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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract should be submitted on a separate sheet with no other verbiage thereon.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
There is a separate drawing in the center of sheet 7/12 (the drawing showing section lines A-A and B-B) which is not labled;
In Figure 1A, both occurrences of reference character 112 should be 110; (see Figure 1A and paragraph 0038, lines 4-5);
Similarly, in Figure 1B, reference character 112 should be 110; and
There are numerous reference characters in the specification which are not present in the drawings, i.e., reference characters 312 (see paragraph 0042, line 2), 413 (see paragraph 0044, line 5), 415 (see paragraph 0044, line 6), 507 (see paragraph 0046, line 7), 505 (see paragraph 0046, line 11), 512 (see paragraph 0047, line 2), 515 (see paragraph 0047, line 6) , 605 (see paragraph 0049, line 11), 615 (see paragraph 0050, line 6) and 203, 207, 204, 205, 201 and 210 (see paragraph 0053, lines 2-4) are not present in any of the drawings. The Applicant should review the drawing to ensure all of the reference characters in the specification are properly shown in 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:
In paragraph 0040, line 5, “112” should be “110” (see paragraph 0038, lines 4-5);
Reference character 414 (see Figure 4B) is not present in any of the drawings;
In paragraph 0043, lines 3-4, the specification indicates the rotation mechanisms in the lever and side wall are not shown, however, Figure 4C appears to shown these rotation mechanisms and paragraph 0044, line 2, defines a rotation mechanism 412;
In paragraph 0049, lines 3-4, the specification indicates the rotation mechanisms in the lever and side wall are not shown, however, Figure 6E appears to shown these rotation mechanisms and paragraph 0050, line 2, defines a rotation mechanism 412; and
Reference character 212 is used to denote both the “rotation mechanism” (see paragraph 0040, line 4) and a “fastener” (see paragraph 0053, line 3). It is noted the drawings depict reference character 212 has being directed to the rotation mechanism (see Figure 2A). Clarification is needed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 1, on line 3, “to” should be inserted after “attached”.
In regard to claims 3 and 4, it is unclear as to what structure the “conventional fluid dispenser assembly/assemblies” is intended to define. Further, it is unclear as to whether or not the “conventional fluid dispenser assembly/assemblies” is/are intended to be part of the claimed combination.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11, an antecedent basis for “the bio-degradable material” (see lines 2-3) has not been defined. It appears claim 11 should depend from claim 10, as opposed to claim 1, since claim 10 first defines the “biodegradable material”.
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, 5-12, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pagen (US 2012/0181302, as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter Pagen).
In regard to claim 1, the Pagen reference discloses a fluid dispenser assembly comprising:
a base 3 comprising a floor wall (not numbered, see Figure 2) having a fluid channel passing therethrough (at 15, see Figure 3B), the base further comprising a sidewall (not numbered, see Figure 2) attached to the floor wall, the side wall comprising a base rotation mechanism (which receives projections 7); and
a lever 4 comprising an actuation area (defined by the area of the lever which is pressed by a user) and a lever rotation mechanism 7, wherein the base rotation mechanism and the lever rotation mechanism are configured to engage so that the lever can at least partially rotate within the base (along axis 11 and between the positions shown in Figures 3B and 6; see also paragraph 0018);
wherein the base 3 and lever 4 are comprised of a sustainable material (see paragraph 0041, lines 1-5).
In regard to claim 5, the base rotation mechanism, although not clearly defined or shown, must inherently be some sort of recess in the side wall in order to receive the protrusion 7 on the lever.
In regard to claim 6, the lever rotation mechanism is a protrusion 7 configured to be received by the base rotation mechanism.
In regard to claim 7, the lever 4 comprises an opening 5 configured to dispense a fluid.
In regard to claim 8, the lever 4 has an outer diameter configured to seat within an inner diameter of the side wall (see Figure 1A).
In regard to claim 9, the lever 4 comprises a width that is less than an inner diameter of the side wall and a length that approximates an inner diameter of the side wall (see Figure 1A).
In regard to claim 10, the sustainable material comprises a biodegradable material (see paragraph 0040, lines 1-5).
In regard to claim 11, the sustainable material comprises blends of the biodegradable material (see paragraph 0040, lines 1-5 wherein it is disclosed mixtures of the listed materials may be used.
In regard to claim 12, the sustainable material may be one or more polyethylene (see paragraph 0040, line 9).
In regard to claim 14, the sustainable material comprises a biodegradable polymer (see paragraph 0040, line 4).
In regard to claim 15, the sustainable material comprises recycled resins (see paragraph 0040, line 4).
In regard to claims 16 and 19, the Pagen reference discloses a method forming (i.e., via molding, see paragraphs 0033 and 0034) a fluid dispenser wherein the fluid dispenser includes a base, lever and rotation mechanism as claimed (as discussed above in detail) where the base and lever are formed of a sustainable material (as discussed above).
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.
Claims 2-4, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagen.
In regard to claim 2, although the Pagen reference does not specifically disclose the base and lever are formed from the same sustainable material, the reference does disclose both the base and lever are formed from a sustainable material; see paragraph 0041, lines 1-3 wherein it is disclosed the closure (the closure being defined by the base and lever) is comprised of a sustainable material. 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 base and lever can be made from any suitable sustainable material, including same sustainable material, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Pagen reference does not differentiate the sustainable material which may be used for the base and lever and the Applicant has not indicated the base and lever being made from the same material is critical to the overall operation of the device; as evidence by paragraph 0057 wherein it is disclosed the components of the device may be manufactured by the same material.
In regard to claims 3 and 4, since the base and lever in the Pagen device are formed from sustainable materials, depending on the materials used in the “conventional fluid dispenser assemblies”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the chosen sustainable materials for the Pagen device could produce the claimed percentages of carbon dioxide emissions and plastic waste without effecting the overall operation of the device.
In regard to claim 13, although the Pagen reference does not disclose the molecular weight of the polyethylene, 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 that any suitable polyethylene can be used, including a polyethylene having the claimed molecular weight, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Pagen reference does not limit the type of polyethylene that may be used and the Applicant has not indicated the particularly claimed molecular weight is critical to the overall operation of the device.
In regard to claims 17 and 18, as discussed above, the Pagen reference discloses the various elements are formed via molding. Although the Pagen reference does not disclose the specific type of molding method employed, 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 any suitable and know molding technique, including those claimed, can be used to mold the base and lever of the Pagen device, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Pagen reference does not limit the molding technique that is used and the Applicant has not indicated the particular molding technique is critical to the overall operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Wood et al. reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as a teaching of another fluid dispenser assembly comprised of a base, lever and a rotation mechanism between the base and lever which enables the lever to rotate into open and closed positions and the Pagen ‘368 reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a closure cap made from sustainable/biodegradable materials.
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
6/16/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights