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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Phrases that can be implied, such as “The disclosed dispenser provides” (see line 1) should not be present therein; and
The abstract should be presented 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).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0026, on line 4, “9E” should be “9D” since there is no Figure 9E;
In paragraph 0027, on the last line, a “.” should be inserted after “housing 200”;
In paragraph 0042, on line 2, “contains” should be “contain”;
In paragraph 0044, on line 3, “340” should be “360”;
In paragraph 0044, on line 13, “430” should be “360”; and
In paragraph 0058, on line 4, it appears “(412)” should be deleted since reference character 412 has already been used to denote the spring seat (see paragraph 0047, the last line and Figure 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
In regard to claim 11, the recitation of the piercing element comprising a body which aligns substantially within the first cylinder does not have an antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 6, it is unclear as to whether or not the first liquid is intended to be part of the claimed combination, i.e., the language in claim 1 (see line 6) indicates the first liquid is not intended to be claimed, however, the language of claim 6 seems to indicate the first liquid is intended to be claimed. Should the Applicant intend to claim the first liquid, an antecedent basis should therefore be defined. Should the Applicant not intend to claim the first liquid, “adapted to be”/“for” language should be used when referring thereto. It is noted the language of claims 5 and 6 indicate the second fluid is 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.
Claims 8, 11 and 13 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 8, an antecedent basis for “the second cylinder” should be defined. It appears claim 8 should depend from claim 5, as opposed to claim 1, since claim 5 first recites the second cylinder.
In regard to claim 11, the term “substantially” (see the last line) 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 13, an antecedent basis for “the first engaged position” (see line 2) has not been defined. It appears claim 13 should depend from claim 4, as opposed to claim 1, since claim 4 first defines the “first engaged position”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12 and 14-18 are allowed.
Claims 8, 11 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Sams and Bechtold et al. references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other dispensing systems having priming features.
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
7/1/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights