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 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.
Claim 10 recites "engagement means for receiving a cover" without identifying a structure for that function. The limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the disclosed snap bead or screw thread formation at the pump actuator end of the collar sidewall and equivalents thereof. See the application description, paragraph beginning "The pump actuator end of the sidewall may be provided with engagement means," and Fig. 2, rim (127) and recess (129).
Claim 15 likewise recites "engagement means for engaging a container." This limitation is interpreted under 35 U.5.C. 112(f) as the disclosed closure screw thread formation (180, 280) and equivalents thereof. See the application description of Figs. 3 and 7.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the obvious typographical duplication "a screw-on a pump" on line 1 of the claim. Delete the second "a" so that the phrase reads "a screw-on pump.'' In view of the description and the recited cooperating screw thread formations, the intended structure is reasonably ascertainable; no additional 112(b) rejection is made for this clerical error. The 103 rejection below reads the claim as referring to a screw-on pump.. 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.
Claims 8, 9, 10 and 12 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, which depends directly from claim 1, recites the recitation "the anti-rotation ribs" which begins on line 2 and continues on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduces circumferential friction ribs but no anti-rotation ribs. It is unclear whether the recited anti-rotation ribs are additional axial ribs as separately introduced in claim 7 or whether the claim attempts to characterize the already-recited circumferential friction ribs.
Claim 9, which depends directly from claim 1, recites "the anti-rotation ribs" begins on line 2 and continues on line 3. Claim 1 does not introduce such ribs. Their identity and relationship to the claim-1 friction ribs are unclear for the same reason as claim 8.
Claim 10: The recitation "the pump actuator end" on line 2 lacks a defined referent in directly dependent claim 1, which merely specifies that the cylindrical sidewall is open at both ends. The claim does not identify which of the two ends carries the cover engagement means.
Claim 12: The recitation "the anti-rotation ribs" on line 3 lacks antecedent basis. Claim 12 depends from claim 11, which depends from claim 1; neither introduces anti-rotation ribs. The claim does not make clear whether these are additional axial ribs on the inclined portion or a characterization of the friction ribs of claim 1.
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 1, 4-7 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Walters (U.S. Pub. 2006/0113329) in view of Llesera. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0001257, also published as WO 2011/116201).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Walters discloses a dispensing pump assembly having a pump cartridge (24), actuator (42), threaded closure (26), and fixed exterior housing (100). The generally cylindrical housing (100) has open upper and lower ends and surrounds the closure (26). Its internal axial ribs (111) fit between exterior ribs (68) of the closure skirt (66). This prevents relative rotation and allows equipment to grip and turn the housing (100) to screw the closure (26) onto the bottle (22).
Walters, description of Figs. 2-4 and 6, particularly the passages identifying ribs (68, 111), housing (100), and closure threads (58). Walters therefore supplies the anti-rotation ribs of claim 7 as well as the pump and collar arrangement of claim 1.
Walters does not disclose circumferential friction ribs on the interior of housing contacting the closure skirt. Its annular groove (106) receives the closure bead (70) in a snap fit; that groove is not mapped to the claimed friction rib.
Llesera teaches that a collar (250) surrounding a pump fitment (210) can carry horizontal ridges (254), which secure the collar (250) and fitment (210) and prevent movement between them; vertical ridges (252) may coexist on the same collar. Llesera, WO 2011/116201 A2, paragraphs [0040]-[0043]. Figs. 3-5; U.S. counterpart, description of Figs. 3-5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Walters's housing ( 100) with inward circumferential ridges contacting the exterior of closure skirt (66), while retaining the axial ribs (111) to secure the housing and underlying closure against relative axial movement as Llesera expressly teaches for collar (250) and fitment (210) (WO 2011/116201 A2, paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 6, Llesera expressly states that collar (250) can have one or more horizontal ridges (254) to secure the collar to fitment (210) and prevent relative movement, and also discloses varying horizontal and vertical ridge arrangements. WO 2011/116201 A2, paragraphs [0040]-[0041]. Neither Llesera nor Walters expressly specifies exactly two ridges, exactly four ridges, or a projection of approximately 0.03 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select two or four of the Llesera-type ridges on housing (100), and size their inward projection at approximately 0.03 mm, as routine selections of the number and size of already-taught ridges for the disclosed purpose of securing the two parts against relative movement (WO 2011/116201 A2, paragraph [0040]). These claims identify no distinct operation or demonstrated criticality at those specific values. The figures are not relied on as an exact dimensional disclosure. See MPEP 2144.04(1V)(A) (changes in size and proportion).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Walters expressly identifies polypropylene. polyethylene, and other plastics as suitable materials for the molded housing (100) and describes (¶ [0106]) using one mold to produce the housing (100).
Walters, description of the preferred embodiment and modified locking sleeve (76A). paragraphs discussing housing material and its mold. The plastic housing (100) is an individual molded article, distinct from the separately molded locking sleeve (76).
Those teachings supply the claimed plastic material and single-piece collar; neither limitation requires the entire pump assembly to be unitary. The claim 1 ridge modification is made to the molded housing (100).
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Walters discloses actuator (42), pump cartridge (24), closure (26) having closure skirt (66), and housing (100) around the exterior of that skirt. Female threads (58) of the closure engage male threads (32) of container (22). The housing ribs (111) engage closure ribs (68), permitting the housing to transmit torque to the threaded closure. Walters, description of Figs. 2, 3, and 6, particularly the passages on threads (32, 58), skirt (66), and ribs (68, 111). Walters lacks the recited circumferential friction ribs contacting the exterior of closure sidewall (66).
