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 .
Election/Restrictions
No claim is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 26, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on February 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“sliding part,” “protrusion part” and “biasing member” in claim 1 where “part” and “member” are the placeholder and “sliding,” “protrusion” and “biasing” are the functional language; and
“receiving part” in claim 4 where “part” is the placeholder and “receiving” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furusawa (WO2020235117. IDS by the Applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Furusawa discloses a trigger-type liquid sprayer (10. Figs. 1-12) comprising: a sprayer main body (90) mounted to a container body (20) in which a liquid is accommodated; and a nozzle member (95, 97, 98) mounted to the sprayer main body, and provided with a spray hole (98) through which the liquid is sprayed, wherein the sprayer main body includes: a vertical feed tube portion (92) configured to (capable of) suck up the liquid in an inside of the container body, a trigger mechanism (80, 81, 82, 50) having a trigger part (80) disposed to be movable rearward in a forward biased state (paragraph [0041]), and configured to (capable of) flow the liquid toward the spray hole from an inside of the vertical feed tube portion according to rearward movement of the trigger part, a reservoir cylinder (96) into which the liquid passing through the inside of the vertical feed tube portion is supplied according to the rearward movement of the trigger part, and a reservoir plunger (99) disposed in an inside of the reservoir cylinder to be movable in an axial direction along a central axis of the reservoir cylinder, configured to (capable of) move toward one side in the axial direction according to supply of the liquid into the inside of the reservoir cylinder, and biased toward the other side (see paragraph [0048]), and the trigger mechanism includes: a main cylinder (60) opening at a front (left in Fig. 1), and communicating with the inside of the vertical feed tube portion at a rear, a main piston (70) that includes: a sliding part (71) disposed in an inside of the main cylinder to be movable in a front-rear direction, and a protrusion part (72) protruding forward from the sliding part toward an outside of the main cylinder, and a front end (72b) of which is connected to the trigger part (via 82), and a biasing member (75) into which the protrusion part of the main piston is inserted, and biasing the trigger part forward (see paragraph [0051]).
With respect to claim 2, Furusawa discloses the trigger-type liquid sprayer according to claim 1, further comprising: a spring receiver (space for 75) that is mounted to an opening (left void) of the main cylinder at the front thereof (Fig. 3), and configured to (capable of) receive a rear end of the biasing member.
With respect to claim 3, Furusawa discloses the trigger-type liquid sprayer according to claim 2, wherein the spring receiver includes a pair of side wall parts (Figs. 2 and 3) sandwiching the biasing member in a right-left direction.
With respect to claim 4, Furusawa discloses the trigger-type liquid sprayer according to claim 2, wherein the spring receiver includes an inner cylindrical part (72, 71, 74) that is inserted into the main cylinder, and a receiving part (71, 74) that is formed in an inside of the inner cylindrical part, and configured to (capable of) receive the rear end of the biasing member.
With respect to claim 5, Furusawa discloses the trigger-type liquid sprayer according to claim 3, wherein the spring receiver includes an inner cylindrical part (72, 71, 74) that is inserted into the main cylinder, and a receiving part (71, 74) that is formed in an inside of the inner cylindrical part, and configured to (capable of) receive the rear end of the biasing member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a liquid sprayer: Hellenkamp, Blake et al., Pauls et al., Cary et al., Corsette, Tada ‘361, Tada ‘017, Tada ‘186, Tada ‘791, Dennis, Battegazzore and Foster et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights