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(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 3, 6 and 11 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “less than 30%”, and the claim also recites preferably around 20% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites “said piston”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this claimed limitation.
Claim 11 recites “said piston”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this claimed limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lintern et al. (US 2009/0236445 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lintern discloses a fluid product device (10+ reservoir 70 as set forth in [0155]) comprising a dispenser (10) joined to a reservoir (70; [0155]) which contains fluid product [0155], said dispenser comprising a pump body (12) which contains a dosing chamber (20), and a dispensing head (16) comprising a dispensing aperture (52), the dispensing head (16) being axially movable relative to said pump body (12) between a rest position (figure 1) and an actuation position (figure 2), a plunger (14), which is secured to the dispensing head (16), being designed to slide in the dosing chamber between a rest position and an actuation position (see figures 1-2), said dosing chamber comprising at least two openings (see figure 1; at 32 and at 38), a first opening (at 38) for filling the dosing chamber and a second opening (at 32) connecting the dosing chamber to the dispensing aperture (see figures 1-2), characterized in that said first opening (at 38) is made in a cylindrical portion of said pump body [0147] in which said plunger slides during actuation (see figures 1-2), said first opening (at 38) connecting said dosing chamber (20) to said reservoir when said plunger (14) is in the rest position (figure 1), said first opening (at 38) isolating said dosing chamber from the reservoir when the plunger (14) moves out of its rest position (figure 2), said dosing chamber being filled through said first opening when said dispenser is joined to said reservoir [0157]-[0159].
PNG
media_image1.png
448
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lintern further discloses wherein a lower edge of said first opening (at 38) is disposed at rest at a distance from said plunger such that during actuation, said first opening is closed after an initial stroke corresponding to said distance [0158] (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Lintern further discloses wherein said first opening (at 38) comprises one or more slots formed in the cylindrical portion of said pump body (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Lintern further discloses wherein a hollow insert (42) is disposed in said dispensing head (16) (see figure 1), said hollow insert (30) defining an expulsion channel (34) connecting, during actuation, said dosing chamber (20) to said dispensing aperture (52), said hollow insert (42) comprising said plunger (14) [0182] (figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Lintern further discloses wherein said piston (14) is formed by a seal (28, 30, 48), in particular an O-ring, joined to said hollow insert [0203].
Regarding claim 11, Lintern discloses: A method for priming a device for dispensing a fluid product, comprising the following steps:
- providing a reservoir (70; [0155]) which contains at least one dose of fluid product;
- providing a dispenser (10) comprising a pump body (12) which contains a dosing chamber (20), and a dispensing head (16) comprising a dispensing aperture (52), said dispensing head (16) being axially movable with respect to said pump body (see figures 1-2) between a rest position (figure 1) and an actuation position (figure 2), a plunger (14), which is secured to said dispensing head (see figures 1-2), being designed to slide in said dosing chamber (as shown in figures 1-2) between a rest position (figure 1) and an actuation position (figure 2), said dosing chamber (20) comprising at least two openings (at 38 and at 32), a first opening (at 38) for filling said dosing chamber (20) and a second opening (at 32) connecting said dosing chamber (20) to said dispensing aperture (52), said first opening (at 38) being made in a cylindrical portion of said pump body [0147] in which said plunger slides during actuation (see figures 1-2), said first opening (at 38) connecting said dosing chamber (20) to said reservoir when said plunger (14) is in the rest position (figure 1), said first opening (at 38) isolating said dosing chamber from the reservoir when the plunger (14) moves to its actuated position (figure 2) [0157]-[0159] characterised in that said method comprises the step of joining said dispenser (10) to said reservoir (70) (see figures 5, 6 and 14 as set forth in [0157]), by inserting said pump body (10) in said reservoir (70) with said plunger (14) in the rest position (figure 5), this insertion moving the fluid product contained in said reservoir (70), said moved fluid product penetrating inside said dosing chamber (20) through said first opening (at 38), to thus prime the device [0155]-[0159].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lintern et al. (US 2009/0236445 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Lintern discloses claimed invention as set forth above for claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose that said distance forms less than 30% of the total actuation stroke of said plunger. ‘
However, Lintern discloses and illustrates this in figures 1-2. The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Lintern within applicant’s claimed range as it is taught based on the drawings.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lintern et al. (US 2009/0236445 A1) in view of Meyer et al. (US 5,015,229).
Regarding claim 7, Lintern discloses the claimed invention as set forth above for claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said reservoir only contains a single dose of fluid product, dispensed in a single actuation.
However, Meyer teaches it is known for a reservoir of a dispensing device (abstract) to only contain a single dose of fluid product, dispensed in a single actuation (claim 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Linter such that said reservoir only contains a single dose of fluid product, dispensed in a single actuation as taught by Meyer in order to provide the appropriate device depending on the needs of the patient.
Regarding claim 8, Lintern discloses the claimed invention as set forth above for claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said reservoir contains several doses of fluid product dispensed in several successive actuations, wherein said reservoir contains two doses of fluid product dispensed in two successive actuations.
However, Meyer teaches it is known for a reservoir of a dispensing device (abstract) to contain several doses of fluid product dispensed in several successive actuations (col. 2, lines 8-16), wherein said reservoir contains two doses of fluid product dispensed in two successive actuations.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Linter such that said reservoir contains two doses of fluid product dispensed in two successive actuations as taught by Meyer for the purpose of providing the patient an appropriate device depending on the application (col. 2, lines 8-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Listern does not disclose wherein said dosing chamber comprises a third opening provided at the lower axial end of said pump body, said third opening comprising a stopper member, such as a ball, forming an inlet valve for said dosing chamber for filling it after each actuation and there would be no reason absent impermissible hindsight to include a third opening as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Duguet et al. (US 2015/0060493 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm CT.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights