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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference character 315’ (see page 17, lines 7 and 26) 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 12, line 6, “P11 and P21” should be “B11 and B21”;
On page 12, line 26, “P11” should be “P12”;
On page 13, line 2, “P11” should be “P12”;
On page 14, line 8, “P11” should be “P12”;
On page 14, line 19, “1” should be “10”;
On page 16, line 13, “P11” should be “P12”;
On page 16, line 24, “1” should be “3”; and
On page 16, line 31, “P11” should be “P12”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 8, on line 3, “fixing rings” should be “the fixing rings” since the fixing rings have already been defined on line 2.
In regard to claim 10, it is unclear as to whether or not the blocking hoop defined on line 2 is referring to one of the blocking hoops defined in claim 8 (see line 2) or some other blocking hoop.
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 3, 4, 6-13 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 3, an antecedent basis for “the sleeve covers” (see lines 3 and 5) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 4, term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In regard to claim 6, an antecedent basis for “the axial extension of the inlet sleeves” (see line 3), “the direction of the common push member” (see lines 3-4) and “the mutual axial position” (see line 5) has not been defined.
Further in regard to claim 6, the phrase “more or less” (see line 4) is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “more or less” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In regard to claim 7, as discusses above, the phrase “more or less” (see lines 2 and 3) is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “more or less” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In regard to claim 8, an antecedent basis for “the mutual position” (see lines 6 and 7) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 9, an antecedent basis for “the two blocking hoops” (see line 3) has not been defined, i.e., no specific number of blocking hoops were previously defined.
In regard to claim 11, an antecedent basis for “the other blocking hoop” (see line 4) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 13, an antecedent basis for “the axial guiding” (see line 3) has not been defined.
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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ponton (US 2004/0251274, as cited by the Applicant).
In regard to claim 1, the Ponton reference discloses a fluid product dispenser comprising:
at least two reservoirs 2, 3, each provided with a pump 32, 33 comprising a valve spindle 35 that is movable back and forth along an axis X,
a common connecting endpiece comprising inlet sleeves 52, flexible ducts 60 (see paragraph 0061, lines 12-13) and an outlet hole (not numbered, defined by the opening which communicates with the dispensing opening in element 6, see paragraph 50 lines 9-11), the inlet sleeves being mounted on the valve spindles, the inlet sleeves being connected to the outlet hole (via the ducts);
a common push member 6 comprising a dispensing opening (having one way valve 7 therein) connected to the outlet hole, the push member being movable back and forth along the axis X;
characterized in that the common connecting end piece is formed of two parts 52, 60 connected to one another in a leak-tight manner along a bond line that extends perpendicular to the axis X (i.e., viewing Figures 2 and 4, the duct 60 extends into an opening in sleeve 52 in a direction perpendicular to the axis X).
In regard to claim 4, the ducts 60 are “substantially rigid” but curved so as to confer a limited deformability.
In regard to claim 5, the ducts each have a C-shaped configuration (see Figures 2 and 4).
In regard to claim 6, the common connecting end piece comprises pins 51 that extend into the axial extension of the inlet sleeves 52 in the direction of the common push member 6, the dispenser further comprising caps 50 which are more or less axially engaged on these pins according to the mutual axial position of the inlet sleeves, these caps being disposed at an identical axial position, these caps coming into contact with the common push member.
In regard to claim 7, the pins and caps comprise profiles which are more or less punch out material according to the more or less large or small axial engagement of each cap on its respective pin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 and 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Sasaki et al. reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as another teaching of a fluid product dispenser having two reservoirs with flexible ducts connecting the reservoirs to the outlet.
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
2/7/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754