DETAILED ACTION
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 supply conduit in claim 8, ln. 2, the mechanism to perform sprays in claim 8, ln. 3, the spraying system in claim 8, ln. 19, the spraying system in claim 11, ln. 1, the filling bottle in claim 13, ln. 2 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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a bottle of claim 8” in ln. 1 should be revised to “the bottle of claim 8”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a mechanism to perform sprays in claim 8, ln. 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. It will be interpreted that a mechanism to perform sprays is a pump as described in pg. 6, ln. 25-29 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8-14 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the lower portion of the bottle" in ln. 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a lower portion of the bottle” to refer back to for this limitation.
Claims 9-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a spraying system” in ln. 1. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the spraying system previously claimed in claim 8, or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the spraying system previously claimed in claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a projection” in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the projection previously claimed in claim 8, or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the projection previously claimed in claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a recess” in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the recess previously claimed in claim 8, or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the projection previously claimed in claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a base” in ln. 3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the base previously claimed in claim 8, or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the projection previously claimed in claim 8.
Claims 12-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “an actuator” in ln. 4. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the actuator previously claimed in claim 11, or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the actuator previously claimed in claim 11.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the hole" in ln. 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a hole” to refer back to for this limitation.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the gap" in ln. 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a gap” to refer back to for this limitation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (WO 2022158664 A1) in view of Abergas et al. (US 20220061498 A1).
In regards to claim 8, Jung discloses a perfume bottle (120, Figs. 2-4, 6) comprising a head (bottom end of cartridge 120, shown in Figs. 6-8); an atomising nozzle (123a, Figs. 6-8) located in the head (bottom end of cartridge 120, shown in Figs. 6-8); a container (122, Figs. 6-8), which houses both the perfume (Paragraph 0051) and a supply conduit (122a, Figs. 7-8) to the atomising nozzle (123a, Figs. 6-8) and a mechanism to perform sprays (123, Figs. 6-8); and a body (121, Figs. 6-8), with a longitudinal axis (shown in Figs. 6-8), where both the container (122, Figs. 6-8) and the head (bottom end of cartridge 120, shown in Figs. 6-8) are housed (shown in Figs. 6-8), wherein:
- the bottle (120, Figs. 2-4, 6) comprises a regulating mechanism (124, Figs. 6-8) that determines a percentage of a spray (when user presses lifting member 124, an amount of cosmetic is dispensed, Paragraph 0056),
- the bottle (120, Figs. 2-4, 6) comprises a projection (142, Figs. 3, 9), in contact with the container (122, pumping member 123 is pressurized by the pressurizing member 142 of the discharge means 140M and displaced from the lower side to the upper side, and the cosmetic contained in the cosmetic container 122 is discharged through the discharge port 123a, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0052), and a recess (121a, internal space within container casing 121, shown in Figs. 3, 8) in the body (121, Figs. 3, 6-8), and wherein
- the regulating mechanism (124, Figs. 6-8) provides a plurality of percentages of a spray, according to the position in which it is located (when user presses lifting member 124, an amount of cosmetic is dispensed, Paragraph 0056),
- the projection (142, Figs. 3, 9) is located in the lower portion of the bottle (shown in Fig. 3) and has the possibility of a lifting movement to perform sprays (pressurizing member 142 performs a lifting and lowering operation to discharge cosmetics, Paragraphs 0045, 0052), and
- the recess (121a, internal space within container casing 121, shown in Figs. 3, 8) is located in a lower zone of the periphery of the bottle (shown in Fig. 3) and is intended to fix the bottle (120, Fig. 6), during the lifting movement of the projection (Paragraph 0051), when the bottle (120, Fig. 6) is housed in a base (110, Figs. 2-4) of a spraying system (100 in Fig. 1, entire system in Figs. 2-4).
However, Jung does not disclose the atomising nozzle has an inclination with respect to the longitudinal axis of the body of the bottle and the inclination is between 40 and 50 degrees.
Abergas teaches the atomising nozzle (30, Fig. 3) has an inclination with respect to the longitudinal axis of the body of the bottle (100, Fig. 3) and the inclination is between 40 and 50 degrees (first orifice acute angle α1 may be from 1 degree to 70 degrees, from 2 to 50 degrees, from 3 to 40 degrees, from 5 to 30 degrees, from 5 to 20 degrees, or different combinations of the upper and lower numerical values described above or combinations of any integer in the ranges listed above relative to the plane 200, Paragraph 0048).
Jung and Abergas are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic spray bottles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the atomising nozzle taught in Aberga’s bottle to Jung’s bottle, to have the motivation of providing a controlled and stable extruded composition during dispensing (Abergas, Paragraph 0024).
In regards to claim 9, Jung, as modified by Abergas, discloses the bottle of claim 8, wherein the regulating mechanism (124, Figs. 6-8) is a ramp mechanism (shown in Figs. 6-8) which allows continuous regulation of the spray percentage to be delivered (user presses the lifting member 124 and applies a certain amount of force using a finger, which allows cosmetic to be dispensed, and as long as a force is applied, there is continuous regulation of the cosmetic to be delivered at a certain amount, Paragraphs 0056-0057) .
Regarding claim 11, Jung, as modified by Abergas, discloses a bottle of claim 8. Jung discloses a spraying system of perfume (100 in Fig. 1, entire structure in Figs. 2-4) housed in a bottle of claim 8 (120, shown in Figs. 2-4), wherein:
- the bottle (120, Figs. 2-4, 6) comprises a projection (124a, Figs. 6-8) in contact with the container (122, Figs. 6-8, Paragraph 0056) and a recess (121b, Figs. 7-8) in the body (121, Figs. 6-8),
- the bottle (120, Figs. 2-4, 6) comprises a base (110, Figs. 2-4) with a housing (111, Figs. 2-4) for a bottle (120, shown in Figs. 2-4), and
- the bottle (120, Figs. 2-4, 6) comprises an actuator (140A, 140B, Figs. 2-4) fixed to the base (110, shown in Figs. 2-4) and associated with the housing of the bottle (111, Figs. 2-4) and a motor for applying the sprays (not explicitly shown, but first and second actuators 140A and 140B can be equipped with a motor, Paragraphs 0046, 0062), wherein
- the actuator (140A, 140B, Figs. 2-4) comprises, in turn,
- a lifting mechanism (141, pumping member 123 of the cartridge 120 performs a pumping operation by lifting through the cam mechanism 141 and the pressurizing member 142, Figs. 3, 9, Paragraphs 0061-0062), connected to the motor (not explicitly shown, but first and second actuators 140A and 140B can be equipped with a motor and cam mechanism connects to second actuator 140B shown in Figs. 3, 9, Paragraphs 0046, 0062), responsible for acting on the projection (142, Figs. 3, 9) and carrying out a spray (cam mechanism 141 is connected to pressure member 142 and enables pumping member 123 to do a pumping operation to discharge cosmetics, Paragraphs 0051, 0060-0061); and
- a retaining mechanism (130, Figs. 2-5, 9), attached to the lifting mechanism (141, shown in Figs. 3, 9), intended to fix the base (110, Figs. 2-4) to the bottle (120, Figs. 2-4, 6) through the recess (121a, internal space within container casing 121, shown in Figs. 3, 8) when spraying occurs (base panel serves to support rotating drum 110 and other components from the lower side and receiving hole 121a mounts container 122 inside of container casing 121 which is mounted in mounting hole 111 of rotating drum 110, Paragraphs 0050-0051, 0058).
With respect to claim 12, Jung, as modified by Abergas, discloses spraying system of claim 11. Jung discloses:
- the base (110, Figs. 2-4) comprises a plurality of housings (110, Figs. 2, 4) for bottles (120, Figs. 2-4, 6),
- the motor speed is adjustable (a controller can operate the first and second actuators 140A and 140B and their motors, Paragraphs 0018, 0046, 0062, 0071), and
- the spraying system (100 in Fig. 1, entire structure in Figs. 2-4) comprises an actuator (140A, 140B, Figs. 2-4) associated with each of the housings (110, Figs. 2, 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (WO 2022158664 A1) in view of Abergas et al. (US 20220061498 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Park (KR 20220101370 A).
