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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Legal phraseology such as “means” (see line 6) should not be present therein.
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).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 6, line 7: “passes” should be inserted after “106” and after “308c”, “pass” should be deleted since the four lugs 108c, 208, 308c do not pass through the second window 108b, 208b, 308b (see, for example, Figure 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 10, 11, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 8, it is unclear as to which element the term “it” is referring (see line 2).
In regard to claim 10, it is unclear as to what structure the phrase “for this purpose” is intended to defined (see line 8).
In regard to claim 11, it is unclear as to which element the term “it” is referring (see line 2).
In regard to claim 14, it is unclear as to which element the term “it” is referring (see line 1).
In regard to claim 15, it is unclear as to which element the term “it” is referring (see line 4).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-15 are replete with recited terms/elements for which there is no antecedent basis. For example:
In regard to claim 1, an antecedent basis for “the top” (see line 3), “the external perimeter” (see line 4), “the form” (see line 4), “the height” (see line 5) and “the external periphery” (see line 10) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 2, an antecedent basis for “the edge” (see line 5) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 3, an antecedent basis for “the edge” (see line 2) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 4, an antecedent basis for “the external periphery” (see line 3) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 5, an antecedent basis for “the internal face” (see line 3) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 6, an antecedent basis for “the end” (see line 7) and “the internal face” (see line 7) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 7, an antecedent basis for “the external periphery” (see line 3) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 8, an antecedent basis for “the outside” (see line 3) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 9, an antecedent basis for “the form” (see line 2), “one of its faces” (see line 4), “the internal face” (see line 4), “the other one of its faces” (see line 5) and “the outside” (see line 5) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 10, an antecedent basis for “the cover” (see line 2), “the third plate” (see lines 2-3), “the external periphery” (see line 3) and “the third plate” (see line 3) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 11, an antecedent basis for “the reservoir” (see lines 2-3) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 12, an antecedent basis for “the first internal skirt” (see line 3), “the third window” (see line 4) and “said third window” (see lines 4-5) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 13, an antecedent basis for “the third window” (see line 4) and “the reservoir” (see line 4) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 15, an antecedent basis for “the assembled position” (see line 4) and “the edge” (see line 4) has not been defined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as well as any objections, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Delmon et al., Lefevre et al. and Revenu references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other pump dispensers having plate structures with windows therein employed for securing the pump dispenser to the neck of a bottle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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.
DJW
1/7/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754