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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/13/24 has been acknowledged and considered by the Office.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 per claim 2, the limitation “the other” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
As per claims 4 and 11, the limitation “the contour” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
As per claim 16, the limitation “the magnet” has unclear antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear to which of the previously claimed “one or more magnets”, the claimed “the magnet” pertains.
Claims 17-19 depend from claim 16 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250270027 to Caruso et al in view of US 10520282 to Nangunoori.
As per claims 1 and 9, Caruso discloses a pepper spray securing system (Fig. 1-9b) comprising: a pepper spray housing (100) configured to accept and dissipate pepper spray formula from a pepper spray canister (12).
Caruso does not disclose: an accessory and the pepper spray housing comprising a surface wherein the housing and the accessory can be magnetically engaged at the surface.
Nangunoori teaches a pepper spray securing system comprising: an accessory (Col. 4, ln. 4-8, i.e. “handbag”) and, a pepper spray housing (11) configured to accept and dissipate pepper spray from a canister (21), wherein the housing comprises a surface (16) configured to magnetically engage the accessory (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Caruso according to the aforementioned teachings from Nangunoori for reasons including to allow the device to be secured to the internal magnet of such handbags, thereby allowing a user to easily locate and retrieve the device in an emergency situation (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8).
Claims 2, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250270027 to Caruso et al in view of US 10520282 to Nangunoori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
As per claims 2, 16, and 17, Nangunoori further discloses the accessory comprises a magnet (i.e. “a material” according to claim 17) and the pepper spray housing comprises a metallic plate so as to allow the device to be secured (16; Col. 4, Ln. 4-8). The Caruso-Nangunoor combination does not explicitly disclose the metallic plate being composed of a ferromagnetic material. However, the Office makes Official Notice that metallic plates of ferromagnetic material are commonly used for forming magnets. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the metallic plate of the Caruso-Nangunoor combination from a ferromagnetic material in and create a magnet from that ferromagnetic material for securing the pepper spray housing to the handbag—i.e. the magnet provided along the surface, as required by claim 16.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250270027 to Caruso et al in view of US 10520282 to Nangunoori as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of KR 200455797 to Lee, and further in view of Official Notice. All citations to KR 200455797 are made to the attached machine translation into english of KR 200455797: KR200455797_MT.
As per claims 8 and 15, Caruso further discloses the pepper spray housing comprising a top cover (200), a bottom cover (400, 500), a nozzle (108), and a trigger (600);
wherein the top cover encapsulates the trigger (Fig. 12a-12b), and the top cover is secured to the pepper spray housing with a first hinge (206); and
compressing the trigger results releasing the pepper spray formula through the nozzle ([0074]).
The Caruso-Nangunoori combination does not disclose the bottom cover being secured to the pepper spray housing with a second hinge and encapsulating the pepper spray canister. Lee teaches a gas spray device housing (10) receiving a gas cylinder therein (pg. 1, ¶ 4, ln. 4-5) and a bottom cover (40) secured to the housing with a second hinge (Fig. 4; pg. 2, 28-34; pg. 3, ¶ 1, ln. 6-8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Caruso-Nangunoori combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Lee for reasons including to retain the bottom cover to the housing in an open condition of the bottom cover.
Caruso further discloses the canister being an aerosol canister ([0002]), however the Caruso-Nangunoori-Lee combination does not explicitly disclose that compressing the trigger results in opening a valve in the canister to release the formula. However, the Office makes Official Notice that aerosol canisters commonly have a trigger-operated valve controlling the exit of contained contents. It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the canister of Caruso with a trigger operated valve for controlling the release of the formula only when the trigger is compressed.
Claims 3-7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250270027 to Caruso et al in view of US 10520282 to Nangunoori as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US 11029136 to Richey.
As per claims 3 and 10, the Caruso-Nangunoori combination discloses the claimed invention except for the attachment feature and a clip feature.
Richey teaches a securing system comprising a device housing (150) having a surface (130) configured to magnetically engage an attachment feature (130) of an accessory (110; Fig. 1 and 15), and the accessory comprising a clip feature (110; Col. 5, Ln. 20-31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the securing system of the Caruso-Nangunoori combination with an accessory according to the aforementioned teachings from Richey for reasons including to allow a user to selectively attach the pepper spray housing to a clip held stationary on a utility belt.
As per claims 4 and 11, and as the examiner can understand the claims, Richey further discloses the attachment feature is configured to match a contour on the surface of the pepper spray housing (Fig. 15).
As per claims 5 and 12, Richey further discloses the surface and the attachment feature are flat (Fig. 14-15).
As per claims 6 and 13, Richey further discloses the surface and the attachment feature are curved (Fig. 1-7 and 14-15; Col. 5, Ln. 20-31).
As per claims 7 and 14, Richey further discloses at least 75% of the attachment feature is in physical contact with the surface when the pepper spray housing and accessory are magnetically engaged (Fig. 1-7 and 14-15; Col. 5, Ln. 20-31).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250270027 to Caruso et al in view of US 10520282 to Nangunoori in view of Official Notice as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 11029136 to Richey.
As per claim 18, the Caruso-Nangunoori-Official Notice combination discloses the claimed invention except for the attachment feature and a clip feature.
Richey teaches a securing system comprising a device housing (150) having a surface (130) configured to magnetically engage an attachment feature (130) of an accessory (110; Fig. 1 and 15), and the accessory comprising a clip feature (110; Col. 5, Ln. 20-31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the securing system of the Caruso-Nangunoori-Official Notice combination with an accessory according to the aforementioned teachings from Richey for reasons including to allow a user to selectively attach the pepper spray housing to a clip held stationary on a utility belt.
As per claim 19, and as the examiner can understand the claims, Richey further discloses the attachment feature is configured to match a contour on the surface of the pepper spray housing (Fig. 15).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250270027 to Caruso et al in view of US 10520282 to Nangunoori in view of Official Notice as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of KR 200455797 to Lee, and further in view of Official Notice. All citations to KR 200455797 are made to the attached machine translation into english of KR 200455797: KR200455797_MT.
As per claim 20, Caruso further discloses the pepper spray housing comprising a top cover (200), a bottom cover (400, 500), a nozzle (108), and a trigger (600);
wherein the top cover encapsulates the trigger (Fig. 12a-12b), and the top cover is secured to the pepper spray housing with a first hinge (206); and
compressing the trigger results releasing the pepper spray formula through the nozzle ([0074]).
The Caruso-Nangunoori combination does not disclose the bottom cover being secured to the pepper spray housing with a second hinge and encapsulating the pepper spray canister. Lee teaches a gas spray device housing (10) receiving a gas cylinder therein (pg. 1, ¶ 4, ln. 4-5) and a bottom cover (40) secured to the housing with a second hinge (Fig. 4; pg. 2, 28-34; pg. 3, ¶ 1, ln. 6-8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Caruso-Nangunoori combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Lee for reasons including to retain the bottom cover to the housing in an open condition of the bottom cover.
Caruso further discloses the canister being an aerosol canister ([0002]), however the Caruso-Nangunoori-Lee combination does not explicitly disclose that compressing the trigger results in opening a valve in the canister to release the formula. However, the Office makes Official Notice that aerosol canisters commonly have a trigger-operated valve controlling the exit of contained contents. It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the canister of Caruso with a trigger operated valve for controlling the release of the formula only when the trigger is compressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754