With respect to claim 10, Jung, as modified by Abergas, discloses the bottle of claim 8. However, Jung and Abergas do not teach the regulating mechanism is a toothed mechanism which allows discrete regulation, with several spray percentages to be delivered. Park teaches the regulating mechanism (22, 40, Figs. 2-3, 5-7) is a toothed mechanism (shown in Figs. 2-3, 5-7) which allows discrete regulation, with several spray percentages to be delivered (user can operate the control of the operation unit, which determines a force of the operating part 40 that can be transmitted to spray 20 at a specific spray position, Paragraphs 0018, 0020, 0026)
Jung, Abergas, and Park are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic spray bottles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the toothed mechanism taught in Park’s bottle to Jung’s bottle, as modified by Abergas, to have the motivation of allowing fragrance to be sprayed at a specific position (Park, Paragraph 0026).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (WO 2022158664 A1) in view of Abergas et al. (US 20220061498 A1) as applied to claim 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Doty et al. (US 20110253800 A1).
In regards to claim 13, Jung, as modified by Abergas, discloses spraying system of claim 12. Jung further discloses a collector (150, Figs. 2-3), with a funnel configuration (shown in Figs. 2-3), intended to be fixed to the bottles (120, shown in Figs. 2-3).
However, Jung and Abergas do not teach a central gap for housing a filling bottle, and a collector comprising a central hole, so that the hole is aligned with the gap.
Doty teaches:
- a central gap (34, Fig. 8) for housing a filling bottle (hollow cylinder placed in odor compartment 32, shown in Fig. 8), and
- a collector (22, Fig. 8), comprising a central hole (52, Fig. 8), so that the hole (interpreting as central hole, 52, Fig. 8) is aligned with the gap (interpreting as central gap, 34, shown in Fig. 8).
Jung, Abergas, and Doty are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic spray bottles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the central gap and the collector taught in Doty’s bottle to Jung’s bottle, as modified by Abergas, to have the motivation of administering various mixtures while allowing for quick replenishment and flexibility (Doty, Paragraphs 0010-0011).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (WO 2022158664 A1) in view of Abergas et al. (US 20220061498 A1) as applied to claims 8 and 11 above, and further in view of Nasu (US 20210325225 A1) and Droz (WO 0071174 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Jung, as modified by Abergas, discloses spraying system of claim 11. Jung discloses guides (144, Fig. 9) comprising respective through slots (142a, Fig. 9) for controlling the retaining mechanism (130, Figs. 2-5, 9, Paragraphs 0060, 0063), and the retaining mechanism (130, Figs. 2-5, 9) comprises a pair of tabs (annotated in Fig. 9), each with a pair of legs (143, Fig. 9) that is housed in the respective slot (142a, shown in Fig. 9), through which it can move (there is a pair of guide rods 143 inserted into guide grooves 142a during a lifting operation, shown in Fig. 9, Paragraph 0064).
However, Jung and Abergas do not teach the lifting mechanism comprises a toothed wheel, a rack meshing with the toothed wheel, a piston integral with the rack, and guides comprising respective through slots for controlling the retaining mechanism, and the retaining mechanism comprises a pair of tabs, each with a pair of legs joined by a pin that is housed in the respective slot, through which it can move.
Nasu teaches the lifting mechanism (8, Fig. 4) comprises a toothed wheel (31, Fig. 4), a rack (32, Fig. 4) meshing with the toothed wheel (31, Fig. 4), a piston (37, Fig. 4) integral with the rack (32, Fig. 4).
Jung, Abergas, and Nasu are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic spray bottles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lifting mechanism taught in Nasu’s bottle to Jung’s bottle, as modified by Abergas, to have the motivation of providing improved raising and lowering movement of the bottle through meshing of the rack gear and pinion gear, which feeds multiple contents and reduces costs of components (Nasu, Paragraphs 0007, 0048, 0060).
However, Jung, Abergas, and Nasu do not teach a pair of legs joined by a pin. Droz teaches a leg (7, Fig. 5) joined by a pin (71, Fig. 5).
Jung, Abergas, Nasu, and Droz are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic spray bottles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lifting mechanism taught in Droz’s bottle to Jung’s bottle, as modified by Abergas and Nasu, to have the motivation to better mount the parts together (Droz, Pg. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights