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 .
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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/31/24 has been acknowledged and considered by the Office.
Drawings
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“the bottom wall comprises an opening configured to dispense a predefined amount of the liquid” (claim 1)
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “[…] wherein the bottom wall comprises;” should be “[…] wherein the bottom wall comprises[[;]]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
identify the following terms in the specification by reference to the drawings, designating the corresponding part or parts therein to which each term applies: “a hole”. (claim 5)
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 3, 5, and 7-8 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.
As per claim 3, the term “inclined” is not an absolute term. Rather, it is directional and requires a relative basis for definite orientation. There is no such basis established in the originally filed claims or the specification. That is, there is no relation established in the originally filed claims or the specification between "inclined" and a fixed (i.e. absolute) origin such that would preclude interpretation by one of ordinary skill in the art of the term “inclined” as corresponding to any direction. Applicants are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
As per claim 5, the limitations “the bottom section” and “the opening of the bottom wall” lack antecedent basis in the claims.
As per claim 7, the limitation “bottom surface” is ambiguous. Specifically, the term “bottom” is not an absolute term. Rather, it is directional and requires a relative basis for definite orientation. There is no such basis established in the originally filed claims or the specification. That is, there is no relation established in the originally filed claims or the specification between "bottom" and a fixed (i.e. absolute) origin such that would preclude interpretation by one of ordinary skill in the art of the term “bottom” as corresponding to any direction. Applicants are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
As per claim 8, the limitation “angle” is ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear to what particular structural reference the claimed “angle” is defined.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6892905 to Cousseau.
As per claim 7, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Cousseau discloses a method of dispensing liquid from a liquid dispensing device, the method comprising:
transferring a predefined amount of the liquid from a casing into a hollow section of a cap (Fig. 2) by positioning the liquid dispensing device in an upside-down position (Fig. 14-15; Col. 5, ¶ 3-4), wherein, in the upside-down position, the cap is positioned below the casing of the liquid dispensing device (Fig. 15), and wherein the cap comprises a top section comprising a lid (9), and a bottom section (4);
reversing the upside-down position of the liquid dispensing device to collect the predefined amount of liquid within the hollow section of the cap (Fig. 14; Col. 5, Ln. 23-25); and
dispensing the predefined amount of liquid collected in the hollow section of the cap by uncoupling the lid coupled to the top section of the cap (Fig. 15).
Cousseau does not explicitly disclose the “cap positioned on a bottom surface”. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). Further, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. See MPEP §2115. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). Cousseau discloses the claimed structure and is capable of functioning as claimed – i.e. positioning the cap on a bottom surface, e.g. a table top surface.
As per claim 8, Cousseau further discloses dispensing the predefined amount of liquid comprises tilting the liquid dispensing device at a pre-defined angle (Fig. 15).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6892905 to Cousseau in view of US 11834244 to Shiba et al.
As per claim 1, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Cousseau discloses a liquid dispensing device comprising:
a casing (2);
a bottom wall (5) coupled to the casing (Fig. 14-15), wherein the bottom wall comprises an opening (22a) configured to dispense a predefined amount of the liquid; and
a cap (Fig. 2) attached to the bottom wall (Fig. 14-15), wherein the cap comprises a hollow section (4) configured to collect the predefined amount of the liquid to be dispensed from the opening (Fig. 14).
Cousseau does not disclose: the casing created by an air column configured to provide stability to the liquid dispensing device and a set of two side walls affixed to opposite sides of the air column. Shiba teaches a liquid dispensing device comprising a casing (20) created by an air column (70; Col. 4, Ln. 47-51) configured to provide stability to the liquid dispensing device (Col. 7, Ln. 50-54) and a set of two side walls (20a, 51) affixed to opposite sides of the air column (Fig. 4a). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify Cousseau to include the casing of Shiba since doing so would be an obvious substitution of one known casing for another known casing, with the expected results that the substituted casing would function to contain fluid.
As per claim 2, Shiba further discloses the air column comprises at least two sheets (22, 23), wherein each of the at least two sheets are laminated together in a predefined shape and inflated using air (Col. 4, Ln. 47-51; Col. 6, ¶ 9; Col. 7, ¶ 1).
As per claim 3, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Cousseau further discloses the bottom wall is coupled to the casing in an inclined position to dispense the predefined amount of the liquid (Fig. 1).
As per claim 4, Cousseau further discloses the cap comprises a top section (9) and a bottom section (4) coupled to each other via a connecting mechanism (11).
As per claim 5, Cousseau further discloses the bottom section of the cap comprises a hole (13) attached to the opening of the bottom wall, wherein the predefined amount of the liquid passes through the hole and gets collected in the hollow section (Fig. 14).
As per claim 6, Cousseau further discloses liquid collected within the hollow section of the cap (Fig. 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights