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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on October 11th 2024 is acknowledged. Six pages of amended claims were received on 10/11/2024. Claims 1-135 have been cancelled and Claims 136-162 are newly presented.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/11/2025 and 10/10/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is also objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the substitute abstract submitted 10/10/2024 applies to “A container” and does not appear to correspond to the claimed invention that is a “water gun or toy water gun”. 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).
In Page 1 of the Specification, “CN10738888A” should be revised to “CN107388888A” to correct an apparent scrivener’s error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “105” (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, and Fig. 5), “123 (See Fig. 2), “128” (See Fig. 2), and 160b (See Fig. 8).
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “1160b” (See Page 22 of the Specification”.
It is also noted that an inadvertent line mark appears between Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 158-162 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 158 Line 1, “the body” should be revised to “a body” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 158 Line 2, “the gun” should be revised to “the water gun or toy water gun” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 159 Line 1, “the body” should be revised to “a body” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 159 Line 2, “the gun” should be revised to “the water gun or toy water gun” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 160 Line 1, “toy gun” should be revised to “toy water gun” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 161 Line 1, “toy gun” should be revised to “toy water gun” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 162 Line 1, “toy gun” should be revised to “toy water gun” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 162 Line 2, “toy gun” should be revised to “toy water gun” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “locking mechanism” in Claim 148, which uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “locking mechanism” in Claim 148 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 21 of the Specification which states, “As shown in Figure 2, the locking mechanism may comprise a lever 122 (or pawl) with at least one tooth 124 that may be configured to engage with a complementary feature”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “locking mechanism” in Claim 148 to be a lever or pawl and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 136-162 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the below listed claims of US Patent 12,146,722 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the below listed claims of US Patent 12,146,722 contain limitations that substantially overlap with the limitations of the Claims 136-162 of the instant application as noted below.
Application 18/912,499
Claim in US Patent 12,146,722 B2
Claim 136
Claim 1 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 137
Claim 1 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 138
Claim 1 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 139
Claim 17 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 140
Claim 18 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 141
Claim 19 substantially contains all of the limitations. An angle of 110 degrees to 130 degrees results in a complimentary acute angle.
Claim 142
Claim 19 substantially contains all of the limitations.
Claim 143
Claim 2 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 144
Claim 3 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 145
Claim 4 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 146
Claim 5 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 147
Claim 6 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 148
Claim 7 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 149
Claim 8 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 150
Claim 9 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 151
Claim 10 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 152
Claim 10 substantially contains all of the limitations. A material of any seal is resilient to some extent.
Claim 153
Claim 11 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 154
Claim 13 substantially contains all of the limitations. A material of any seal is resilient to some extent.
Claim 155
Claim 20 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 156
Claim 22 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 157
Claim 21 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 158
Claim 23 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 159
Claim 25 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 160
Claim 27 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 161
Claim 28 substantially contains all of the limitations
Claim 162
Claim 28 substantially contains all of the limitations. An orthogonal axis to a longitudinal axis of the toy water gun will extend along a width direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 136-162 contain allowable subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of US Patent 4,6,30,757 to Yano fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 136: “the second end of the chamber housing being closed by an end wall” and “at least one liquid dispensing outlet extending through the end wall of the chamber housing”. Furthermore, the prior art of GB-2145340-A to Mak (“Mak”) fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 136: “a rail located below the at least one chamber housing along which the slider is adapted to slide”. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the water gun or toy water gun of Yano or the water gun or toy water gun of Mak such that either water gun or toy water gun meets all of the limitations of independent Claim 136, as there is no apparent benefit to making such modifications, making such modification would change the overall functionality and configuration of the water guns, and there is no prior teaching in Yano, Mak, or other prior at that indicates that making such modifications would be obvious design choices to arrive at a water gun or toy water gun having all of the limitations of independent Claim 136 without utilizing improper hindsight. Claims 137-162 depend from Claim 136, therefore Claims 137-162 also contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights