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 .
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 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the coupler" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masi et al (US 5,949,338), hereinafter Masi.
Regarding claim 1, Masi teaches a spray dispenser for spraying a stream of a chemical irritant comprising: an elongate (Col 3, Ln 48) body (102, Fig 4-6) having a longitudinal axis extending from a bottom end (near 132) to a top end (near 110) of the body, the body defining an interior cavity (as shown in Fig 4-5) configured to receive a canister (120 or 220) containing the chemical irritant (Col 2, Ln 53-55); a lid (110) coupled to the top end of the body by a hinge (136) so as to pivot between a closed position that covers the top end of the body and an open position that exposes the top end of the body (as shown in Fig 4); and an actuator (114) at the top end of the body configured to selectively dispense the stream of chemical irritant from a said canister disposed in the interior cavity when the lid is pivoted to the open position (Col 4, Ln 33-49); wherein the actuator extends into a lid cavity defined inside the lid when the lid is pivoted to the closed position (Col 4, Ln 15-17, also as shown in Fig 8).
Masi further teaches in claim 2 wherein the body has a tubular shape and the lid has a tubular shape that together define a single overall tubular shape that resembles a lipstick container (as shown in Fig 6);
in claim 11 the canister containing the chemical irritant (Col 2, Ln 53-55) and disposed in the interior cavity of the body (best shown in Fig 7);
in claim 12 (as best understood) wherein the canister comprises an aerosol valve (138; therefore valve is inherent part of nozzle) mounted in a top end of the canister with a mounting cup, and the dispensing tube comprises a valve stem (inherent feature of aerosol canister valve and nozzle) of the aerosol valve, wherein the coupler releasably couples to a rim of the mounting cup;
in claim 14 a lanyard hook (132) disposed on an exterior surface of at least one of the body and the lid;
in claim 15 wherein the chemical irritant comprises at least one of a pepper spray and mace (Col 2, Ln 53-55);
in claim 16 a method of using the spray dispenser comprising: pivoting the lid about the hinge from the closed position to the open position to expose the actuator; pointing the actuator so as to spray a stream of the chemical irritant toward an intended target; and engaging the actuator to spray the stream toward the intended target (Col 4, Ln 33-49); and
in claim 17 pivoting the lid about the hinge from the open position to the closed position to cover the actuator (Col 4, Ln 33-49).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masi, in view of Bogacz et al (US 11,287,225), hereinafter Bogacz.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Masi teaches substantially all features of the claimed invention except for an anti-rotation actuator assembly that prevents the actuator from rotating about the longitudinal axis of the body.
Attention is directed to Bogacz that teaches an anti-rotation actuator assembly (173 and 151 Fig 8-9, 14) that prevents the actuator from rotating about the longitudinal axis of the body (Col 12, Ln 8-13; since the actuator is attached to the canister, the actuator cannot rotate due to this arrangement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an anti-rotation assembly to prevent the actuator from rotating about the longitudinal axis of the body, in view of Bogacz's teaching. Preventing rotating of the actuator creates precision when actuating and dispensing a stream of irritant chemicals at a target.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masi.
Regarding claim 13, Masi is silent wherein with the lid rotated about the hinge in the closed position, the spray dispenser has a length along the longitudinal axis of about 5 cm to about 15 cm, and wherein each of the body and the lid has a diameter of about 1 cm to about 7.5 cm. In fact, Masi does not discuss any dimension or range.
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. Tec Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masi’s device to have any suitable dimensions, including those claimed. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular bristle lengths (see Specification) and it appears that Masi’s device would work equally well if made within the claimed range of dispenser length.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 are 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. of more than one reference.
The prior art of record, Bogacz, does not teach “wherein the hinge is carried by the retention collar; and a first radial surface on the collar that engages a second radial surface carried by the body to prevent the retention collar from rotating about the longitudinal axis of the body” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 20007784U1 to Hoernecke is directed to the state of the art as relevant teachings of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 AM- 6 PM EST.
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.
/JENNIFER C CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754