DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 6/22/2026.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majesty ‘540 (CN 213110540) in view of Majesty ‘408 (CN 110723408) and Deman et al. US 2020/0332853.
Regarding claim 1:
Majesty1 teaches a foam pump structure (FIGS. 8 and 9), comprising a pressing head (9), a mesh passage (100), a pump body (1), a bottle locking cap (10), a main column (3), an air suction plug (2), a liquid suction plug (4), an elastic sleeve (5), and a pump bead (6), wherein the bottle locking cap is connected to an upper end of the pump body in an inserted manner (shown in FIG. 8); the pump body comprises an air chamber (inside 1) and a liquid chamber (inside 12) which are provided at the top and bottom [of the pump body, respectively]; the air suction plug is provided in the air chamber and connected to the pressing head in an inserted manner (shown in FIG. 8), and the mesh passage is arranged between the air suction plug and the pressing head (shown in FIG. 8); an upper end of the main column extends out of the air chamber and is connected to the air suction plug (shown in FIG. 8); when the pressing head is pressed downwards, the main column moves downwards together with the air suction plug (envisaged in FIG. 8); the liquid suction plug is provided in the liquid chamber and is connected to a lower end of the main column (shown in FIG. 8); the pump bead is provided at an inlet of a lower end of the liquid chamber (shown in FIG. 8).
Majesty1 does not teach the foam pump structure being all-plastic, nor an elastic sleeve that sleeves an outer side of the main column and is an elastic plastic annular piece with an opening arranged on a side surface.
Majesty2 discloses a similar foam pump that is all-plastic (abstract) and uses an elastic sleeve (8) that sleeves an outer side of the main column (41) and is an elastic plastic annular piece with an opening (81) arranged on a side surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the foam pump of Majesty1, by using an annular elastic sleeve that sleeves an outer side of the main column and is an elastic plastic annular piece with an opening arranged on a side surface, to replace the elastic sleeve 5, since the annular piece would require less material and have a simpler design, making the pump lighter and easier to manufacture.
Neither Majesty1 or Majesty2 teaches an outer side surface of the elastic plastic annular piece is provided with reinforcing ribs, and the reinforcing ribs comprise a plurality of longitudinal reinforcing ribs extending longitudinally along the elastic plastic annular piece and arranged in parallel; and two of the plurality of longitudinal reinforcing ribs are provided on two sides of the opening of the elastic plastic annular piece.
In a related all plastic foam pump (col. 1, lines 22-41; see FIGS. 52-58), Deman teaches an outer side surface of the elastic plastic annular piece (848) is provided with reinforcing ribs, and the reinforcing ribs comprise a plurality of longitudinal reinforcing ribs (860, 854, 856) extending longitudinally along the elastic plastic annular piece and arranged in parallel; and two of the plurality of longitudinal reinforcing ribs (854, 856) are provided on two sides of the opening of the elastic plastic annular piece.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the foam pump of the combination of Majesty1 and Majesty2, by providing an outer side surface of the elastic plastic annular piece with reinforcing ribs, and the reinforcing ribs comprise a plurality of longitudinal reinforcing ribs extending longitudinally along the elastic plastic annular piece and arranged in parallel; and two of the plurality of longitudinal reinforcing ribs are provided on two sides of the opening of the elastic plastic annular piece, as taught by Deman, in order to control the rigidity and therefore the force required to use the pump.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Majesty1, Majesty2, and Deman teaches the all-plastic foam pump structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the main column is provided with a conical guide part (Majesty2, see 41 near 8); when the pressing head is pressed downwards, the main column moves downwards, and the conical guide part stretches the elastic plastic annular piece (shown in FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Majesty1, Majesty2, and Deman teaches the all-plastic foam pump structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein air supplementing holes are arranged on the air suction plug (Majesty1, adjacent 23 and 282).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Majesty1, Majesty2, and Deman teaches the all-plastic foam pump structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the elastic plastic annular piece is integrally injection-molded.
However, Examiner takes official notice that injection molding of plastic parts is old and well-known to provide an accurate and reliable manufacturing method and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination of Majesty1 and Majesty2, by using injection molding for the components of the foam pump, including the annular piece for those reasons.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Majesty1, Majesty2, and Deman teaches the all-plastic foam pump structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein a limiting ring (54) limiting a rising height of the liquid suction plug sleeves the main column, and an upper end of the limiting ring is conical (shown in FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Majesty1, Majesty2, and Deman teaches the all-plastic foam pump structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising a protective cap (Majesty1, 104) made of plastic, wherein the protective cap covers the pressing head and is clamped to an outer side of the bottle locking cap (shown in FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Majesty1, Majesty2, and Deman teaches the all-plastic foam pump structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the upper end of the pump body is provided with an insertion part (Majesty1, 15) configured to be fixed to the bottle locking cap in an inserted manner (lines 240-241).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Majesty1, Majesty2, and Deman teaches the all-plastic foam pump structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein a top surface of the pressing head is rough (all plastics have some degree of roughness).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection made in this action, necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: for example, see 204/206 in Deman et al. US 10,138,971; FIG. 20 and col. 5, lines 12-24 of Driskell et al. US 10,526,191; and others made of record.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 will 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights