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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-16 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and Remarks" filed on 07-07-26.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
identify the following terms in the specification by reference to the drawings, designating the corresponding part or parts therein to which each term applies: “an opposite side of the nozzle chamber” and “a connection channel”.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07-07-2026. These drawings are unacceptable because they contain new matter in at least the below circled areas. Therefore, the drawings are not entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Figure 4, in drawing amendment filed 07-07-26
The drawings are objected to:
under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “stop” of claims 9 and 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) because the planes upon which each sectional view is taken, is not indicated on the view from which the section is cut.
under 37 CFR 1.84(l) because the depicted structure in figures 1 and 3 is unclear in at least the areas indicated below. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
PNG
media_image2.png
418
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
386
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the above noted factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404.
As per claim 16, the claim requires inter alia a dispensing device wherein a “[…] dispensing opening produces a maximum spray cone of 70o in a second position of the valve element”. This is interpreted as the claim requiring that the dispensing device cannot produce a spray having a cone larger than 70 degrees –without regard for inter alia a magnitude for the pressure of the contents being supplied to the dispensing opening. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art to could make the claimed dispensing device such that the dispensing device cannot produce a spray having a cone larger than 70 degrees under any magnitude of supply pressure, as required by the claim.
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 1-16 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.
As per claim 1, the limitation “[…] the valve chamber is formed on an opposite side of the nozzle chamber” is ambiguous. Specifically, the term “opposite” is not an absolute term. Rather, they are directional terms that require a relative basis for definite orientation. There is no relation established in the originally filed claims or the specification between "opposite" and a fixed (i.e. absolute) origin such that would preclude interpretation by one of ordinary skill in the art of the term “opposite” as corresponding to any direction. Applicants are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 2-16 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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.
Claims 1-9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9381530 to Moretti (referred to herein as Moretti1).
As per claim 1, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Moretti1 discloses a dispensing device for dispensing a fluid, comprising:
a head base piece (2, 30) having a dispensing opening (15);
a liner (11) arranged inside of the head base piece (Fig. 3-4);
a valve element (16) movably arranged inside of the liner (Fig. 3-4),
wherein the valve element is arranged to be movable from a first position (Fig. 3) into a second position (Fig. 4) via a stroke relative to the liner,
wherein the valve element closes off the dispensing opening in the first position (Fig. 3) and clears the dispensing opening in the second position (Fig. 4),
wherein the valve element and the liner, which seal against one another in the first position and in the second position (Fig. 3-4), form a nozzle chamber (see Figure D, below) and a valve chamber (see Figure D, below),
wherein the nozzle chamber is formed in an area of the dispensing opening (Fig. 3), the valve chamber is formed on an opposite side of the nozzle chamber (See Figure D, below), and the valve element is arranged in a space between the nozzle chamber and the valve chamber to separate the nozzle chamber from the valve chamber (see Figure D, below),
wherein the valve element and the liner seal against one another in the space between the nozzle chamber and the valve chamber (Fig. 3-4)
a connection channel (22, 34) connects the valve chamber and the nozzle chamber to one another (Fig. 3-4);
wherein the valve element is configured to be movable into the second position by a fluid pressure in the valve chamber (Col. 2, Ln. 57-67; Col. 3, Ln. 65-67), and
a liner channel (see Figure D, below) which is formed between an inner wall of the head base piece and an outer wall of the liner, is configured to feed the valve chamber
PNG
media_image4.png
482
818
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure D: US 9381530, Fig. 4 – annotated
As per claim 3, Moretti1 further discloses the connection channel is embodied, at least in regions, inside of the liner (Fig. 3-4).
As per claim 4, Moretti1 further discloses the valve element closes off a channel opening into the nozzle chamber when the valve element is located in the first position (Fig. 3).
As per claim 5, Moretti1 further discloses the nozzle chamber has a smaller volume than the valve chamber in the first position and in the second position (Fig. 3-4).
As per claim 6, Moretti1 further discloses the connection channel is configured to introduce a fluid tangentially into the nozzle chamber (Fig. 3-4).
As per claim 7, Moretti1 further discloses a head spring (14) that presses the valve element against the dispensing opening in the first position (Fig. 3).
As per claim 8, Moretti1 further discloses the valve element additionally comprises a sealing lip arranged to seal the valve chamber against the head spring (Fig. 3-4).
As per claim 9, Moretti1 further discloses a stop that limits the movement of the valve element via the stroke from the first position into the second position (see Figure D, above).
As per claim 15, Moretti1 further discloses liner comprises a breach (22) which is configured such that a fluid can flow through the breach into the liner (Fig. 3-4; Col. 2, Ln. 57-67; Col. 3, Ln. 65-67).
As per claim 16, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Moretti1 further discloses the dispensing opening producing a spray in a second position of the valve element (Col. 3, Ln. 55-59). Moretti1does not disclose the dispensing opening producing a maximum spray cone of 70 degrees in the second position of the valve element. the claimed invention except for the particular functionality claimed. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; 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; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). Giovanni discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being used to produce a spray cone less than 70 degrees in a second position of the valve element.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9381530 Moretti (referred to herein as Moretti1) in view of US 5558258 to Giovanni et al.
As per claim 2, Moretti1 further discloses a region of the connection channel generating a vortex flow of fluid (Col. 4, Ln. 15-19), however Moretti1 is silent in regards to the particular structure of the region of the channel. Giovanni teaches a dispensing device comprising a connection channel (9) connecting a valve chamber (4) and a nozzle chamber (10) to one another and the channel is a vortex channel that is embodied, at least in regions, in a shape of a helix (Col. 3, Ln. 24-26). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of Moretti1, to try to provide the connection channel according to the aforementioned teachings from Giovanni in order to generate the vortex flow of fluid.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9381530 Moretti (referred to herein as Moretti1) in view of US 10226784 to Moretti (referred to herein as Moretti2).
As per claim 10, Moretti1 further discloses a housing comprising the stop (Fig. 4). Moretti1 does not disclose the liner comprising the stop. Moretti2 teaches a dispensing device (Fig. 6) comprising a liner (30b) arranged inside of a head piece (32) and the liner comprising a stop that limits the movement of the valve element from a first position into the second position (Col. 2, Ln. 50-60). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Moretti1 according to the aforementioned teachings from Moretti2 since it has been generally held that where the structural limitations of a claim have been disclosed, the mere rearrangement of parts is considered to be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9381530 Moretti (referred to herein as Moretti1) in view of US 4182496 to Burke.
As per claim 11, Moretti1 further discloses the valve element comprising a closing surface which bears against the dispensing opening in the first position (Fig. 3). Moretti1 does not disclose the closing surface being hemispherical. Burke teaches a dispensing device comprising a valve element (18) having a hemispherical closing surface (19; Fig. 2-3) which bears against a dispensing opening in a first position (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the closing surface of Moretti1 to be hemispherical, like taught by Burke, for reasons including to reduce material usage and save expense.
As per claim 12, Moretti1 further discloses the dispensing opening interacting with a closing surface of the valve element (Fig. 3). Moretti1 does not disclose the dispensing opening being a cone and the closing surface being hemispherical. Burke teaches a dispensing device comprising a valve element (18) having a hemispherical closing surface (19; Fig. 2-3) which bears against a cone dispensing opening (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to further modify Moretti1 according to the aforementioned teachings from Burke from reasons including to reduce material costs (because of less material usage).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9381530 Moretti (referred to herein as Moretti1) in view of US 4182496 to Burke in view of US 6722585 to Stradella.
As per claim 13, Moretti1 further discloses a surface forming an outer contour of the head piece (Fig. 3-4). Giovanni does not disclose the surface being “radial”. Stradella teaches a dispensing device comprising a radial surface forming an outer contour of a head piece (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Moretti1-Burke combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Stradella for reasons including to reduce material costs (because of less material usage).
As per claim 14, Moretti1 further discloses the dispensing opening comprises a passage (7) that connects the closing surface of the valve element and the surface forming the outer contour of the head piece (Fig. 3-4).
Response to Arguments
In regards to the objections to the drawings issued in the non-final rejection dated 04/07/26, the amendments to the drawings filed 07/07/26 contain new matter and therefore are not entered, and all objections are maintained.
In regards to the claim rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) issued in the non-final rejection dated 04/07/26, the remarks filed 07/07/26 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection by arguing that paragraph 74 of the specification supports the claimed functionality. As previously set forth, the claim requires inter alia a dispensing device wherein a “[…] dispensing opening produces a maximum spray cone of 70o in a second position of the valve element”. This is interpreted as the claim requiring that the dispensing device cannot produce a spray having a cone larger than 70 degrees –without regard for inter alia a magnitude for the pressure of the contents being supplied to the dispensing opening. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art to could make the claimed dispensing device such that the dispensing device cannot produce a spray having a cone larger than 70 degrees under any magnitude of supply pressure, as required by the claim.
In regards to the claim rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) issued in the non-final rejection dated 04/07/26, the amendment filed 07/07/26 overcomes all and they are withdrawn. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) contained in this office action are necessitated by the amendment field 07/07/26.
In regards to the claim rejection under prior art issued in the non-final rejection dated 04/07/26, the remarks filed 07/07/26 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections by providing the following arguments:
In contrast to Applicant’s claimed embodiments, there is no express or implied disclosure in Moretti1 of a seal being arranged between the appendix 16 and member 11 in order to separate the valve chamber from the nozzle chamber, as recited in claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Moretti1’s member 11 to most closely correspond to Applicant’s recited liner and no reasonable interpretation of Moretti would have been understood to disclose a dispensing device in which the valve element and the liner, which seal against one another in the first position and in the second position, form a nozzle chamber and a valve chamber, and the valve element and the liner seal against one another in the space between the nozzle chamber and the valve chamber, as recited in claim 1.
A person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing Moretti1 would have found no discernible disclosure of Applicant’s recited liner channel, which is formed between an inner wall of the head base piece and an outer wall of the liner, and which is configured to feed the valve chamber, as recited in claim 1.
In response to arguments (A) and (B), Moretti1 discloses the claim limitations as set forth herein with regard to claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period with expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(A) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights