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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 have been amended. Claims 12-14 are newly added. Therefore, claims 1-14 are currently pending and considered herein.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/20/2026, has been entered. All previously set forth claim objections and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been overcome.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues “Garcia does not even mention that there is any contact between the shoulder 143 and the bottle neck…[i]t is only visible in fig. 1” (Remarks, p. 6 para. 4), regarding claim 1, ll. 11-14. The examiner disagrees as “drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed.” See MPEP 2125(I) discussing In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). As shown in fig. 1 of Garcia, shoulder 143 acts upon the upper end of neck 2, which is angled such that a force is applied onto the interface between shoulder 143, which consequently pressed against hoop 15, resulting in the radial compression required by claim 1 (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, the examiner maintains the rejection previously set forth rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Second, applicant argues that “[t]he rotation of the hoop 15 around the shoulder 143 means that the hoop 15 does not and cannot press the shoulder against the bottle neck” (Remarks, p. 6 para. 6). The examiner disagrees, as hoop 15 is designed with respective stops 152, such that when a specific torque is exceeded during the fastening of ring 14 via hoop 15, the stop either breaks or deflect to prevent overtightening. As a result, the shoulder 143 defines a seal between neck 2 and ring 15 to prevent broken tab pieces from falling out of the device (Garcia: col. 4 ll. 24-31 and fig. 1), said seal is maintained by compressive forces (refer to the argument above). As such, the examiner maintains the previously set force rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Third, applicant argues that “it would not be possible or logical to have two simultaneous sealings” (Remarks: p. 7 para. 2). The examiner disagrees for the reasons described for the positions above (specifically directed to Garcia: col. 4 ll. 24-31). As such, the examiner maintains the previously set force rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Fourth, applicant argues “the ground for rejection cite to column 2, lines 18-40 of Garcia; however, nothing in this part of the disclosure teaches leaktightness when the annular plate is out of contact with the upper annular edge” (Remarks, p. 7 para. 7). The examiner disagrees, as col. 2 ll. 18-40 is directed to the permanent sealing nature of the hoop 15 (referred to as the moving component) and the fastener 14 (referred to as the fastening component). For further delineation of the prior art reference, Garcia discloses that the annular plate is out of contact with the upper annular edge by intervention of seal 16 (refer to col. 3 ll. 18-55 and the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
710
943
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the arguments above, the examiner maintains all prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 103.
In order to improve the clarity of the record, further delineation of the prior art references is included below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the upper annular edge" in l. 2. The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite “the annular upper edge” to establish consistent terminology to claim 1.
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 14 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the lower region external peripheral wall" in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite “the lower region of the external peripheral wall” to establish proper antecedent basis to claim 13.
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 1-5, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia et al. (US 6367641 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia discloses a fluid product dispenser comprising (at least fig. 1): a fluid product container provided with an externally threaded neck (threads 21 disposed on external surface of neck 2, fig. 1) and internally defining an opening communicating with the inside of the container (space in which pump body 11 is insertable, fig. 1), the neck comprising an annular upper edge and an external peripheral wall (refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image3.png
450
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
forming at least one helical thread (threads 21), and a dispensing head that is mounted on the neck of the container (ref. no. 1, fig. 1), the head comprising a dispensing member (pump body 11) and a fastening member (ring fastener 14) that engages both the threaded neck of the container and the dispensing member (fig. 1 and col. 3 ll. 18-40), the fastening member comprising a fastening ring (wherein ring fastener 14 is ring shaped) defining a skirt (refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image4.png
484
573
media_image4.png
Greyscale
forming an internal threading (threads 141) which engages with the thread of the neck (col. 3 ll. 29-33), the skirt extending downwards from the external periphery of an annular plate (horizontal flange 144), the skirt being provided with a sealing element (terminal shoulder 143), wherein the sealing element is located axially below the internal threading and comes into radial contact with a lower region of the external peripheral wall which is located below of the thread of the container (refer to the annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image5.png
484
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the sealing element being radially compressed between the skirt and the external peripheral wall (col. 4 ll. 24-32, wherein the terminal shoulder 143 is tightly pressed via its connection to ring 14 and neck 2).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Garcia further discloses wherein the sealing element is presented in the form of a cylindrical section (as an integral part of ring 14, terminal shoulder 143 inherits the shape of ring 14).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Garcia further discloses wherein the sealing element has a height which is greater than its wall thickness (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
484
588
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Although, we would not rely upon the measured dimensions of the drawing, Garcia
discloses visually the general height and width of the sealing element, to infer the ratio between the height and the thickness. See MPEP 2125 (discussing In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)), where drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Garcia further discloses wherein the sealing element is integral with the skirt by adherence or mechanical holding (is integrally formed with the skirt, refer to fig. 1, and is thus adhered).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Garcia further discloses wherein the skirt forms a crown (hoop 15) which extends downwards below the internal threading (refer to ref. no. 153 in fig. 1), the crown forming the lower edge of the skirt (refer to ref. no. 153 in fig. 1), the crown being cylindrical and receives the sealing element on its internal wall (location of terminal shoulder 143 in reference to ref. no. 153 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Garcia further discloses wherein the sealing element undergoes no axial compression between the skirt and the external peripheral wall (referring to fig. 1, the sealing element does not interfere with a body in the axial direction which would cause an axial force).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Garcia further discloses wherein the annular plate is out of contact with the upper annular edge, when the dispenser is leaktight. When the dispenser is leaktight, such that the substance within the container cannot flow outside of the dispenser in a state where the dispenser is not actuated, the annular plate 144 is not directly contacting the upper annular edge, but rather contacts seal 16. In this condition, seal 16 aids in the leaktight nature of the dispenser (col. 2 ll. 18-40 and col. 3 ll. 18-55).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Garcia discloses wherein the dispensing member is a pump (pump body 11).
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (US 6367641 B1), as applied in claim 1, in view of Wolter et al. (US 5692650 A).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, Garcia discloses the sealing element and the crown but remains silent to the axial height of the sealing element corresponds substantially to that of the crown. Wolter teaches the axial height of the sealing element corresponds substantially to that of the crown (securing member 52 corresponding with countermember 53). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sealing element and crown of Garcia. In doing it, it advantageously allows for a press fit and secure engagement between the sealing member and the crown.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, Garcia discloses the sealing element and the crown however, remains silent to wherein the wall thickness of the sealing element corresponds to that of the crown. Wolter teaches wherein the wall thickness of the sealing element corresponds to that of the crown (securing member 52 corresponding with countermember 53). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sealing element and crown of Garcia. In doing it, it advantageously allows for a press fit and secure engagement between the sealing member and the crown.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (US 6367641 B1), as applied in claim 1, in view of Faneca Llesera (US 8939327 B2).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Garcia discloses wherein the fastening member further comprising a trim band (hoop 15) which surrounds the skirt however, remains silent to the container comprises a shoulder which extends around the neck, and the trim band comes into contact with the shoulder of the container with its lower edge, when the skirt is screwed on the neck. Faneca Llesera teaches the container (container 120) comprises a shoulder which extends around the neck, the fastening member (container connector fitment system 210 and collar 250) further comprising a trim band (collar 250) which surrounds the skirt (fitment system 210) and comes into contact with the shoulder of the container with its lower edge, when the skirt is screwed on the neck (refer to fig. 13). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a trim band which surrounds the skirt and comes into contact with the shoulder of the container. In doing so, the design of Faneca Llesera better secures the dispensing head and dispensing member to the neck of the bottle (col. 6 ll. 48-58).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, the already modified device further teaches wherein the trim band is fixedly mounted around the skirt (Faneca Llesera: col. 6 ll. 48-58), its lower edge coming into pressed contact against the shoulder when the skirt is bottom-screwed on the neck (refer to Faneca Llesera: fig. 13), with the sealing element radially compressed between the skirt and the external peripheral wall of the neck (Garcia: fig. 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (US 6367641 B1), as applied in claim 1, in view of Malone (US 4231489 A).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Garcia discloses the sealing element and the skirt but remains silent to wherein the sealing element is a part distinct from the skirt and disposed between the skirt and the lower region of the external peripheral wall. Malone teaches wherein the sealing element (seal 30) is a part distinct from the skirt and disposed between the skirt and the lower region of the external peripheral wall (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image7.png
524
571
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal to be a separate and distinct part. In doing so, the modified seal advantageously allows for a gas tight seal (Malone: col. 3 ll. 8-27).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (US 6367641 B1) and Malone (US 4231489 A), as applied in claim 13, further in view of Rasmussen (US 10683149 B2).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, the already modified device teaches the sealing element, the skirt, and lower region of external peripheral wall however, remains silent wherein the sealing element has a different composition from that of the skirt and the lower region external peripheral wall. Rasmussen teaches wherein the sealing element has a different composition from that of the skirt and the lower region external peripheral wall (refer to col. 9 ll. 37-47 wherein the sealing ring 40, which is comparable to the seal of the already modified device, is made of rubber). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal to be made of rubber. In doing so, the seal can be flexible and elastic, allowing for a better seal and fit (Rasmussen: col. 9 ll. 37-47).
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 CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 I