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 1-30 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 07/08/25 and 04/30/26 and 07/09/26 have been acknowledged and considered by the Office.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/08/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Priority
Claims 1 and 10 fail to find support in the written description of the parent application to which priority is claimed. Therefore claims 1-30 are not afforded the domestic priority claim.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 18947348, filed 11/14/24, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a duplicate comma (claim 1, ln. 9)
“impact resistance system 1” should be “impact resistance system [[1]]”
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:
“leakage prevention system” (claim 1)
“a first wall” (claim 1)
“a second wall” (claim 1)
establish antecedent basis in the specification for the following: “at least one inlet opening, wherein the inlet opening has a rectangular shape, wherein the at least one inlet opening comprises an upper edge and a lower edge, and wherein the upper edge is more proximal to the body than the upper edge is to a terminal edge of the second wall” (claim 1).
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.
“leakage prevention system” (claim 1)
“at least one inlet opening, wherein the inlet opening has a rectangular shape, wherein the at least one inlet opening comprises an upper edge and a lower edge, and wherein the upper edge is more proximal to the body than the upper edge is to a terminal edge of the second wall” (claim 1)
“the dispenser does not contain a closing cap” (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 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 1-30 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 1, the limitation “the form” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Further as per claim 1, as previously set forth the limitation “leakage prevention system” fails to find antecedent basis in the specification and is not depicted in the drawings. The scope of the limitation is therefore uncertain.
Further as per claim 1, the structure of the following limitations is not depicted and has no basis in the specification: “the connecting sleeve is disposed radially inboard of the exterior portion” and “a first wall disposed radially inboard of the connecting sleeve” and “a second wall disposed radially inboard of and spaced apart from the first wall, wherein the first wall encircles the second wall” and “at least one inlet opening […] wherein the at least one inlet opening comprises an upper edge and a lower edge, and wherein the upper edge is more proximal to the body than the upper edge is to a terminal edge of the second wall”. Specifically, although both the first wall and the second wall do not appear with reference numerals in the drawings, they appear to be parts of the "body" 10 as depicted in Fig. 9 – where the upper edge is 39 and the lower edge is 38. There appears no depiction of an inlet opening comprises an upper edge and a lower edge and wherein the upper edge is more proximal to the body than the upper edge is to a terminal edge of the second wall, and the meaning of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 2-30 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
In view of the numerous informalities and indefiniteness issues noted above, although a search of the prior art has been conducted, no meaningful application of prior art against claims 1-30 can be made at this time. This should not be taken as an indication that the claims would be allowable if all of the noted issues are corrected. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
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 August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights