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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rossignol et al.
Regarding claim 1, Rossignol et al. discloses a piston (item 1, figures 3a-3b) for a container (item 10, figures 4a-4e) provided with an airless dispenser (col. 6, lines 23-29) for a fluid product (col. 6, lines 49-50);
said piston comprising:
a main body (item 8, figures 3a-3b) having an outer lateral wall (four faces of item 8, figures 3a-3b);
and a peripheral sealing portion protruding transversally outwards from said outer lateral wall (item 2, figures 3a-3b) and extending perimetrically in a substantially continuous manner around said main body;
said peripheral sealing portion being configured to fluid-sealingly slide in a receptacle (col. 6, lines 49-53) defined by an inner lateral surface of a hollow reservoir of said container (item 14, figures 4b-4e);
a plurality of lateral extensions protruding transversally outwards from said outer lateral wall (items 4 and 6, figures 3a-3b) and being mutually spaced apart along a perimeter of said main body (items 4 and 6, figures 3a-3b);
said lateral extensions being axially spaced from said peripheral sealing portion (axial distance H: figure 1d; col. 7, lines 53-54) and being configured for sliding against the inner lateral surface of said hollow reservoir (col. 7, lines 23-27), to guide movement of the piston in said receptacle (item 3, figures 3a-3b; col. 6, lines 54-59);
wherein said peripheral sealing portion comprises:
at least one annular sealing gasket mounted perimetrically to said outer lateral wall (item 2, figures 3a-3b);
and wherein said plurality of lateral extensions comprise:
a plurality of tabs (items 4 and 6, figures 3a-3b) tending to bend transversally outwards in contact with the inner surface of said hollow reservoir (col. 7, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 2, Rossignol et al. discloses the piston according to claim 1, wherein said peripheral sealing portion and said lateral extensions are on axially opposite sides of said main body (item 2 at lower end of item 8 and items 4 and 6 at opposite end axially, figures 3a-3b).
Regarding claim 3, Rossignol et al. discloses the piston according to claim 2, wherein said peripheral sealing portion is at or near a bottom of said main body (item 2 at lower end of item 8, figures 3a-3b).
Regarding claim 4, Rossignol et al. discloses the piston according to claim 1, wherein said lateral extensions are at or near a top of said main body (items 4 and 6 at top end of item 8, figures 3a-3b).
Regarding claim 12, Rossignol et al. discloses the piston according to claim 1, wherein said main body and said plurality of lateral extensions are made of plastic (col. 9, lines 61-62).
Regarding claim 13, Rossignol et al. discloses the piston according to claim 12, wherein said peripheral sealing portion is made of elastomeric material (col. 9, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 15, Rossignol et al. discloses a container (item 10, figures 4a-4e) provided with an airless dispenser (col. 6, lines 23-29) for a fluid product (col. 6, lines 49-50);
said container comprising:
a hollow reservoir internally defining a receptacle configured to sealingly contain said product (internal volume of item 10, figures 4a-4e);
the piston (item 1, figure 4d-4e) according to claim 1;
an airless dispenser mounted on said hollow reservoir (col. 8, lines 40-43) and operable by a user to create in said receptacle a vacuum acting upon said piston, so that the piston is attracted and pushes an amount or dose of said product contained in said receptacle out of said hollow reservoir (col. 6, lines 23-29; figure 4d to 4e).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossignol et al.
Regarding claim 5, Rossignol et al., third embodiment, discloses the piston according to claim 1, wherein said plurality of lateral extensions comprise one piece with the main body (col. 9, lines 65-67).
However, in this embodiment, the sealing portion is an added part and not one piece with the main body.
Rossignol et al. ninth embodiment (figures 10a-10b) discloses the piston wherein at least one of said sealing portion (item 2, figures 10a-10b) and said plurality of lateral extensions (items 4 and 6, figures 10a-10b) comprise one piece with the main body (col. 12, lines 31-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
was made to have formed the sealing portion of Rossignol et al. third embodiment integrally with the main body in order to simplify the injection method whilst retaining good performances in terms of sealing and guiding as taught by Rossignol et al. ninth embodiment.
Regarding claim 14, Rossignol et al., third embodiment, discloses the piston according to claim 12, but does not teach the peripheral sealing portion is made of plastic.
Rossignol et al. ninth embodiment discloses the piston wherein said peripheral sealing portion is made of plastic (col. 12, lines 34-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
was made to have formed the sealing portion of Rossignol et al. third embodiment out of plastic in order to simplify the injection method whilst retaining good performances in terms of sealing and guiding as taught by Rossignol et al. ninth embodiment.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossignol et al. in view of Prague (US 20090297252 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Rossignol et al. discloses the piston according to claim 1.
However, Rossignol et al. does not teach a pair of annular sealing gaskets.
Prague discloses a piston (item 27, figure 2A), wherein said sealing portion comprises a pair of said annular sealing gaskets mounted perimetrically to the outer lateral wall and axially spaced apart (items 35 and 37, figure 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
was made to have
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 is allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
The prior art of record does not teach or provide motivation to form a piston for a container wherein “said outer lateral wall has a plurality of lateral recesses mutually spaced apart along the perimeter of said main body” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 7.
Claim 11 is allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
The prior art of record does not teach or provide motivation to form a piston for a container wherein “said outer lateral wall comprises at least one lateral aperture configured to be crossed transversally by said product” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 11.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a
single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J ARIF whose telephone number is (571)272-9620. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/NOAH JACOB ARIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights