is rotated into a position in which the fluid channel of another one of the nozzles is aligned with the fluid supply channel, including generating an audible sound in response to returning to the first position (Hayashi – paragraph 0053).
Re claim 14, Chen as modified by Hayashi shows the elastic protrusion (Hayashi – 61, 62, 63) is configured to generate the audible sound by snapping back into the first position and therein making contact with a portion (Hayashi – 71, 72) of the apparatus in a manner that generates the audible sound (Hayashi – paragraph 0053).
Re claim 15, Chen as modified by Hayashi shows the audible feedback component includes an elastic post (Hayashi – 61, 62, 63) and a protrusion (Hayashi – 71, 72), the elastic post being configured to: deform away from a first position as the dial is rotated (Hayashi – paragraphs 0063-0064) in a manner that engages the elastic post with the protrusion in a manner that deforms the elastic post; and upon rotating past the protrusion, elastically return to the first position and therein generate an audible sound (Hayashi – paragraph 0053).
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 1-4, 6-8, 23 and 25-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 12, 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,975,912 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1, US Pat No 11,975,912 B2 discloses an apparatus (col. 11, line 5) comprising:
a dial having a planar surface (line 7);
a plurality of nozzles recessed within the surface of the dial (lines 7-8), each of the nozzles having a fluid channel extending in a direction that is aligned in parallel with the fluid channels of the other nozzles (lines 6 & 10-15), the dial being configured to rotate for selectively aligning each of the respective nozzles with a fluid supply channel (lines 10-15); and
a gear (line 18), coupled to the dial and configured to rotate with the dial (lines 18-19), the gear having a plurality of cogs and recessed regions between adjacent ones of the cogs (lines 19-20) and being configured to:
prevent passage of fluid from the fluid supply channel when the dial is positioned with the nozzles out of alignment with the channel (lines 22-26); and
facilitate dispensing of fluid from the fluid supply channel through one of the nozzles when the dial is positioned such that the fluid channel of the one of the nozzles is aligned with the fluid supply channel (lines 27-31).
Re claim 2, see claim 5.
Re claim 3, see col. 11, lines 16-17 and claim 5.
Re claim 4, see col. 11, line 17 and claim 2.
Re claim 6, see claim 12.
Re claim 7, see claim 3.
Re claim 8, see claim 12.
Re claim 23, see claims 2 and 3.
Re claim 25, see claim 14.
Re claim 26, see claim 15.
Re claim 27, see claim 15.
Claims 12-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,975,912 B2 in view of JP H10113585 A.
Re claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 11,975,912 B2 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach an audible feedback component configured to provide audible feedback to a user in response to movement of the dial relative to positions at which the one of the nozzles is aligned to the fluid supply channel.
However, Hayashi shows a rotating nozzle head including an audible feedback component (4) configured to provide audible feedback to a user in response to movement of the dial (3; paragraphs 0063-0064) relative to positions at which the one of the nozzles (Figs. 3a-3f) is aligned to the fluid supply channel (22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzle of U.S. Patent No. 11,975,912 B2 include an audible feedback component as taught by Hayashi to confirm an on/off state of the nozzle (Hayashi - paragraph 0007).
Re claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 11,975,912 B2 as modified by Hayashi shows the audible feedback component (Hayashi - 4) includes an elastic protrusion (Hayashi - 61, 62, 63) configured to: deform away from a first position as the dial is rotated away from a position in which one of the nozzles is aligned with the fluid supply channel; and return to the first position as the dial is rotated into a position in which the fluid channel of another one of the nozzles is aligned with the fluid supply channel, including generating an audible sound in response to returning to the first position (Hayashi – paragraph 0053).
Re claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 11,975,912 B2 as modified by Hayashi shows the elastic protrusion (Hayashi – 61, 62, 63) is configured to generate the audible sound by snapping back into the first position and therein making contact with a portion (Hayashi – 71, 72) of the apparatus in a manner that generates the audible sound (Hayashi – paragraph 0053).
Re claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 11,975,912 B2 as modified by Hayashi shows the audible feedback component includes an elastic post (Hayashi – 61, 62, 63) and a protrusion (Hayashi – 71, 72), the elastic post being configured to: deform away from a first position as the dial is rotated (Hayashi – paragraphs 0063-0064) in a manner that engages the elastic post with the protrusion in a manner that deforms the elastic post; and upon rotating past the protrusion, elastically return to the first position and therein generate an audible sound (Hayashi – paragraph 0053).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the dial is configured to lift the fluid supply channel vertically when rotating between positions at which the nozzles are not aligned with the fluid supply channel, therein disengaging the fluid supply channel from the valve stem.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 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 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights