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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“liquid” should be added before “fragrance dispensing device” in ln. 2.
“rotatable” should be added before “spray head” in ln. 5, ln. 6, and ln. 9.
“fragrance” should be added before “dispensing device” in ln. 6, ln. 8, and ln. 11.
“vertical” should be added before “rib” in ln. 10.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“at least one” should be added before “rib” in ln. 1-2.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“rotatable” should be added before “spray head” in ln. 5, ln. 8, and ln. 9.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“e” should be removed in ln. 2.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“according to any of claims 3” should be revised to “according to claim 3” in ln. 1.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“according to any of claims 3” should be revised to “according to claim 3” in ln. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2-7 and 9-15 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 2 recites the limitation “a pair of side parts” in ln. 4. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to the pair of side parts previously introduced in the claim or if the applicant is referring to a different pair of side parts. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the pair of side parts previously introduced in the claim.
Claims 3-6 and 9-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 2.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a refill” in ln. 5. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to the refill previously introduced in the claim or if the applicant is referring to a different refill. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the refill previously introduced in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bottle" in ln. 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a bottle” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ophardt et al. (US 20050205608 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ophardt discloses a refill (12, 22, 78, Fig. 1) for a liquid fragrance dispensing device (10, Figs. 1-5), the refill (12, 22, 78, Fig. 1) configured to be inserted into the fragrance dispensing device (10, shown in Fig. 1);
wherein the refill (12, 22, 78, Fig. 1) comprises a rotatable spray head (78, piston element 78 is rotatable relative to dispensing chamber 74, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0049) and a bottle (12, Fig. 1), the rotatable spray head (78, Fig. 1) further comprising a nozzle (81, shown in Figs. 6-7);
the spray head (78, Fig. 1) is configured to dispense liquid fragrance from the bottle (12, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0049);
wherein the spray head (78, Fig. 1) is configured to be rotated by the dispensing device (10, Figs. 1-5) by contacting at least one jaw (40, 42, Figs. 9-16) of the dispensing device (10, Figs. 1-5) as the bottle (12, Fig. 1) is inserted into the dispensing device (10, change of position of fingers 40, 42 causes relative movement between fingers 40, 42 and flange 86 which increases tendency of piston element 78 to rotate, Paragraphs 0050, 0060-0061, 0087); and
wherein the spray head (78, Fig. 1) further comprises at least one vertical rib (86, Figs. 1-16) and the at least one rib (86, Figs. 1-16) is configured to contact the at least one jaw (40, 42, Figs. 9-16) to align the spray head (78, Fig. 1) in the dispensing device (10, flange 86 biases fingers 40, 42 and limits its inward sliding movement within dispensing chamber 74 of dispenser 10, Figs. 1-5, Paragraphs 0060-0061).
With respect to claim 2, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 1. Ophardt discloses the spray head (78, Figs. 1, 6-7) further comprises a rounded part (115, 117, 116, 118, Fig. 8), a pair of side parts (113, 114, Figs. 7-8), a front part (front part of piston element 78 where nozzle 81 protrudes from, shown in Fig. 7) and a top part (108, Fig. 7);
wherein the nozzle (81, Figs. 6-7) at least partially extends from the front part (front part of piston element 78 where nozzle 81 protrudes from, shown in Fig. 7) of the spray head (78, Figs. 1, 6-7) and the rounded part (115, 117, 116, 118, Fig. 8) is connected to the front part (front part of piston element 78 where nozzle 81 protrudes from, shown in Fig. 7) via a pair of side parts (113, 114, shown in Figs. 7-8); and
wherein the at least one rib (86, Figs. 1-16) is located on at least one of the pair of side parts (113, 114, shown in Figs. 7-8).
With respect to claim 3, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 2, wherein the rib (86, Figs. 1-16) has a wedge shape with one part of the rib (86, shown in Figs. 7-8) projecting from a side part further than another part of the rib (86, shown in Figs. 7-8).
In regards to claim 7, Ophardt discloses a rotatable spray head (78, piston element 78 is rotatable relative to dispensing chamber 74, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0049) for a refill (12, Fig. 1) configured to be inserted into a fragrance dispensing device (10, shown in Fig. 1); wherein
the rotatable spray head (78, Fig. 1) is attachable to the refill (12, shown in Fig. 1);
the rotatable spray head (78, Fig. 1) comprises a nozzle (81, Figs. 6-7) and the spray head (78, Fig. 1) is configured to dispense liquid fragrance from a refill (12, Fig. 1) via the nozzle (81, Figs. 6-7, Paragraph 0049);
wherein the spray head (78, Fig. 1) is configured to be rotated by the dispensing device (10, Figs. 1-5) by contacting at least one jaw (40, 42, Figs. 9-16) of the dispensing device (10, Figs. 1-5) as the bottle (12, Fig. 1) is inserted into the dispensing device (10, change of position of fingers 40, 42 causes relative movement between fingers 40, 42 and flange 86 which increases tendency of piston element 78 to rotate, Paragraphs 0050, 0060-0061, 0087); and
wherein the spray head (78, Fig. 1) further comprises at least one vertical rib (86, Figs. 1-16) and the at least one rib (86, Figs. 1-16) is configured to contact the at least one jaw (40, 42, Figs. 9-16) to align the spray head (78, Fig. 1) in the dispensing device (10, flange 86 biases fingers 40, 42 and limits its inward sliding movement within dispensing chamber 74 of dispenser 10, Figs. 1-5, Paragraphs 0060-0061).
In regards to claim 8, Ophardt discloses a liquid fragrance dispensing device (10, Fig. 1) comprising a refill (12, 22, 78, Fig. 1) according to claim 1.
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 4-6 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ophardt et al. (US 20050205608 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 2. Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the width of the rib is between 10% and 30% of the side portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the width of the rib is between 10% and 30% of the side portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the width of the rib which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 4, ln. 24-27 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 2. Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the rib extends from the side portion at the maximum extension between 0.2% and 1% of the width of the spray head.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rib extends from the side portion at the maximum extension between 0.2% and 1% of the width of the spray head, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the extension of the rib from the side portion which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 5, ln. 1-3 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 3. Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the wedge shape of the rib forms an angle of between 1° to 2°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wedge shape of the rib forms an angle of between 1° to 2°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the angle of the wedge shape of the rib which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 5, ln. 4-7 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 9, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 2. Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the rib extends from the side portion at the maximum extension between 0.4% and 0.8%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rib extends from the side portion at the maximum extension between 0.4% and 0.8%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the extension of the rib from the side portion which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 5, ln. 1-3 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 10, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 2. Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the rib extends from the side portion at the maximum extension between e 0.5% to 0.7%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rib extends from the side portion at the maximum extension between e 0.5% to 0.7%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the extension of the rib from the side portion which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 5, ln. 1-3 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 11, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 2. Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the rib extends from the side portion at the maximum extension of 0.6%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rib extends from the side portion at the maximum extension of 0.6%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the extension of the rib from the side portion which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 5, ln. 1-3 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Ophardt discloses the refill according to any of claims 3. Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the wedge shape of the rib forms an angle of between 1.20 to 1.8° with the side portion of the spray head.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wedge shape of the rib forms an angle of between 1.20 to 1.8° with the side portion of the spray head, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the angle of the wedge shape of the rib which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 5, ln. 4-7 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 13, Ophardt discloses the refill according to any of claims 3, Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the wedge shape of the rib forms an angle of between 1.3° to 1.5° with the side portion of the spray head.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wedge shape of the rib forms an angle of between 1.3° to 1.5° with the side portion of the spray head, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the angle of the wedge shape of the rib which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 5, ln. 4-7 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 14, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 2. Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the width of the rib is between 15% and 25% of the side portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the width of the rib is between 15% and 25% of the side portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the width of the rib which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 4, ln. 24-27 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Ophardt discloses the refill according to claim 2. Ophardt discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the width of the rib is between 18% to 22% of the side portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the width of the rib is between 18% to 22% of the side portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the width of the rib which achieves the recognized result of providing an engagement surface that allows the spray head to have reciprocal sliding movement to dispense fluid (Ophardt, Paragraph 0050), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 4, ln. 24-27 of the specification, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
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
