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)(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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burmann et al. (US 2025/0161968, hereinafter Burmann).
In regard to claim 1, the Burmann reference discloses an all-plastic combined press pump (see paragraph 0198) comprising:
a lock bottle cap 7 capable of being fixed on a liquid containing bottle 3 (see Figures 1 and 2);
a pump body 6 and a locking cap 9 capable of fixing the pump body on the lock bottle cap are disposed on the lock bottle cap;
a liquid storage chamber 8a, a communication port 12A communicated with the liquid storage chamber, a one-way valve 12B capable of controlling the communication port to be opened to enable liquid to enter the liquid storage chamber and a pumping assembly 13, 14 capable of sliding up and down are disposed in the pump body;
a press head 5 is disposed at an upper end of the pumping assembly, which is configured for driving the pumping assembly to move downwards to enable air pressure to be generated in the liquid storage chamber to extrude the liquid in the liquid storage chamber to flow out; and
a plastic spring 16 (see paragraph 0109) is disposed between the locking cap 9 and the press head 5, which is configured for elastically pressing the press head to drive the pumping assembly to reset upwards to enable negative pressure in the liquid storage chamber to be generated so as to open the one-way valve to suck the liquid into the liquid storage chamber, wherein the plastic spring comprises a first supporting part abutting against the locking cap 9 (see Figure 2), a second supporting part arranged above the first supporting part and abutting against the press head 5 (see Figure 2) and a plurality of elastic connecting parts (defined by the bellow sections of spring 16) arranged between the first supporting part and the second supporting part and sequentially connected end to end to form a continuous Z-shaped structure.
In regard to claim 3, the first supporting part, second supporting part and elastic connecting parts are in annular shapes.
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 Burmann.
In regard to claim 2, viewing Figure 2, an included angle between two adjacent elastic connecting parts appears to be within the claimed range. In any event, 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 spring can be designed to having any suitable angle between adjacent elastic connecting parts, including the claimed angle, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated this particular parameter is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Burmann reference does not limit the angle between adjacent elastic connecting parts.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burmann in view of Ki et al. (US 2023/0204085, hereinafter Ki).
In regard to claims 4 and 5, although the Burmann device does not include a spring shaped as claimed or a pump structured as claimed, attention is directed to the Ki reference, which discloses an analogous press pump dispenser wherein a plastic spring 200 (see paragraph 0039, lines 1-2) includes a first supporting part 220, a second supporting part 210 and elastic connection parts 230 wherein these parts are of circular ring sheet-like structures (see Figure 2) and wherein the pump assembly comprises a pump rod 340, 350 with an upper end extending through a locking cap to be inserted into a press head and a lower end a lower end extending into a liquid storage chamber and a piston 320 mounted on the pump rod and capable of moving relative to the pump rod and then driven by the pump rod, a liquid outlet channel communicated with a liquid outlet end of a press head provided in the pump rod, a liquid inlet 341 sealed by the piston is disposed at the lower end of the pump rod; and the pump rod is configured to move downwards relative to the piston to open the liquid inlet and enable emulsion in the liquid storage chamber to enter the liquid outlet channel. Such a spring and pump arrangement are employed in order to provide the user with an effective pumping arrangement.
Accordingly, 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 spring and pump in the Burmann device can be replaced with the spring and pump in the Ki device wherein such a modification would amount to the mere substitution of one functionally equivalent spring/pump structure for another and the selection of either spring/pump arrangement would work equally well on the Burmann device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Dai et al. and Guilbert references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other pumping arrangements having plastic parts therein.
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
2/10/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754