Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/714,403

PROTECTIVE CAP, SYSTEM WITH DISPENSING HEAD AND PROTECTIVE CAP, AND DISPENSER

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 29, 2024
Examiner
LONG, DONNELL ALAN
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aptar Dortmund GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
944 granted / 1251 resolved
+5.5% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1290
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.9%
+7.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1251 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 32 depends from claim 24 and only recites limitations previously presented in claim 24. Therefore, claim 32 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 24. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claim(s) 24-29, 32-33, 37, 40-41, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dando (WO2013008016A1). Regarding claims 24 and 32, Dando discloses a protective cap (14) configured for a dispensing head (16) of a dispenser (16, 18, 24) configured for dispensing a fluid, comprising: the protective cap, wherein the protective cap is attachable to the dispensing head and/or dispenser such that the protective cap at least substantially completely surrounds the dispensing head (Fig. 3), a side wall (above 36) and an open end (36), wherein the side wall defines a cavity for receiving the dispensing head (Fig. 3), at the open end, an end portion (36) which or whose inner surface is offset outwardly with respect to the side wall, and/or the protective cap has a latching device (34) for latchingly attaching the protective cap to the dispensing head and/or dispenser and, in addition to the latching device, has an anti-tilt means for preventing tilting of the protective cap (page 16, line 29 to page 17, line 8). Regarding claim 25, said anti-tilt means comprises said end portion or is formed by said end portion (page 16, line 29 to page 17, line 8). Regarding claim 26, the end portion has a greater distance from a central axis of the protective cap than the side wall (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 27, the end portion and/or the side wall is/are cylindrical, sleeve-like and/or ring-like (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 28, the protective cap has a shoulder (34) between the side wall and the end portion. Regarding claim 29, the end portion adjoins the side wall in the direction of the open end and/or wherein the end portion and the side wall are formed in one piece (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 33, the latching device comprises or consists of one or more latching elements (34), wherein the latching element or the latching elements are each formed by a raised portion and/or latching lug on an inner surface of the protective cap (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 37, said end portion is configured such that it surrounds or engages a lower part of said dispensing head and/or an upper end of a container of said dispenser when said protective cap is attached to said dispensing head and/or dispenser (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 40, Dando discloses a system comprising a dispensing head (16, 18, 24) configured for dispensing a fluid and the protective cap (14) according to claim 24 for the dispensing head. Regarding claim 41, a lower part (32) of the dispensing head forms an axial stop for the protective cap. Regarding claim 43, Dando discloses a dispenser (10) with a container (20) configured for holding a fluid comprising the system according to claim 40. 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. Claim(s) 30-31, 34, 36, 38-39, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dando. Regarding claim 30, Dando discloses the claimed invention except for the length of the end portion is at least 3 mm and/or at most 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the length of the end portion to be at least 3 mm and/or at most 20 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 31, Dando discloses the claimed invention except for the length of the protective cap is at least 2 times and/or at most 10 times the length of the end portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the length of the protective cap to be at least 2 times and/or at most 10 times the length of the end portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 34, Dando discloses the claimed invention except for the length of the end portion is at least one times the distance between the latching device and a lower edge of the side wall and/or the shoulder. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the length of the end portion to be at least one times the distance between the latching device and a lower edge of the side wall and/or the shoulder, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 36, the protective cap is attached to the dispensing head and/or dispenser (Fig. 3). Dando discloses the claimed invention except for the overlap between the end portion and a lower part of the dispensing head and/or an upper end of the container is at least 3 mm and/or at most 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the overlap between the end portion and a lower part of the dispensing head and/or an upper end of the container to be at least 3 mm and/or at most 20 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 38, the end portion corresponds to the lower part of the dispensing head and/or upper end of the container, such that when the protective cap is attached to the dispensing head and/or dispenser, the end portion abuts on the lower part of the dispensing head and/or upper end of the container (Fig. 3). Dando discloses the claimed invention except for and/or the distance between the end portion and the lower part of the dispensing head and/or upper end of the container is less than 2 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the distance between the end portion and the lower part of the dispensing head and/or upper end of the container to be less than 2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 39, the protective cap has a latching device (34) for latchingly attaching the protective cap to the dispensing head and/or dispenser and an anti-tilt means for preventing tilting of the protective cap, wherein the anti-tilt means comprises or is formed by the outwardly offset end portion (page 16, line 29 to page 17, line 8), wherein the end portion adjoins the side wall in the direction of the open end (Fig. 3). Dando discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the length of the end portion is at least 3 mm, the length of the protective cap is at least 3 times the length of the end portion, and the length of the end portion is at least one times the distance between the latching device and a lower edge of the side wall and/or the shoulder. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the length of the end portion to be at least 3 mm, the length of the protective cap to be at least 3 times the length of the end portion, and the length of the end portion to be at least one times the distance between the latching device and a lower edge of the side wall and/or the shoulder, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 42, Dando discloses the claimed invention except for the length of the end portion is at least 50% of the length of a lower part of the dispensing head. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the length of the end portion to be at least 50% of the length of a lower part of the dispensing head, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 35 is 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 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, 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. /DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 29, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600613
BEATER BAR FOR FROZEN BEVERAGE DISPENSING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589923
MAGNETIC SUCTION STRUCTURE OF VACUUM CUP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575703
Hand Sanitizer Dispensing Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558827
Parabolic Mixing Nozzle
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551738
RETRACTABLE SPOUT CLOSURE SYSTEM WITH FLAME MITIGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
76%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+15.1%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1251 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