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 1-4, 7-8, 11, 14, and 15 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 08/26/24 has been acknowledged and considered by the Office.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 02/23/26 is acknowledged. Claims 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an housing” should be “a[[n]] housing”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-2, 7, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5926953 to Behar in view of US 5156299 to Jacobs et al.
As per claims 1-2, 11, and 15, and as the examiner can understand the claims, Behar discloses a packaging system for storing a fluid substance comprising:
a pump dispenser, wherein the pump dispenser comprises a liquid pump assembly (4; Col. 1, Ln. 13-18), a flexible pouch (3) and a connecting shell (2);
wherein the flexible pouch contains a fluid substance to be dispensed (Col. 2, Ln. 16-17), wherein the flexible pouch has a spout (Fig. 1b);
wherein the spout is a sleeve having inner and outer surfaces (Fig. 1b); wherein the connecting shell has a cavity therein (Fig. 1b), wherein the connecting shell has an upper portion (2c) and a lower portion (2b); wherein the pump assembly includes an actuator (6a) having a cavity therein (Fig. 1a); and
a closure (7) connected to the actuator (Fig. 1a); wherein the pump assembly has an housing (5) having an outer surface and a lower end (Fig. 1a);
wherein the housing of the pump assembly is secured at the upper portion of the connecting shell (2g; Fig. 1b-1c), wherein the cavity of the connecting shell and the outer surface of the housing of the pump assembly form an air chamber (1b);
wherein the housing of the pump assembly includes an air ventilating hole (5e); wherein the housing of the pump assembly has a port at the lower end of the housing (5b);
wherein the lower portion of the connecting shell is engaged with a surface of the spout of the flexible pouch (Fig. 1b-1c), and characterized in that the pump assembly is removably engaged with the flexible pouch in an airtight sealing manner (Col. 4, Ln. 17-21; Fig. 1b-1c);
such that when the actuator is pushed down and released by a user, air is balanced in the air chamber by the air ventilating hole and air is not balanced in the flexible pouch, wherein the flexible pouch is airtight and/or gradually vacuumed over dispensing usage (Col. 3, Ln. 8-27).
Behar further discloses the connecting shell sealed to an inner surface of the spout Behar does not disclose the connecting shell being engaged with an outer surface of the spout. Jacobs teaches a packaging system comprising a pump assembly (2, 8, 14; Col. 1, Ln. 6; Col. 2, ln. 23-30) and a flexible pouch (6-7) and a connecting shell (1a, 13) wherein the pouch has a spout (7) and a lower portion of the connecting shell (13) is removably engaged (Fig. 2) with an outer surface of the spout (Fig. 3) and a port of the pump assembly is removably engaged with an inner surface of the spout in an airtight sealing manner (Col. 2, Ln. 53-56). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify Behar according to the aforementioned teachings from Jacobs, i.e. the connecting shell engaged with an outer surface of the spout and the pump port creating a seal with an inner surface of the spout, instead of the connecting shelled sealed to an inner surface of the spout, since doing so would be an obvious substitution of one known structure of establishing a sealed fluid communication between a shell-mounted pump and a flexible pouch for another known structure of establishing a sealed fluid communication between a shell-mounted pump and a flexible pouch, with the expected results that the substituted structure would function to establishing a sealed fluid communication between a shell-mounted pump and a flexible pouch.
As per claim 7, Behar further discloses the packaging system further comprises an outer case (1) for storing the pump dispenser and the flexible pouch.
As per claim 14, and as the examiner can understand the claim, the Behar-Jacobs combination discloses the claimed invention except for fluid being used for cleaning by dispensing on a surface. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). Further, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. See MPEP §2115. In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Behar-Jacobs combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being used as claimed – i.e. dispensing the fluid on a surface for cleaning.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5926953 to Behar in view of US 5156299 to Jacobs et al in view of Official Notice.
As per claims 3-4, the Behar-Jacobs combination discloses the claimed invention except for a “sealing piece” between the port of the pump assembly and the spout of the flexible pouch. However, the Office makes Official Notice that gaskets and o-rings are old and well known for being placed between two surfaces to establish a seal for reasons including to prevent damage to each of those surfaces under the presence of a force at those surfaces. It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Behar-Jacobs combination to provide such o-ring between any mating surfaces, including between an outside surface of the pump port and the inside surface of the spout, for reasons including the prevent damage to either the outside surface of the pump port or the inside surface of the spout.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5926953 to Behar in view of US 5156299 to Jacobs et al in view of US 5474212 to Yoko et al.
As per claim 8, and as the examiner can understand the claim, the Behar-Jacobs combination discloses the claimed invention except for the outer case is a front door. Yoko teaches a packaging system comprising a pump assembly (23) and flexible pouch (22) stored inside an outer case (25) comprising a front door (24). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Behar-Jacobs combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Yoko for reasons in order to provide access to the flexible pouch.
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
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 March 7, 2026