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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a fluid product" in line 3 should read “the fluid product” for proper antecedent basis,
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “a second deformation profile” in line 3 should read “the second deformation profile” for proper antecedent basis,
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “a first deformation profile” in line 3 should read “the first deformation profile” for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “Device according to claim 1” in line 1 should read “The device according to claim 1”.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “a second deformation profile” in line 3 should read “the second deformation profile” for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “a respective first window” in lines 2-3 should read “the first window” for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a respective second window” in line 3 should read “the second window” for proper antecedent basis.
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.
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:
“an actuating member” in claim 1
“first and second pushing elements” in claim 1
“first and second resistance elements” in claim 1
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.
Regarding “an actuating member” in claim 1, 112(f) is invoked because: (i) it uses a generic placeholder (member), (ii) it is coupled with functional language (actuating), and (iii) it is not associated with structure in the claim. The specification is referenced for the corresponding structure. Fig. 1-4 and Fig. 24 illustrate the actuating member (60) as a button-like body that is shaped to fit within the main body (30) for axially displacing therein successively. Para. 0055-0057 discloses that the actuating member (60) is axially displaceable within the main body (30) and comprises at least one inclined tab (61) suitable for engaging with the support body (51) to perform successive actuations. Examiner is interpreting the limitation as a telescoping body shaped to fit within the main body for axial displacement or equivalents thereof.
Regarding “first and second pushing elements” in claim 1, 112(f) is invoked because: (i) it uses a generic placeholder (element), (ii) it is coupled with functional language (pushing), and (iii) it is not associated with structure in the claim. The specification is referenced for the corresponding structure. Fig. 7 and para. 0073-0076 disclose the pushing elements (33, 33’) as comprising radially deformable tabs (330, 330’) with a central pushing zone (331, 331’) of which comes into contact with respective resistance elements (53, 53’) during actuations. Examiner is interpreting the limitations as radially deformable tabs or equivalents thereof.
Regarding “first and second resistance elements” in claim 1, 112(f) is invoked because: (i) it uses a generic placeholder (element), (ii) it is coupled with functional language (resistance), and (iii) it is not associated with structure in the claim. The specification is referenced for the corresponding structure. Fig. 8-9 and para. 0069 disclose “the resistance elements 53, 53’ can be formed by breakable bridges, which are broken during actuation, or by deformable beams, which are deformed during actuation.” Examiner is interpreting the limitations as breakable bridges, deformable beams, or 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 § 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 1-14 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 1, the phrase "such as" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “to thus displace said actuating member in said reservoir” in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it appears that “actuating member” is a typo which should read “dispensing member’ as the actuating member is not disposed within the reservoir. Examiner is interpreting this as the dispensing member.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axially lower surface of which" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests stating “an axially lower surface of the central pushing zone”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “a longitudinal profile” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same longitudinal profile mentioned in claim 1 or a different longitudinal profile. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to explicitly recite “a first longitudinal profile” and “a second longitudinal profile” and to amend the dependent claims, accordingly.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the radially internal surface" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the upper axial edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the upper axial edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 11-12, the phrase “by first facing the part with the smallest diameter of each central ramp” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. It is unclear what structure “the part” is referring to, i.e. the pushing zone or the central ramp. Para. 0077 discusses this process during assembly using the same language. Examiner is interpreting this limitation as by first facing a part of the pushing zone that has the smallest diameter across with each central ramp and the by the deformable tabs and thus each pushing zone moving radially outwards.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7, 9-10, and 13-14, these claims are rejected due to their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Vendrine et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20060124778 A1, “Vendrine”), Le Maner et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20160068326 A1, “Le Maner”), Grunhut et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20100145275 A1, “Grunhut”), and Ogawa et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20240277940 A1, “Ogawa”).
Vendrine discloses a spray device (1 in at least Fig. 1-4) configured to deliver two preset doses of a liquid product into each nostril (see para. 0056), wherein the device (1) comprises a reservoir (reservoir of 2 in Fig. 2), a dispensing member (4 in Fig. 2) in the form of a plunger which is slidingly mounted in the reservoir (reservoir of 2, see para. 0061 and 0075), a main body (6 in Fig. 4), a central body (2 in Fig. 2) secured to main body (6, see Fig. 2), and a support member interpreted as the cylindrical body formed by walls (25 in Fig. 4) of the main body (6). Vendrine further discloses a dispensing head in the form of spray nozzle (3 in Fig. 1) having a dispensing orifice (see Fig. 1, see para. 0059), and the device (1) comprises an actuating member in the form of a pusher (5 in Fig. 1-3) that is axially displaceable within the main body (6) and engages with the support member (cylindrical body formed by 25) to perform successive actuations of the device (1, see Fig. 5-6 and para. 0075-0080). Vendrine discloses an engagement mechanism between the pusher (5) and the outer walls (25) of the casing (6) wherein the pusher (5) comprises two diametrically opposite longitudinal profiles that engage with radially deformable tabs (33 in Fig. 4) of the outer walls (25). Said engagement mechanism operates as such: opposing forces are exerted on pusher (5) and outer finger tabs (40 in Fig. 1) which axially displaces pusher (5) such that its first lug (20 in Fig. 3) crosses corresponding boss (38 in Fig. 4) which sprays the first dose (see para. 0075), during the dose spraying, the heads (17a in Fig. 4) of tabs (17) engage with ramps (86 in Fig. 17) of tabs (33 in Fig. 4 and 17) which radially deforms the tabs (17) outwards until heads (17a) abut stops (36 in Fig. 4) signifying end of spraying the first dose (see para. 0076-0078), user releases the force exerted on the pusher (5) and outer tabs (40) such that tabs (17) elastically return to their original position (see para. 0079), and pressure may then again be exerted on the pusher (5) and outer tabs (40) to spray the second dose such that the second lug (21 in Fig. 3) crosses over corresponding boss (38 in Fig. 4) and tabs (17) slide through openings (37 in Fig. 4) to spray the second dose (see para. 0080). While Vendrine discloses a two dose spraying profile comprising engagement between radially deformable tabs and a partially ramped surface, Vendrine fails to disclose the support member or any part of casing (6) displacing, return springs for returning the pusher (5) to its starting position, the resistance elements forms on the central body, the radially deformable tabs being formed on support member and not the pusher (5) and having a central pushing zone disposed between two inclined zones, and the longitudinal profiles as claimed in claim 1.
Le Maner discloses a dual-dose dispenser device (see Fig. 1-3) comprising a reservoir (10 in Fig. 1), a piston (20 in Fig. 1) slidably mounted within the reservoir (10, see para. 0022), a dispensing head (30 in Fig. 1) with a dispenser orifice (31 in Fig. 1, see para. 0023), a main body (32 in Fig. 1), a support member (50 in Fig. 1), and an actuating member (60 in Fig. 1-3) that is axially displaceable within the main body (32) and engages with the support member (50) to perform successive actuations of the device by displacing said support member (50) to thus displace the piston (20) in said reservoir (10) and spray the fluid product (see para. 0028-0029). Le Maner further discloses a return spring (70 in Fig. 1-3) for returning the actuating member (60) to its original position (see para. 0027). While Le Maner discloses the basic structure of the dual-dose device, Le Maner fails to disclose a central body having the pushing elements and the support member having the resistance elements and longitudinal profiles as claimed in claim 1.
Grunhut discloses a dual-dose dispenser (1 in Fig. 1-14) comprising a reservoir (2 in Fig. 7), a piston (4 in Fig. 7) slidably mounted within the reservoir (2, see para. 0078), a dispensing head (5 in Fig. 7, see para. 0079), wherein operation of the dispenser (1) relies on the engagement mechanism between the central body (16 in Fig. 5-6) and the support member (7 in Fig. 5-6 and 11-12) which have complementary relief profiles (see Fig. 5-6) which must be rotated relative to one another to release their engagement and release the spring (22 in Fig. 5-6) to drive the dose deliveries (see para. 0097-0099). However, Grunhut fails to disclose axial displacement of the actuating member (18) and rather relies upon rotational displacement (see para. 0097), there is no return spring but rather it is continuous rotation of the gripping member (18) that disengages a second portion of the relief profiles for the second dose delivery (see para. 0102-0103), and Grunhut fails to disclose the longitudinal profiles and radially deformable tabs of claim 1.
Ogawa discloses a syringe (1 in Fig. 1A-6D) which can administer a medical liquid into the nostrils in two parts (see para. 0043). To operate the syringe (1), a user exerts a force on the top panel part (54 in Fig. 1D) of the rod side member (5 in Fig. 1C) which displaces the first pushing part (51 in Fig. 1D) and the first pushed part (31 in Fig. 1D) distally. Thus, the rod (3) and the rod side member (5) are pushed distally which places them in a first restricted state (see Fig. 3C and 3D), where the first pushing surface (511 in Fig. 3D) is pushed against a first pushed surface (310 in Fig. 3D, see para. 0111). A barrel side member (4 in Fig. 3D) comprises a pressure accumulating part (411 in Fig. 1B) which engages with the pressure accumulating projections (351a/b) of the rod (3, see Fig. 1B and para. 0113). Thus, this first pressure accumulating projection (351b in Fig. 1B) provides a first resistance against the pressure accumulating part (411) for delivering the first spray, and the second pressure accumulating projection (351a in Fig. 1B0 provides a second resistance against the pressure accumulating part (411) for delivering the second spray (see para. 0113-0114 and 0124). Thus, Ogawa does teach a longitudinal profile on the rod (3) as seen in Fig. 2 with the pressure accumulating projections (351), but Ogawa fails to disclose a main body, central body, support member, and actuating member structure of the device as claimed in claim 1 and rather discloses a generic syringe assembly with a proximal pushing cap. Further, Ogawa fails to disclose the resistance elements, pushing elements, and longitudinal profiles as claimed in claim 1.
Therefore, there is no reference that discloses or teaches the device of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA MARIE TURKOWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-4680. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Thurs, 7:00 AM – 4:00 PM 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/KAYLA M. TURKOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/COURTNEY FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights