Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/697,579

MULTI-FUNCTION AEROSOL VALVE ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Apr 01, 2024
Examiner
PANCHOLI, VISHAL J
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Samurai 2K Aerosol Sdn Bhd
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
671 granted / 921 resolved
+2.9% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
955
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 921 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION The application is a national stage entry for PCT/MY2021/050093 which claims priority to foreign application MYPI 2021005835 filed on 09/30/2021. All of the conditions of the national stage entry and foreign priority are met and therefore, the application has an effective filing date of 09/30/2021. This office action is in response to the claim-set filed on 04/01/2024 which includes new claims 18-34 as previously filed claims 1-17 are canceled. This is a non-final rejection. 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 . Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains 202 words which is in excess of 150 words. The abstract also refers to a figure in the end which should also be removed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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. Claims 18-34 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. Claim 18 recites “outer chamber” in line 16. The limitation should read “the outer chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 recites “valve core” in line 2. The limitation should read “the valve core”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 recites “valve core” in line 2 and “inner chamber” in line 3. The limitations should read “the valve core” and “the inner chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 23 recites “valve core” in line 2. The limitation should read “the valve core”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 24 recites “valve housing” in lines 2 and 4, “discharge conduit” in lines 2 and 3, “valve core” in line 4 and “the discharge conduit” in line 5. Claim 24 or none of the preceding claims recite “a discharge conduit”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 25 recites “the stem” in line 4 and “the container” in line 7. Claim 25 or none of the preceding claims recite “a stem” or “a container”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 26 recites “valve housing” in line 2. The limitation should read “the valve housing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 29 recites “valve core” in line 2. The limitation should read “the valve core”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 33 discloses an aerosol valve assembly for a body of an aerosol container as claimed in claim 1 and then recites that it includes a content-filling mechanism, a gas-discharging mechanism, a rupturing mechanism, and, optionally, a content-dispensing mechanism and proceeds to list the same functionality as recited in claim 18. Thus, it is not clear whether there are more than one aerosol valve assemblies or both claims are referring to the same aerosol valve assembly. This leads to ambiguity and thus leading to the claim be indefinite. Claims 19-20, 27-28, 30-32, and 34 are rejected under the same grounds for being dependent on claim 18. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 18-21, 23-24, 26, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saw (US PG PUB 2020/0180850). Regarding claims 18 and 33, Saw discloses an aerosol container (item 100, figure 1A), comprising: a body (item 102, figure 1A) including an outer chamber (chamber between body 102 and inner compartment 114, figure 1A) and an inner chamber (item 114, figure 1A) positioned within the outer chamber, the inner chamber having a divider (dome shaped wall of compartment 114, figure 1A) that separates it from the outer chamber, and the inner chamber further formed with an opening (opening at the bottom of the compartment 114, figure 1); a puncture member (item 140, figure 1A) for rupturing the divider; and an aerosol valve assembly (item 210, figure 2) enclosing the opening of the inner chamber at least having both a content-filling mechanism (item 218, 220, 222, figure 2, paragraph [0045]) and a gas-discharging mechanism (see figure 4, when inner chamber 402 contains excess gas, it is exhausted to the outside through inner sleeve 412, paragraphs [0050-0051]), and, optionally, any one of, or a combination of, a rupturing mechanism (item 228, figure 2) and a content-dispensing mechanism (items 104, 108, 110, figure 1); wherein, upon activation of the aerosol valve assembly; wherein the content-filling mechanism enables formation of a content-filling passage (item 420, figure 4) to allow external content to be added into the body; wherein the gas-discharging mechanism enables formation of a gas-discharging passage to allow unwanted or excess gas to be released out of the body when the external content is added into the body (paragraphs [0050-0051]); wherein the rupturing mechanism acts on the puncture member to rupture the divider so as to allow coalescing of content within the inner chamber and outer chamber to form a coalesced content (paragraphs [0047-0049]); and wherein the content-dispensing mechanism enables formation of a content-dispensing passage to dispense the content out of the body (paragraphs [0022], [0034], [0036]). Regarding claims 19 and 34, Saw discloses a mounting cup (item 204, figure 2) mounted to the opening of the inner chamber and having an aperture (where the valve assembly is sealed, paragraph [0041]); a valve housing (item 210, figure 2) positioned within the inner chamber and adjacent to the aperture of the mounting cup; a valve core (item 230, figure 2) accommodated within the valve housing, having a cap portion (item 206, figure 2), a valve shaft (item 222, figure 2), and an inlet (figure 2) formed between the cap portion and the valve shaft where the valve shaft is movable within the valve core to expose or close the inlet (figures 2-4). Regarding claim 20, Saw discloses that at least one detachable component inserted into the aperture of the mounting cup, being either: a rupturing device (item 228, figure 2) having a rupture activation stem (item 330, figure 3). Regarding claim 21, Saw discloses that the content-filling mechanism includes the valve shaft, and valve core with the cap portion being configured to receive the content-filling stem therethrough for supplying the external content into the valve core while pushing the valve shaft to expose the inlet of the valve core for directing the external content through the valve core and into the inner chamber (figures 2-4, paragraphs [0044-0045], [0050-0052]). Regarding claim 23, Saw discloses that the gas-discharging mechanism includes the valve shaft, and valve core with the cap portion configured to receive the discharge activation stem for moving the valve core away from the aperture of the mounting cup to create a gap therebetween to allow exit of the unwanted or excess gas from the body of the aerosol container through the gas-discharging device (figures 2-4, paragraphs [0050-0052]). Regarding claim 24, Saw discloses that the gas-discharging passage includes, valve housing and discharge conduit within the gas-discharging device (figure 4, paragraphs [0050-0052]). Regarding claim 26, Saw discloses that the rupturing mechanism (item 228, figure 2) includes the valve core, and valve housing which sits within a recess formed at one end of the puncture member that is slidable along the valve housing such that upon activation of the valve assembly by the rupturing activation stem (item 330, figure 3), the valve core is pushed to displace the puncture member towards the direction of the divider to rupture it (figures 2-4). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 22, 25, and 27-32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome through amendment or cancellation) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following documents disclose subject matter related to aerosol dispensers that dispense two products simultaneously but are stored separately and may optionally comprise a filling mechanism: US PN 3,603,483, US PN 3,635,261, and US PN 6,196,421. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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. /Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 01, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599270
PORTABLE PERSONAL HAND SANITIZER DISPENSER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593942
DEFORMABLE PLASTIC VESSEL AND SYSTEM FOR REDUCING PLASTIC WASTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589401
DISPENSER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589936
SYSTEM FOR DISPENSING A FLUID SUBSTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583005
DOSING DEVICE, CONTAINER, PRODUCT DISPENSER AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+25.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 921 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month