Llesera supplies horizontal ridges (254) on collar (250) for retention against movement of pump fitment (210) (WO 2011/116201 A2, paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add inward circumferential friction ridges to the interior of Walters's housing (100) against the exterior of the threaded pump closure skirt (66), to secure the surrounding housing and closure against axial movement as Llesera expressly teaches for collar (250) and fitment (210) (paragraph [0040]). Walters itself supplies claim 16's screw-on closure (26), female threads (58), and matching container threads (32).
Regarding claim 17, Walters discloses a bottle (22) with male screw threads (32), a pump cartridge (24), and a pump closure (26) with cooperating female screw threads (58). An exterior housing (100), corresponding to the claimed collar, has a sidewall surrounding the pump closure skirt (66).
Walters does not disclose an annular rib on the interior of that sidewall that resists axial movement relative to the pump. Its annular groove (106) receives a closure bead (70), but the groove is not an inwardly projecting rib. Walters, description of Figs. 2, 3, and 6.
Llesera teaches horizontal ridges (254) on a collar (250) to secure the collar to a pump fitment (210) and prevent relative movement. Llesera also teaches removing a pump by twisting, then refilling the bottle and fitting it with another pump. WO 2011/116201 A2, paragraphs [0040], [0055], and [0063].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Walters's housing with an inwardly projecting annular rib contacting the pump closure skirt to resist relative axial movement, as Llesera teaches for its collar and fitment (paragraph [0040]). It would also have been obvious to use Walters's cooperating screw threads to remove the pump for refilling the bottle, as Llesera expressly teaches (paragraphs [0055] and [0063]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Llesera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VanBrocklin (U.S. Pat. 6,253,941).
The combination for claim 1 does not specify a continuous rib.
VanBrocklin discloses annular splines (65) projecting inward from the surface (62) of a retaining-collar sleeve (56) and engaging the outside (66) of a skirt (34); these annular retaining rings (64) enhance maintenance of the collar (28) in its assembled position. VanBrocklin, description of Figs. 3-6, particularly the passages discussing annular splines (65) and retention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the Llesera-type circumferential ridges added to Walters’ housing (100) continuous annular splines, as VanBrocklin teaches, to enhance maintenance of the retaining collar in the assembled position (VanBrocklin, description of Figs. 3-6).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Llesera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jourdin (U.S. Pub. 2023/0219108, also published as WO 2021/250354).
The claim 1 combination does not expressly segment an individual friction rib.
Jourdin discloses an inward annular rib (15) of a pump receiving sleeve (14), with alternating retaining segments (16) and release segments (17). optionally separated by slits. The retaining segments engage the pump fixing flange (P2). Jourdin, description of Figs. l-4b, particularly the passages describing rib (15), segments (16, 17), and molding-pin removal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to segment the circumferential ridges supplied by Llesera in Walters's housing (100) as Jourdin teaches, while dimensioning the remaining rib portions to contact closure skirt (66), to preserve functional retaining portions during removal of the molding pin. (Jourdin, description of Figs. 2-4b, discussion of the release segments (17) protecting retaining segments (16)).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Llesera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bevans (U.S. Pat. 7,757,902).
The claim 1 combination does not expressly give housing (100) a cap-receiving formation at the actuator end.
Bevans discloses a cylindrical mounting collar (200) having spaced annular ridges (214, 216) above its decorative collar (202). The ridges define a groove in which a cap (126) snaps and is secured. Bevans, description of Fig. 14 and Fig. 15.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a corresponding cap-receiving groove and ridges at the actuator end of Walters’s housing (100), as Bevans teaches. to secure a cap (126) over the pump actuator (Bevans. description of Figs. 14-15).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Llesera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leleu (U.S. Pub. 2011/0031281).
The claim-1 combination provides Walters's ribbed housing (100) but does not expressly disclose an outer skirt on that housing.
Leleu discloses a pump-fastening sleeve (7) having a lower skirt (10) with a peripheral seating (13), and a second skirt (19) surrounding that seating. A snap ring (17) on the second skirt (19) engages a groove ( 18) in an outside skirt (8b) of the dressing hoop (8), providing axial fastening of the hoop (8) to the sleeve (7). Leleu, US 2011/0031281 Al, description of Fig. 2a, paragraphs [0036] and [0037]. Leleu identifies reliability against axial forces on the hoop as a reason for securing it to the sleeve. Id., paragraph [0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a second, outwardly spaced skirt on Walters's housing (100) around its existing closure-contacting sidewall, corresponding to Leleu's second skirt (19), and provide that skirt with a snap ring (17) engaging a groove (18) in a dressing hoop (8). The modification would retain the dressing hoop (8) against axial forces while preserving the housing's existing contact with the closure, as expressly taught by Leleu (US 2011/0031281 Al, description of Fig. 2a, paragraphs [0036] and [0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 additionally places the axial anti-rotation ribs toward the pump actuator end. Walters locates ribs (111) at the closure skirt (66), and the available references do not clearly establish the claimed upper placement in the same modified assembly.
Claim 9 additionally places the axial ribs on a radially inwardly inclined portion. The located conical collars and ribbed pump housings do not establish a concrete modification that positions torque transferring axial ribs on such a portion while preserving the closure engagement.
Claim 12, which depends from claim 11 in the replacement listing, recites both the inclined rib-bearing portion and an outer skirt attached on the exterior of the sidewall axially below that portion. Leleu teaches an outer skirt, but the record does not establish this specified positional relationship or an adequate rationale for it in the modified Walters housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
