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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment dated 12/19/2024 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the connection element (32)” in line 6 should read --the connection element (31)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: “that” in line 2 should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations are “mutually complementary engagement means” in line 6 of claim 1 (i.e., means for engaging the main body to the connection element, not required to directly form the fluid-tight connection subsequently recited in the claim).
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 6-8, 14-15, and 19-33 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.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 15, the claims are dependent upon claim 1, which recites a container and a dispensing device (in lines 1-2 and 3-4) only in the context of the intended use of the system (i.e., claim 1 is being interpreted such that a container and a dispensing device are not positively recited as required components of the system). Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the container” in claims 6-7, and “the dispensing device” in the claim 15.
Regarding claims 14-15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “a main body (21)”, “a connection element (31)”, and “engagement means (22)” in lines 3-4 after reciting the same in claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Claims 20-33 ultimately depend upon claim 19, and thus inherit its deficiencies.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is dependent upon claim 20, which requires the container to be designed as a flexible pouch. According to Examiner’s best understanding, this would be incompatible with the instant claim’s requirement that the container is “designed as a dimensionally stable container”. For purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted to be dependent upon claim 19 rather than claim 20.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, the terms “it” (claim 30, line 2) and “these components” (claim 31, line 2) are ambiguous. It is unclear to which feature the limitations are referring.
Regarding claim 33, the claim recites “a container (20)” in line 4 after reciting “the container (20)” in multiple claims upon which the instant claim depends, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination only, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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.
(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 1-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 21-23, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2021/187718). All references to the written description of Lee et al. are made to the attached machine translation into English, WO2021187718-MT.
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. disclose a system (see Figs. 3 and 6) for connecting a container to a dispensing device, comprising a main body (130) situated on the container, and a connection element (140) situated on the dispensing device, wherein the connection element is in operative connection with, or can be brought into operative connection with, the main body (Paragraph 0048), wherein mutually complementary engagement means are situated on the main body (outer surface of 130 having 134 thereon; Fig. 3) and on the connection element (inner surface of 140 having 141 thereon) such that a fluid-tight connection is produced between the main body and the connection element when the engagement means mutually engage (Paragraph 0039).
Regarding claims 2-5, Lee et al. further disclose a sealing element for producing the fluid-tight connection (“when the screw cap (140) and neck cap (130) are combined, the wing portion of the cylinder (151) is pressed downward so that the pump assembly (140, 150, 160) is more stably connected to the neck cap (130) and at the same time, the airtight seal between the container (110), the neck cap (130), and the pump assembly (140, 150, 160) can be made more robust”; Paragraph 0052). The sealing element disclosed by Lee et al. can be considered to involve both a “wing” connected to the connection element and a gasket connected to the main body (not described, but illustrated as noted in annotated Fig. 2 below), and thus is considered to be situated on both the main body and the connection element, satisfying the limitations of claims 3 and 4. Furthermore, the sealing element is designed as a surface seal in accordance with Examiner’s best understanding of claim 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
342
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Lee et al., annotated by Examiner
Regarding claims 7-9 and 21-23, Lee et al. disclose the system according to claim 1 and the container according to claim 19, and further disclose a container (110) that is designed as a dimensionally stable container having a riser tube (190) situated within (Fig. 1), and that the engagement means are designed as a screwed connection (Paragraph 0048).
Regarding claims 13 and 27, Lee et al. disclose the system according to claim 1 and the container according to claim 19, and further disclose that a projection and/or a constriction (135/144) is formed on the engagement means for producing a snap connection (Paragraph 0049; Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 14 and 28, Lee et al. disclose the system according to claim 1 and the container according to claim 19, and further disclose that the main body is non-detachably connected to the container (once assembled, 130 remains attached to 110; Paragraph 0068-0069; see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. further disclose that the dispensing device is designed as a metering closure (see pump portion 150; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claims 16-17, Lee et al. further disclose that the system comprises a receiving device (120/160) for receiving the container (Fig. 6), wherein the dispensing device is situated on the receiving device (pump assembly includes 150 and 160; Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al. disclose a container for use in a system according to claim 1, as described above, and further disclose that the container (110) comprises a main body (130) for connection to a connection element situated on a dispensing device (130 connects to 140/150), wherein engagement means (outer surface of 130 having 134 thereon; Fig. 3) are situated on the main body, which engagement means can be brought into engagement with complementary engagement means on the connection element (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 29-31, Lee et al. disclose a receiving device (including 120 and 160; see Fig. 6) for receiving the container according to claim 19, as described above regarding claims 1, 16-17, and 19), and further disclose that the receiving device comprises a dispensing device (150), wherein the receiving device is formed from two components forming a receiving part (120) and a closing part (160), wherein the dispensing device is situated on the closing part (via 140; see Fig. 6).
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 6, 11-12, 20, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Cantelo (WO 2022/047527).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Lee et al. discloses the system according to claim 1 and the container according to claim 19, but does not disclose that the container is designed as a flexible bag or pouch. Lee et al. does disclose that the system may be embodied as an airless pump system (Fig. 9).
Cantelo teaches a similar system (see Figs. 1-3) including a container designed as a flexible bag/pouch (31). Cantelo teach that the container is compostable, biodegradable, and/or recyclable, and thus reduces material waste (see the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the system of Lee et al. with a container designed as a flexible bag/pouch, as taught by Cantelo, as an environmentally-friendly alternative to the rigid container/follower system described by Lee et al. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the container taught by Cantelo would be appropriate for use in the system of Lee et al., since both types of containers are commonly used in airless pump systems.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 25-26, Lee et al. disclose the system according to claim 1 and the container according to claim 19, but do not disclose that either engagement means are designed as a plug-in connection or a bayonet closure. Instead, Lee et al. describe an embodiment in which the engagement means are a screwed connection (see above regarding claims 9 and 23).
Cantelo teaches a similar system (see Figs. 1-3) having engagement means (spout fastener 33, dispenser fastener 24) designed to be embodied in multiple ways (“the spout fastener is a thread, bayonet, snap-on, clip, o-ring, or other suitable fastener”; Page 3, Paragraphs 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the engagement means of Lee et al. as a plug-in connection or a bayonet closure, since Cantelo teaches that all of these are appropriate for use in such a system. Based on user preference or other design considerations, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the engagement means of Lee et al. to take any of the forms taught by Cantelo with predictable results.
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of De Caluwe et al. (US 5,156,299).
Lee et al. disclose the system according to claim 1 and the container according to claim 19, but do not disclose that either engagement means are designed as a slide-on connection.
De Caluwe et al. teach a system having engagement means (7, 13) that are designed as a slide-on connection (see Figs. 2-3). De Caluwe teaches that this configuration provides easy coupling of a replaceable flexible container in an airtight way (see the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the system and container disclosed by Lee et al. with engagement means designed as a slide-on connection, as taught by De Caluwe et al., in order to simplify coupling of the container and dispensing device in an airtight way, especially when the container is embodied as a flexible bag or other form that would be difficult to attach via screw threads. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the system and container of Lee et al. to employ the teaching of De Caluwe et al. with predictable results.
Claims 18 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0013434).
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. disclose the system according to claim 17, but do not explicitly disclose a receiving device having, in its interior, an extension between a base and the connection element of the dispensing device as claimed.
Kim et al. teaches a similar system wherein a receiving device (400, 500; Fig. 2) has, in its interior, an extension (410) between a base and a connection element of a dispensing device (410 extends between bottom of 400 and pump assembly 200; see Fig. 1), which is shorter than an associated extension of a container (310), such that the container can be clamped inside the receiving device (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the receiving device of Lee et al. to encapsulate the container, as taught by Kim et al., since Kim et al. teach that this would be an appropriate alternative configuration for a device with similar structure. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such modifications with predictable results, and would further recognize that the claimed configuration would be more protective of the container than the configuration disclosed by Lee et al., which exposes the bottom of the container, requiring additional structure for support (see 112 in Fig. 1 of Lee et al.). Thus, cost and/or complexity of the container would be improved by the described modification for certain applications. Upon such a modification, the combined system of Lee et al. and Kim et al. would include the extensions and clamping function required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 32-33, Lee et al. discloses the receiving device according to claim 31, but does not disclose that the closing part and the receiving part are connected to one another via a bayonet closure or a screwed connection.
Kim et al. teach a similar receiving device (Fig. 1) having a closing part (500) and a receiving part (400) that are connected to one another via a screwed connection (Paragraph 0049). Kim et al. further teach that the receiving device has, in its interior, an extension between a base and the connection element of the dispensing device, which is shorter than an associated extension of a container, such that the container can be clamped inside the receiving device (see above regarding claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the receiving device of Lee et al. to encapsulate the container, as taught by Kim et al., for the same reasons described above regarding claim 18. Upon such a modification, the combined system of Lee et al. and Kim et al. would include all of the features required by both claims 32 and 33.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of devices having the various features recited in the claims of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights