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 “said” (see both occurrences of “said” on 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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference characters 11 (see page 5, line 26) and 1 (see page 6, line 15) are not present in any of the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 7, line 32, “upper flange 46” should be “upper flange 47”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 1, on line 9, it appears “said upper edge” should be “said cylindrical wall” since the opening 48 is positioned in the cylindrical wall 49 of the chamber insert 40 and not in the upper edge 41 of the chamber insert 40 (see, for example, Figure 4). It is noted claim 1 will be examined as “said upper edge” is defining “said cylindrical wall”.
Further in regard to claim 1, on lines 8 and 9, it is unclear as to what limitations the phrases “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” are intended to define.
In regard to claims 2 and 3, the phrase “always being the same” is unclear in that the two elements are which are “always being the same” have not been defined.
In regard to claim 5, it is unclear as to whether or not the “single opening” (see lines 2-3) is referring the same “opening” defined in claim 1 (see line 10) or another opening.
In regard to claim 6, it is unclear as to whether or not the openings defined therein (see the last line) is referring to the same opening defined in claim 1 or another opening.
In regard to claim 7, it is unclear as to whether or not the openings defined therein (see line 2) are referring to the same opening defined in claim 1 or another opening.
In regard to claim 8, it is unclear as to which element the term “it” is referring.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
In regard to claim 1, an antecedent basis for “the contents” (see line 7) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 2, an antecedent basis for “the contact surface” (see line 3), “said contact surface” (see line 3) and “the width” (see line 4) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 3, an antecedent basis for “the contact surface” (see line 3), “said contact surface” (see line 3) and “the width” (see line 4) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 4, an antecedent basis for “the volume of the metering chamber” (see line 2) and “the thickness” (see line 3) has not been defined.
Further in regard to claim 4, an antecedent basis for “said openings” (see the last line) has not been defined. It is noted claim 1 only recites a single opening (see line 10).
In regard to claim 7, an antecedent basis for “the periphery” (see line 3) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 9, the phrase "such as" (see 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).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1 618 049 (as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter ‘049).
In regard to claim 1, the ‘049 reference discloses a metering valve 10 (see Figures 1-3) for dispensing a fluid product, comprising a valve body 14 containing a metering chamber (within element 12), said metering chamber being defined by a chamber insert 12, a valve stem seal 17 and a chamber seal 18, said chamber insert 12 comprising a cylindrical wall 12a, an upper edge 12b that cooperates with said valve stem seal 17 and a lower edge 6 that cooperates with said chamber seal 18, a valve stem (comprises of elements 11 and 22) sliding axially within the valve body between a rest position (see Figure 1) and a dispensing position (see Figure 2) to selectively dispense the contents of said metering chamber, said valve stem being urged toward its rest position by a spring 25 that cooperates “on one hand” with said valve body 14 and “on the other hand” with said valve stem characterized in that said cylindrical wall 12a of said chamber insert 12 comprises an opening 23 connecting said metering chamber to an external volume arranged outside said chamber insert between said valve body 14 and said cylindrical wall 12a.
Although the ‘049 reference does not specifically disclose the use of two O-rings as claimed, the examiner takes official notice that such O-rings are commonly used in such fluid dispensing devices in order to prevent leakage. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the ‘049 device can include two O-rings associated with the metering chamber in order to prevent the metering chamber from leaking. It is further noted the specification discloses such O-rings are well known (see page 5, lines 3-7).
In regard to claim 2, the upper edge 12b of the chamber insert extends radially inwards (from an outer edge thereof) by an upper flange which increases the contact surface with the valve stem seal 17, the contact surface “always being the same, whatever the width of the cylindrical wall.
In regard to claim 3, the lower edge 6 of the chamber insert extends radially inwards by a lower flange which increases the contact surface with the chamber seal 18, the contract surface always being the same, whatever the width of the cylindrical wall.
In regard to claim 4, the volume of the metering chamber is modifiable without modification of the valve body by adapting the thickness of the wall and/or the number, shape and/or dimensions of the opening 23. Although the ‘049 reference does not disclose the claimed volume of the metering chamber, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the metering chamber can be designed to have any suitable volume, including that claimed, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated the specific volume of the metering chamber is critical to the overall operation of the device and the ‘049 reference does not limit the volume of the metering chamber.
In regard to claim 5, the ’049 device may include a singe opening 23 (see page 9, lines 6-7).
In regard to claim 6, the ‘049 device includes two diametrically opposed openings 23 (see Figure 1).
In regard to claim 7, the cylindrical wall of the chamber insert comprises a plurality of openings 23 distributed over the periphery of the cylindrical wall.
In regard to claim 8, the metering valve is mounted on a reservoir containing a fluid product and a propellant (see page 1, lines 6-16).
In regard to claim 9, the propellant comprises HFA gases (see page 1, lines 22-23).
In regard to claim 10, although the ‘049 reference does not disclose the use of the specifically claimed propellant, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made any suitable and know propellant, including that claimed, can be used in device without effecting the overall operation thereof, especially since the Applicant has not indicated the specific propellant is critical to the overall operation of the device and the ‘049 reference does not limit the propellant than may used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Di Giovanni et al., Blanie et al. and Stearns references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other metering valve devices.
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
1/11/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754