DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 14-16 recite “energy accumulation means”, see page 8 of the applicant’s specification.
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 4 and 7 are 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 claim 4, the phrase "in particular" 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 7, 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).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit et al. (WO 2015104511) in view of Kreutzmann et al. (US 20210354152).
Claim 1, Petti discloses a tank (10) intended to contain a fluid product and a piston (20) sliding in said tank,
a sampling needle (30) being attached to said tank for drawing a fluid product to be dispensed in said tank,
a removable spray head (40) being assembled on said tank, around said sampling needle, to spray said fluid product to be dispensed outside of said tank, said spray head comprising a dispensing port (42) and an insert (45) arranged upstream of said dispensing port, characterized in that said spray head, when assembled on said tank, is axially movable between a transport position and a use position (FIG 1-6), said assembly comprising guide means for guiding said spray head when it is assembled in its transport position and/or when it is moved into its use position.
But it is silent on first locking means for holding said spray head in its transport position, and second locking means for holding said spray head in its use position.
Kreutzmann teaches first locking means (17’, 18, 19, 19’) for holding said spray head in its transport position, and second locking means (16, 17, 19, 19’) for holding said spray head in its use position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Petti with first and second locking means as taught by Kreutzmann in order to provide a child lock when in its storage state.
Claim 2, Petit discloses wherein said sampling needle (30) comprises a cannula part (35) provided with an outlet port (32) and comprising a first part of a larger diameter (30 that is below tip 32) and a second part of a smaller diameter (tip 32), forming the tip which comprises said outlet port, said insert comprising a receiving sleeve (45) receiving said tip when said spray head is assembled on said tank (10).
Claim 3, Petit discloses wherein, in said transport position, said tip formed by said second part of a smaller diameter is arranged inside said receiving sleeve (45) with a space between the external surface of said tip and the internal surface of said receiving sleeve (space provided above tip 32 and top of sleeve 45; FIG 1; further the combination of Petit and Kreutzmann would allow for greater space and no contact between 45 and 30 while still inside 45, as it would be in a raised position).
Claim 4, Petit discloses wherein, in said use position, said first part of a larger diameter is in close, in particular sealed contact, with said receiving sleeve (30, 45; FIG 1).
Claim 5, Petit discloses wherein, in said use position, said second part of a smaller diameter is in close contact with said receiving sleeve (30, 45; FIG 1).
Claim 6, the modified apparatus of Petit teaches wherein said spray head comprises at least one internal profile extending radially inwards and said tank comprises second and third external profiles extending radially outwards, axially offset over an external surface of said tank , said at least one internal profile engaging with said second external profiles to form said first locking means defining said transport position and with said third external profiles to form said second locking means defining said use position (Kreutzmann: 17’ engages with 19’ at 18; 17 engages with 19 at 16; FIG 1-2).
Claim 7, the modified apparatus of Petit teaches a plurality of internal profiles distributed over its periphery, and said second and third external profiles of said tank are respectively formed by a peripheral ridge (19, 19’).
Claim 8, Petit discloses first external profiles extending radially outwards, axially offset upwards with respect to said second external profiles, and engaging with said spray head to form said guide means (top of tank 10 engages with inner base of spray head 40; FIG 1)
Claim 9, Petit discloses wherein said sampling needle comprises a radially external wall engaging with said spray head to form said guide means (base of needle 30 engages with inner base of spray head 40; FIG 1).
Claim 12, Petit discloses wherein said tank and/or said piston comprises dose-fractioning means (15, 17) to separate the fluid product to be dispensed contained in said tank into at least two doses intended to be sprayed during several successive actuations of said assembly.
Claim 13, Petit discloses wherein said dose-fractioning means comprise a lug (25) of said piston sliding in a groove of said tank, said groove comprising a shoulder (17) for blocking said lug after spraying of the first dose of fluid product.
Claim 14, Petit discloses wherein said tank and/or said piston comprise(s) energy accumulation means (17) requiring the application of at least one predetermined force to enable the spraying of said fluid product to be dispensed.
Claim 15, Petit discloses wherein said energy accumulation means comprise at least one bottleneck or boss (17) engaging with said lug (25) of said piston, said lug being able to pass beyond said energy accumulation means, when at least said predetermined force is applied on said piston.
Claim 16, Petit discloses wherein, before actuation, said lug (25) is axially offset from said energy accumulation means (17), such that at the start of an actuation stroke, said piston performs an air and/or dead volume purge (apparatus is inherently capable of purge air or dead volume if present).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY W CARROLL whose telephone number is (571)272-4988. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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.
JEREMY W. CARROLL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/Jeremy Carroll/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights