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) 1-6, 9, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moran (5040704).
Regarding claim 1, Moran discloses a dispenser for dispensing material under pressure, the dispenser comprising: a canister (200) defining a chamber (203) and having an opening therein extending from the chamber to an exterior of the canister (Fig. 1); a first portion (202) of the chamber adjacent the opening configured to contain a material for dispensing through the opening; a second portion (204) of the chamber configured to contain a solution; and an enclosed reservoir (208) provided in the second portion of the chamber, the enclosed reservoir configured to initially contain a catalyst and to be subsequently opened to release at least a portion of the catalyst (col. 3, lines 19-30).
Regarding claim 2, the dispenser further comprising a nozzle (201) positioned around the opening at the exterior of the canister through which the material is configured to be dispensed.
Regarding claim 3, the dispenser further comprising an actuator (201) positioned around the opening at the exterior of the canister.
Regarding claim 4, the dispenser further comprising a tube positioned within the opening through which the material is configured to be dispensed, a first end of the tube extending into the first portion of the chamber and a second end of the tube extending out of the canister (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Moran does not expressly disclose the second end of the tube is configured to be connected to a hose. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the tube can be connected to a suitably sized hose.
Regarding claim 6, the second end of the tube is configured to fluidly communicate with an opening in an actuator (201) when the actuator is depressed.
Regarding claim 9, the first portion of the chamber contains a flexible bag (202) that contains the material for dispensing, the flexible bag being in fluid communication with the opening of the canister.
Regarding claim 18, when the catalyst is released from the enclosed reservoir and mixes with the solution in the second portion of the chamber, a gas is formed that increases the pressure within the canister, thereby pushing the material to be dispensed out of the first portion of the chamber through the opening in the canister (col. 4, line 54 to col. 5, line 3).
Regarding claim 19, the dispenser is free of a propellant (col. 4, lines 38-49).
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of Morane et al. (3635261).
Regarding claim 7, Moran DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the first portion of the chamber and the second portion of the chamber are separated by a piston disposed within the canister. Attention, however, is directed to the Morane reference, which discloses a first portion of the chamber and a second portion of the chamber are separated by a piston (57, 59) disposed within a canister.
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 Moran reference in view of the teachings of the Morane reference by employing a piston between the two chambers because it is a well-known alternative technique for dispensing fluid under pressure and would have achieved the same result as demonstrated by Morane (col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, line 4 of Morane).
Regarding claim 8, the piston includes a punch-out disk (58 of Morane) in axial alignment with the opening in the canister.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of Banks et al. (4376500).
Regarding claim 10, Moran DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the flexible bag is formed of low-density polyethylene. Attention, however, is directed to the Banks reference, which discloses a flexible bag is formed of low-density polyethylene (col. 3, lines 45-50).
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 Moran reference in view of the teachings of the Banks reference by using low-density polyethylene because 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).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of Babcock (3458076) and Still (2494456).
Regarding claim 11, Moran DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the enclosed reservoir is formed of high-density polyethylene or glass. Attention, however, is directed to the Babcock and Still references, which disclose a reservoir is formed of high-density polyethylene (col. 2, lines 53-57 of Babcock) or glass (col. 1, lines 27-30 of Still).
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 Moran reference in view of the teachings of the Babcock and Still references by using high-density polyethylene or glass because 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).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of Pauls et al. (4651899).
Regarding claim 12, Moran DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a reservoir activation pin having a first end that extends out of the canister and a second end positioned within the second portion of the chamber adjacent to the enclosed reservoir, the activation pin configured to open the enclosed reservoir. Attention, however, is directed to the Pauls reference, which discloses a reservoir activation pin (37) having a first end that extends out of the canister and a second end positioned within the second portion of the chamber adjacent to an enclosed reservoir, the activation pin configured to open the enclosed reservoir (col. 3, lines 42-61).
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 Moran reference in view of the teachings of the Pauls reference by employing a pin for the purpose of releasing the contents of the enclosed reservoir manually (col. 3, lines 42-61 of Pauls).
Regarding claim 13, the second end of the activation pin is mechanically coupled to the enclosed reservoir (col. 3, lines 42-61 of Pauls) and configured to reversibly open (i.e., without puncturing, rupturing, or breaking) the enclosed reservoir upon actuation of the first end of the activation pin.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of Pauls et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Garton (3240391).
Regarding claim 14, Moran DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the second end of the activation pin is configured to puncture the enclosed reservoir upon actuation of the first end of the activation pin. Attention, however, is directed to the Garton reference, which discloses the second end of the activation pin is configured to puncture the enclosed reservoir upon actuation of the first end of the activation pin (Figs. 1-2).
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 Moran reference in view of the teachings of the Garton reference by employing a pin configured to puncture the enclosed reservoir for the purpose of releasing the contents of the enclosed reservoir manually.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of Bolduc (5154320).
Regarding claim 15, Moran DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the enclosed reservoir is configured to be broken upon shaking the canister. Attention, however, is directed to the Bolduc reference, which discloses an enclosed reservoir is configured to be broken upon shaking a canister (col. 2, lines 9-14).
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 Moran reference in view of the teachings of the Bolduc reference by configuring the enclosed reservoir to be broken upon shaking the canister for the purpose of releasing the contents of the enclosed reservoir through manual activation.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of McConnaughey (2854977).
Regarding claims 16-17, Moran DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the enclosed reservoir is configured to be broken upon bending the canister or the enclosed reservoir is configured to be broken upon squeezing the canister. Attention, however, is directed to the McConnaughey reference, which discloses an enclosed reservoir is configured to be broken upon bending or squeezing a canister (col. 2, lines 8-10).
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 Moran reference in view of the teachings of the McConnaughey reference by configuring the enclosed reservoir to be broken upon bending or squeezing the canister for the purpose of releasing the contents of the enclosed reservoir through manual activation.
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