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The previous drawing objection is withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 11.
The previous 35 USC § 112 rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument with regard to the previous 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 1 that Litten’s first and second magnetic cooperating coupling members are used to removably couple an actuator to a parent reservoir, instead of removably couple a collar to an intermediate element, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, the modification does not eliminate Moretti’s removable fastening means but merely substitutes Moretti’s fastening means (¶ [0041]: “for example, a removable connection of the bayonet-like type”) with another known fastening means (Litten’s first and second magnetic cooperating coupling members). The Applicant’s specification discloses (page 8, lines 1-3) that various removable coupling/fastening means may provide the same result: “the coupling means between the neck 62 of the inner container and the cup 61 can, alternatively, be threaded 72 or can feature a snap-fastening (not shown)”.
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.
The “coupling means” in claim 6 is interpreted as “the coupling means between the neck 62 of the inner container and the cup 61 can, alternatively, be threaded 72 or can feature a snap-fastening (not shown)” as presented on page 8, lines 1-3 of the specification.
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(s) 1-5 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti (U.S. Pub 2023/008418) in view of Litten, et al. (“Litten”) (U.S Pat. 8,636,039).
Regarding claim 1, Moretti discloses a dispensing device of a fluid substance, comprising an outer container (1) that is cup shaped and made of glass, metal, ceramic or wood (¶ [0044]), the outer container presenting a bottom (seen in Fig. 1) and a side wall (seen in Fig. 1), the side wall presenting a free end (top of the outer container) defining an opening of the outer container, the free end of the container being stably attached to a collar (9), the device further comprising a plastic intermediate member (4, 104) supporting at least one inner container (5, 116) and, directly or indirectly, a hand pump (6) coupled to the inner container, for dispensing a substance contained therein, between the collar (9) and the intermediate element (4) being provided removable fastening means (Figs. 2A, 2B: 9K) (Figs. 4A, 4B: 8D), so that, after the fluid substance has been completely dispensed, a user can disengage the collar from the intermediate element together with the inner container and pump, and can replace them with a new intermediate element with pump and inner container filled with fluid substance to be dispensed to be re-coupled to the collar and therefore to the outer container (¶ [0041])
Moretti discloses that the removable fastening means may be “for example, a removable connection of the bayonet-like type” (¶ [0041]) but does not mention a magnetic coupling.
Litten discloses a refillable pump dispenser which uses first and second cooperating magnetic coupling members to removably couple an actuator from a parent reservoir.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Moretti’s removable fastening means with Litten’s removable fastening means, which uses first and second magnetic cooperating coupling members to removably couple an actuator from a parent reservoir, since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known removable fastening means for another known removable fastening means with the expected results that the substituted removable fastening means would allow a user to disengage and re-couple the collar from the intermediate element together with the inner container and pump (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses at least one magnetic element (40) is coupled to the collar and at least one ferromagnetic element (70) is coupled to the intermediate element. (Litten: col. 4, line 61 – col. 5, line 21)
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses wherein the opening and consequently a passage of the collar are configured to allow an inner container filled with fluid substance to be dispensed to be inserted into the outer container. (seen in Fig. 7 of Moretti)
Regarding claim 4, Moretti discloses wherein the intermediate element defines a neck (8) having a smaller diameter than the diameter of the opening defined by the free end of said side wall, the neck being provided with a free end (8E) on which rests a first flange (5D) of the inner container (5) that is a deformable bag housed in the outer container (1), to the first flange (5D) resting on a second flange (6C) of the pump (6), the device further comprising a nut (7, 107) locked to the neck, the first flange and the second flange being sandwiched tightly between the free end and the nut.
Regarding claim 5, Moretti discloses that the nut is locked to the neck by means of a snap coupling. (¶ [0032])
Regarding claim 9, Moretti discloses wherein the collar (9) has, in cross-section, a groove (seen in Fig. 3B) in which the free edge of said side wall fits.
Regarding claim 10, Moretti discloses wherein an outer skirt (9D) of the collar (9) is crimped to an outer surface of said side wall, at an annular groove of said side wall, or wherein the side wall is inserted with interference irremovably into said groove. (seen in Fig. 3B, ¶ [0039])
Regarding claim 11, Moretti discloses wherein said side wall of the outer container is cylindrical or polygonal (¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 12, Moretti discloses wherein the side wall is made in a single piece with the bottom of the outer container (1). (seen in Fig. 1)
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti and Litten as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, et al. (“Lee”) (U.S. Pub. 2023/0022130).
Regarding claim 6, Moretti discloses that the intermediate element (4, 104) defines a cup (cup shape seen in Fig. 9A), on an inner wall thereof, but does not mention coupling means for engaging with a neck of the inner container.
Lee discloses a similar apparatus with an intermediate element (130) which defines a cup (cup shape seen in Fig. 3), coupling means (¶ [0038]: “neck 113 is sealed by means of coupling”) for engaging with a neck (113) of an inner container (110), the neck being housed in a cup. (seen in Fig. 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Lee by using coupling means to avoid leaking by “sealing”. (¶ [0038])
Regarding claim 7, Moretti discloses that wherein the top of the cup is defined by a flange wall (8E), to the flange wall resting a second flange (part of 6, seen in Fig. 6A) of the pump, to the second flange of the pump, on the opposite side from the flange wall resting the free end (5D) of a deformable bag (105) housed in the inner container (116).
Regarding claim 8, the combination, as modified by Lee, discloses that the coupling means comprise a snap-coupling (¶ [0045]: “a coupling protrusion and a coupling groove and/or stepped projection may be formed on the inner peripheral surface of the first coupling member 132 and/or the outer peripheral surface of the neck 113, but they are just exemplary. Therefore, various structures may be provided to perform such coupling.”)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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.
/MJM/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights