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 .
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 “first angle of the first bend is different from a second angle of the second bend” (claim 9) 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.
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.
Claims 1,3,6, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elliot (US 4869404 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Elliot discloses a pump dispenser for dispensing condiments comprising the following elements:
A container (Elliot, Fig. 1, container 11) configured to hold a flowable food product (Elliot, col. 1 lines 8-10).
a manual pump extending into the container, having a pumping axis extending through the manual pump in a vertical direction (Elliot, column 1 lines 43-47), and configured to pump the flowable food product from the container (Elliot, column 1 lines 30-33),
and a discharge tube coupled to the manual pump (Elliot, Fig. 1, side arm 43), extending from the container, and having a dispensing end configured to dispense the flowable food product (Elliot, Fig. 1, spout 61),
wherein the dispensing end of the discharge tube is laterally offset from the pumping axis of the manual pump (Elliot, col. 3 lines 27-38, “allow the spout 61 to be rotated to eight different positions”).
Regarding claim 3, Elliot discloses:
the discharge tube comprises at least one bend (Elliot, Fig. 1, spout 61) to laterally offset the dispensing end (Elliot col. 1 lines 59-61 "the spout can be rotated to another position when desired") from the pumping axis of the manual pump (Elliot, Fig. 1, piston rod 27).
Regarding claim 6, Elliot discloses:
discharge tube comprises a first bend and a second bend (Elliot, Fig.1 spout 61) to laterally offset the dispensing end (Elliot col. 1 lines 59-61 "the spout can be rotated to another position when desired") from the pumping axis of the manual pump (Elliot, Fig. 1, piston rod 27).
Regarding claims 15, Elliot discloses a pump dispenser for dispensing condiments comprising the following elements:
a manual pump extending into the container, having a pumping axis extending through the manual pump in a vertical direction (Elliot, column 1 lines 43-47), and configured to pump the flowable food product from the container (Elliot, column 1 lines 30-33),
and a discharge tube coupled to the manual pump (Elliot, Fig. 1, side arm 43), extending from the container, and having a dispensing end configured to dispense the flowable food product (Elliot, Fig. 1, spout 61),
wherein the dispensing end of the discharge tube is laterally offset from the pumping axis of the manual pump (Elliot, col. 3 lines 27-38, “allow the spout 61 to be rotated to eight different positions”).
Regarding claim 16, Elliot discloses:
the discharge tube comprises at least one bend (Elliot, Fig. 1, spout 61) to laterally offset the dispensing end (Elliot col. 1 lines 59-61 "the spout can be rotated to another position when desired") from the pumping axis of the manual pump (Elliot, Fig. 1, piston rod 27).
Regarding claim 18, Elliot discloses:
discharge tube comprises a first bend and a second bend (Elliot, Fig.1 spout 61) to laterally offset the dispensing end (Elliot col. 1 lines 59-61 "the spout can be rotated to another position when desired") from the pumping axis of the manual pump (Elliot, Fig. 1, piston rod 27).
Regarding claim 20, Elliot discloses a method of forming a pump dispenser for dispensing condiments comprising the following steps:
providing a pump configured to pump a flowable food product, wherein the pump comprises a pumping axis extending through the pump (Elliot, column 1 lines 43-47),
providing a discharge tube having a dispensing end configured to dispense the flowable food product, wherein the dispensing end of the discharge tube is configured to be offset from the pumping axis of the pump (Elliot, col. 3 lines 27-38, “allow the spout 61 to be rotated to eight different positions”),
and coupling the discharge tube to the pump (Elliot, Fig. 1, side arm 43).
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 2, 4-5, 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot.
Regarding claim 2, Elliot is silent regarding:
dispensing end is laterally offset from the pumping axis by about 1.75 inches to about 2.5 inches
Instead, Elliot discloses a spout rotatable to eight different positions (Elliot, col. 3 lines 27-29) which allows the dispensing end to be laterally offset from the pumping axis and also discloses that the “spout may be of many different lengths and angles” (Elliot, col. 2 lines 60-61).
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Elliot to wherein the spout has a length and angle to provide an offset within the range of about 1.75 to about 2.5 inches offset from the pumping axis. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular value of the offset dimension and it appears the device of Elliot would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of offset distance.
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 17, Elliot is silent regarding:
The at least one bend in the discharge tube is between about 50 and about 70 degrees.
The least one bend in the discharge tube is about 60 degrees.
Instead, Elliot discloses that the rotatable spout with a bend (Elliot, Fig. 1 spout 61) where the “spout may be of many different lengths and angles” (Elliot, col. 2 lines 60-61).
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Elliot to wherein the spout has an angle of about 60 degrees or between about 50 and about 70 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular value of the angle of the bend and it appears the device of Elliot would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angles for the bend.
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 9, Elliot is silent regarding:
a first angle of the first bend is about the same as a second angle of the second bend.
the first angle of the first bend is about 60 degrees.
a first angle of the first bend is different from a second angle of the second bend.
Instead, Elliot discloses that the rotatable spout with two bends (Elliot, Fig. 1 spout 61) and the “spout may be of many different lengths and angles” (Elliot, col. 2 lines 60-61).
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Elliot to wherein the spout has the same angle for first bend and second bends, a bend of about 60 degrees or an angle for the first bend that is different from the angle of the second bend. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular value of the angle of the two bends and it appears the device of Elliot would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angles for the bends.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Elliot is silent regarding:
the at least one bend in the discharge tube is about 60 degrees.
a first angle of the first bend is about the same as a second angle of the second bend.
Instead, Elliot discloses that the rotatable spout with two bends (Elliot, Fig. 1 spout 61) and the “spout may be of many different lengths and angles” (Elliot, col. 2 lines 60-61).
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Elliot to wherein the spout has the same angle for first bend and second bends or a bend of about 60 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular value of the angle of the two bends and it appears the device of Elliot would work appropriately if made according to the claimed angles for the bends.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot in view of Yeh (US 7770244 B2).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Elliot discloses:
A discharge tube
a vertically extending lower portion extending from a lid of the container
a first bend coupled to the vertically extending lower portion;
a transition portion coupled to the first bend;
a second bend coupled to the transition portion;
and a downward portion coupled to the fourth bend and having the dispensing end of the discharge tube.
As stated above, Elliot discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of claims 10 and 11 except for:
a vertically extending upper portion coupled to the second bend.
a third bend coupled to the vertically extending upper portion;
an extension portion coupled to the third bend;
a fourth bend coupled to the extension portion;
on which Elliot is silent.
However, Yeh teaches a discharge tube (Yeh, Fig. 1, outlet tube 105) comprising:
a vertically extending lower portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below) extending from a lid of the container,
a first bend coupled to the vertically extending lower portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
a transition portion coupled to the first bend (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
a second bend coupled to the transition portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
and a vertically extending upper portion coupled to the second bend (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below).
a third bend coupled to the vertically extending upper portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
an extension portion coupled to the third bend (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
a fourth bend coupled to the extension portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dispensing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures of the food product dispenser, manual pump, and spout of Elliot, with the outlet tube of Yeh in the teachings of Yeh to provide an offset to the dispensing end to provide improved clearance for operation of the manual pump.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Elliot discloses:
A discharge tube
a vertically extending lower portion extending from a lid of the container
a first bend directly coupled to the vertically extending lower portion;
a transition portion directly coupled to the first bend;
a second bend directly coupled to the transition portion;
and a downward portion directly coupled to the fourth bend and having the dispensing end of the discharge tube.
As stated above, Elliot discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of claims 13 and 14 except for:
a vertically extending upper portion directly coupled to the second bend.
a third bend directly coupled to the vertically extending upper portion;
an extension portion directly coupled to the third bend;
a fourth bend coupled to the extension portion.
on which Elliot is silent.
However, Yeh teaches a discharge tube (Yeh, Fig. 1, outlet tube 105) comprising:
a vertically extending lower portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below) extending from a lid of the container,
a first bend directly coupled to the vertically extending lower portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
a transition portion directly coupled to the first bend (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
a second bend directly coupled to the transition portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
and a vertically extending upper portion directly coupled to the second bend (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below).
a third bend directly coupled to the vertically extending upper portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
an extension portion directly coupled to the third bend (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
a fourth bend directly coupled to the extension portion (Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1, below),
and a downward portion directly coupled to the fourth bend and having the dispensing end of the discharge tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dispensing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures of the food product dispenser, manual pump, and spout of Elliot, with the outlet tube of Yeh in the teachings of Yeh to provide an offset to the dispensing end to provide improved clearance for operation of the manual pump.
PNG
media_image1.png
718
981
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yeh, Annotated Fig. 1
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Elliot and Yeh as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Elliot.
Regarding claim 12, Elliot discloses in the art of dispensers the extension portion is angled upward relative to a horizontal axis extending through the discharge tube (Elliot, Fig. 1 spout 61). Therefore, since the inclusion of the extension portion angling upward would allow the dispenser end to be positioned in an optimal position for discharging the food product, the modified device of Elliot and Yeh, as applied to claim 11, through Elliot teaches the invention of claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Selitsky (US 2183370 A) discloses a liquid measuring and dispensing device with a rotatable spout which is offset from the pump.
Gosselin (US 2004/0222233 A1) discloses a dispenser for low-viscosity and high-viscosity fluids with an offset spout with an upwardly angled extension for the discharge tube.
Tuyls (US 2009/0090747 A1) discloses a condiment dispenser with an upwardly angled discharge tube.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN RAYMOND ETZEL whose telephone number is (571)305-5217. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00a-4:30p Fri 7:00a-11:00p.
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 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.
/ALAN RAYMOND ETZEL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights