DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed April 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2016/0023227 to Scott et al. (Scott).
Regarding claim 1, Scott discloses a fragrance refill kit ([0001]-[0002]), comprising: a primary container (child container 101); a secondary container (parent container 201); a secondary pump (207) configured to mate with the secondary container (Fig. 3); and a refill connector (see Figs. 2-3; the refill connector is formed by the channel into which container 101 is positioned, the body holding the pump 207 and the complimentary refill devices 108 and 208) configured to removable attach to the primary container (see Fig. 1-2 which shows the primary container and connector removed from each other and Fig. 3 which shows the attachment).
Regarding claim 2, Scott further discloses the refill connector further comprises: a collar (a collar can be defined as “a rigid frame for maintaining the form of an opening” [definition from dictionary.com]; the body in which pump 207 is positioned can be considered a collar); a refill component (208) seated in the collar; and a spring (see [0043] and Figs. 2-3) positioned between the refill component and the collar (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Scott discloses the spring comprises a helical spring (it appears that the spring of Figs. 2-3 is a helical spring; further, the spring is better seen in Figs. 8a-8b; according to [0043], the spring is the same in both embodiments).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Scott discloses the secondary container (201) comprises a glass container ([0027]; in the embodiment where parent container 201 is made of glass) having a volume of between about 100mL or less (see [0027]; the embodiment where the parent container 201 has a volume of less than 100mL).
Regarding claim 8, Scott discloses the secondary container (201) is made of plastic ([0027]; in the embodiment where parent container 201 is made of plastic).
Regarding claim 10, Scott discloses a cap (214; see Fig. 9]) for the secondary connector.
Regarding claim 11, Scott discloses a fragrance (perfume) contained in the primary container.
Regarding claim 12, Scott discloses a cap (cap 115 shown in Figs. 1a-1b on container 101) attached to the primary container.
Regarding claim 13, Scott discloses a primary pump (107) removably attached to the primary container (the pump is capable of being removed from the container).
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 3, 5, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott.
Regarding claim 3, Scott discloses the kit of claim 2 (see above), but does not specify the spring comprises a plastic spring. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the spring from plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP § 2144.07. Plastic springs are lightweight, rust-proof, and chemically resistant, making plastic springs a good choice for use with liquid fragrance products.
Regarding claim 5, Scott discloses the kit of claim 2 (see above), but does not disclose the spring comprises a c-spring. However, Applicant is given official notice that c-springs are known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a c-spring in place of the spring of Scott, as such a change requires only the substitution of one known spring with another known spring for performing the same function. C-springs are known for providing consistent, predictable force, and for being durable and lightweight.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Scott discloses the refill kit of claim 1 and further discloses the secondary container (201) has a collar (see the collar at the upper opening of the container in Fig. 8b) and a neck (neck of the container 201 as shown in Fig. 8b) and is made of glass (see [0027]; in the embodiment where container 201 is made of glass), but does not disclose the neck and collar having an SNI 13 finish. However, it is inherent that the neck and collar have a finish. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the finish must be formed such that cap portions 214 and 217 can be coupled to the neck in a liquid-tight manner to prevent leakage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a finish for the neck and collar which, when coupled with the pump device and cap, provides a liquid-tight seal which prevents leaking of the perfume.
Claims 9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of US Patent 10,399,103 to Lamboux et al. (Lamboux).
Regarding claim 9, Scott discloses the kit of claim 1 (see above), and further discloses the secondary container further comprises: a collar (a collar can be defined as “a rigid frame for maintaining the form of an opening” [definition from dictionary.com]; the body in which pump 207 is positioned can be considered a collar); an opening defined by the collar (upper opening of container 201), but does not disclose at least one thread on an exterior surface of the collar configured to connect to the secondary pump. Lamboux teaches a refill device (title/abstract) including a collar having at least one thread on an exterior surface thereof (threaded collar 110c) configured to connect to a pump (the collar connects to pump housing R20) for securing the pump in place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an external thread on the collar for coupling to the pump housing as taught by Lamboux in the system of Scott for securing the pump to the secondary container. Using a threaded connection allows for easy replacement of the pump assembly, if needed.
Regarding claim 17, Scott discloses a fragrance refill kit ([0001]-[0002]), comprising: a glass primary container (container 101 in the embodiment where the container is formed of glass; see [0027]) containing a fragrance product (perfume); a primary pump (107) removably attached to the primary container (the pump is capable of being removed from the container); a secondary container (201); a secondary pump (207) configured to mate with the secondary container (Figs. 2-3); a cap (214) for the secondary pump (Fig. 9; the cap covers the upper opening of container 201 and thereby covers the pump 207); and a refill connector (see Figs. 2-3; the refill connector is formed by the channel into which container 101 is positioned, the body holding the pump 207 and the complimentary refill devices 108 and 208). Scott further discloses the secondary container further comprises: a collar (a collar can be defined as “a rigid frame for maintaining the form of an opening” [definition from dictionary.com]; the body in which pump 207 is positioned can be considered a collar); an opening defined by the collar (upper opening of container 201), but does not disclose at least one thread on an exterior surface of the collar configured to connect to the secondary pump. Lamboux teaches a refill device (title/abstract) including a collar having at least one thread on an exterior surface thereof (threaded collar 110c) configured to connect to a pump (the collar connects to pump housing R20) for securing the pump in place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an external thread on the collar for coupling to the pump housing as taught by Lamboux in the system of Scott for securing the pump to the secondary container. Using a threaded connection allows for easy replacement of the pump assembly, if needed.
Regarding claim 18, Scott discloses the secondary pump is removably attached to the secondary container (the secondary pump is capable of being removed from the secondary container).
Claims 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 2,822,082 to Breckwoldt et al. (Breckwoldt).
Regarding claim 14, Scott discloses the kit of claim 13 (see above), but does not disclose the primary pump is removably attached to the primary container by a threaded connection. Breckwoldt teaches a kit for perfume which includes a pump device (27) which connects to a container via a threaded connection (threaded collar 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a threaded connection to couple the pump to the primary container in the system of Scott as taught by Breckwoldt. Using a threaded connection allows for easy replacement of the pump assembly, if needed.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Scott discloses the kits of claims 1 and 16 (see above), but does not disclose a box, wherein the primary container, the secondary container, the secondary pump, and the refill connector are all seated in the box. Breckwoldt teaches a kit for perfume including a box (formed by base 10 and lid 11) for holding all of the components of the kit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a box as taught by Breckwoldt for holding all of the kit components in the system of Scott. Providing a box helps to ensure all the components of the kit remain together during shipping and sale, and provide a storage space for the kit when not in use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the refill connector is not removable from the primary container is not persuasive. As set forth above and as shown in the figures, the refill connector (formed by the channel into which container 101 is positioned, the body holding the pump 207 and the complimentary refill devices 108 and 208) is removable attached to the primary container (101). Applicant' s argument that Scott and Lamboux cannot be combined is not persuasive because preservation of the prior art system is not the goal in an obviousness analysis and is not required. The combined teachings of the prior art, coupled with the knowledge of one with ordinary skill, may well result in something different from the prior art system. In other words, a prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Lamboux teaches a collar having an external thread and one of ordinary skill in the art could apply the teaching thereof to the collar of Scott for securing the pump to the secondary container. Using a threaded connection allows for easy replacement of the pump assembly, if needed.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights