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 § 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moretti (8631976).
Regarding claim 1, Moretti discloses a dispensing pump comprising:
an actuator (30) having a dispensing outlet in fluid communication with a sealing assembly (5, 6, 8, 11);
a pump body (3) having cylindrical sidewalls defining a pump chamber sealed at a lower inlet by a valve (9) and a flange extending radially outward from the cylindrical sidewalls (Fig. 1) and wherein the pump chamber is configured to coaxially receive a lower terminal end of the sealing assembly (Fig. 1);
closure cap (40) coupled to the pump body and having a radial flange (40B) extending inward from an annular skirt, said radial flange defining a central aperture configured to coaxially receive at least a portion of the cylindrical sidewalls defining the pump chamber (Fig. 1);
a biasing member (7) urging the actuator away from the closure cap along an axis; and
wherein the sealing assembly includes: (i) a push stem (12) having a top portion coupled to the actuator and a bottom portion having coupling features (14) and a stopper (12C), (ii) a substem (13) having a lower retention flange (5D) positioned beneath an inlet (5B) and cooperating coupling features (14) disposed on a sidewall above the inlet, said cooperating coupling features attached to the coupling features on the push stem, and (iii) an annular-shaped piston (6) coaxially receiving the substem and having sealing features (6A) interfacing with the sidewall of the substem and radially extending projections (6B, 6D) configured to seal to an inner facing of the pump chamber; and wherein the piston slides along the axis and between the stopper of the push stem and the lower retention flange of the substem so as to alternately open and seal the inlet (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, the pump body includes a vent aperture (21) that is sealed by at least one of the radially extending projections on the annular piston when actuator is extended away from the closure cap (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the vent aperture is formed at a junction of the cylindrical sidewalls and the radial flange of the pump body (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the vent aperture is formed in the cylindrical sidewalls and positioned so as to be sealed between an upper radially extending projection and a lower radially extending projection on the piston (Fig. 1).
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) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti in view of Sun (20180171998).
Regarding claim 5, Moretti DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the push stem includes at least one axial ribs and wherein the actuator is rotatable between a locked position in which axial movement of at least one of the axial ribs is arrested by the radial flange of the closure cap and an operable position in which a sufficient number of the axial ribs pass through slots formed along a periphery of the central aperture of the closure cap so as to allow actuation of the dispenser pump. Attention, however, is directed to the Sun reference, which discloses a push stem includes at least one axial ribs (29) and wherein an actuator is rotatable between a locked position in which axial movement of at least one of the axial ribs is arrested by a radial flange (19) of a closure cap and an operable position in which a sufficient number of the axial ribs pass through slots (33) formed along a periphery of the central aperture of the closure cap so as to allow actuation of the dispenser pump (par. 0044-0045).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moretti reference in view of the teachings of the Sun reference by employing axial ribs and slots as claimed for the purpose of allowing a user to lock the actuator between uses.
Regarding claim 6, Moretti discloses the claimed invention except for only one axial rib is provided on the push stem. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use only one axial rib because Applicant has not disclosed that using a single axial rib provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the ribs disclosed in Sun because they perform the same function as the claimed single rib (par. 0044-0045 of Sun). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify Moretti to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the interface between the at least one axial rib and the radial flange of the closure cap include interference features (15 of Sun) to impede rotation between the actuator and the closure cap.
Regarding claim 8, the interface between the at least one axial rib and the radial flange of the closure cap include a camming ramp (17 of Sun) or incline formed along an arc of the central aperture.
Regarding claim 9, the interface between the at least one axial rib and the radial flange of the closure cap occurs along a cylindrical extension protruding above the radial flange (Figs. 10-11 of Sun) and wherein an inner facing of the cylindrical extension defines the slots (Fig. 11 of Sun).
Regarding claim 10, the interface between the at least one axial rib and the radial flange of the closure cap occurs within a shelf (15 of Sun) formed on an inner facing of the cylindrical extension.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti in view of Jung et al. (20200008557).
Regarding claim 11, Moretti DIFFERS in that it does not disclose adjacent facings of the lower portion of the push stem and the substem define a pocket, said pocket having a top facing that is the stopper for the push stem. Attention, however, is directed to the Jung reference, which discloses adjacent facings of a lower portion of a push stem and a substem define a pocket (S2), said pocket having a top facing that is the stopper for the push stem (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moretti reference in view of the teachings of the Jung reference by including a pocket for the purpose of allowing a user to dispense granule type cosmetics with a smooth operation and without bursting (par. 0007-0008 of Jing).
Regarding claim 12, the sealing features of the piston interface with the substem along a circumference of the substem and wherein the sealing features are urged into contact with the substem by an axial facing of the pocket (Fig. 1 of Jung).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti in view of Santagiuliana (WO02083318A2).
Regarding claim 13, Moretti DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the bottom portion of the push stem transitions to a thinned wall section at a lower terminal end of the push stem. Attention, however, is directed to the Santagiuliana reference, which discloses a bottom portion of a push stem (7) transitions to a thinned wall section (below 71) at a lower terminal end of the push stem (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moretti reference in view of the teachings of the Santagiuliana reference by including a thinned wall section because it is a well-known configuration for coupling a push stem to a substem. The thinned wall section also provides a configuration that achieves an improved seal and a higher suction efficiency (page 3, line 34 to page 4, line 10).
Regarding claim 14, the substem (6 of Santagiuliana) is coupled to an outer facing of the thinned wall section (Fig. 2 of Santagiuliana), and the stopper is defined by a shoulder (71 of Santagiuliana) on the lower portion adjacent to the thinned wall section.
Regarding claim 16, Moretti DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the biasing member is a bellows spring. Attention, however, is directed to the Santagiuliana reference, which discloses a bellows spring (40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moretti reference in view of the teachings of the Santagiuliana reference by employing a bellows spring because it is a well-known alternative mechanism for biasing an actuator into the rest position and would have achieved the same result as the spring of Moretti.
Regarding claim 17, all components of the dispensing pump are constructed from a single grade of polymer (page 8, lines 18-19 of Santagiuliana).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti in view of Santagiuliana as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Jung et al.
Regarding claim 15, Moretti DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the substem is coupled to an inner facing of the push stem at or above the transition to the thinned wall section. Attention, however, is directed to the Jung reference, which discloses a substem (250) is coupled to an inner facing of the push stem (230) at or above the transition to a thinned wall section. This configuration provides for a pocket (S2), which allows a user to dispense granule type cosmetics with a smooth operation and without bursting the granules.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Moretti reference in view of the teachings of the Jung reference by coupling the substem to an inner facing of the push stem at or above the transition to the thinned wall section for the purpose of providing a configuration that would allow a user to dispense granule type cosmetics with a smooth operation and without bursting (par. 0007-0008 of Jing).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moretti in view of Santagiuliana as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Levine (GB2119868A).
Regarding claims 18-19, Moretti DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the single grade of polymer is polypropylene or high-density polyethylene. Attention, however, is directed to the Levine reference, which discloses polypropylene or high-density polyethylene (page 3, lines 96-100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Moretti reference in view of the teachings of the Levine reference by employing polypropylene or high-density polyethylene, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
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