DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter “the discharge conduit including three fluid inlets or outlets” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the discharge conduit including three fluid inlets or outlets” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6 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.
I- The term "substantially" in claim 1 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. Therefore, the scope of "substantially constant stream" is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Restive et al. 5,755,361.
Restive et al. disclose a dispenser (120), which comprises a nozzle (136) that is configured to dispense a fluid, a pump (132) in fluid communication with the nozzle; and a pulsation dampener (140) in fluid communication with the nozzle, the pulsation dampener having a spring (142) biased movable piston (144); wherein the dispenser is configured to, when the pump is activated, emit a substantially constant stream of the fluid from the nozzle (col. 3, ll. 29-32); a discharge conduit in fluid communication with the pump, the pulsation dampener, and the nozzle as seen in Figure 9; a container (122). Restive et al. lack that when the pump is activated, emit a substantially constant stream of the fluid from the nozzle for at least one second. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have the pump of Restive et al. emit a substantially constant stream of the fluid from the nozzle for at least one second because applicants have not disclosed that emiting a substantially constant stream of the fluid from the nozzle for at least one second provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Applicants appear to have placed no criticality on any particular of the constant stream of fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the pump of Restive et al. and applicants’ invention, to perform equally well with either the constant stream of the fluid taught by Restive et al. or the claimed emiting a substantially constant stream of the fluid from the nozzle for at least one second would perform the same function of spraying/dispensing. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the pump of Restive et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Restive et al. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
9. Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. 9,192,949.
Lang et al. disclose a dispenser (10), which comprises a container (61, 16) configured to hold a liquid therein; a sprayer housing (12) secured with the container, the sprayer housing defining an internal cavity that defines a volume as seen in Figure 2; a pump assembly (110) including a pump (134) and a pulsation dampener (140); and a gearbox assembly (col. 14, ll. 53-59), wherein the pump assembly and the gearbox assembly are disposed entirely within a footprint as seen in Figure 2; the gearbox assembly includes an electric motor (130) and a transmission (132); a battery box that is configured to hold one or more batteries (162); the pump assembly, the gearbox assembly, and the battery box are entirely positioned within the internal cavity as seen in Figure 2. Lang et al. lack that the pump assembly and the gearbox assembly are disposed entirely within a footprint of less than about 73 cm3 and as well as the claimed subject matter recited in claims 15-16. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the footprint of Lang et al. to be of less than about 73 cm3 and having the footprint less than about 70 cm3 and having the pump assembly and the gearbox assembly together occupy no more than about 40% of the volume of the internal cavity because applicants have not disclosed that having the footprint of Lang et al. to be of less than about 73 cm3 and the footprint is less than about 70 cm3 and the pump assembly and the gearbox assembly together occupy no more than about 40% of the volume of the internal cavity provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose or solve a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the footprint of Lang et al. including the volume of the internal cavity, and applicants’ invention, to perform equally well with either the footprint and the internal cavity taught by Lang et al. or the claimed the footprint of Lang et al. to be of less than about 73 cm3 and the footprint is less than about 70 cm3 and the pump assembly and the gearbox assembly together occupy no more than about 40% of the volume of the internal cavity because both internal volumes would perform the same function for housing the components within the cavity. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the footprint and the internal cavity of Lang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 14-16 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Lang et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 7-13 are allowed.
11. Claims 3-5, 20 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.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -:4:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights