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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 5/15/25 and 8/4/25 have been considered by the examiner. It is noted an English translation of the “International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/FR2023/051787 dated January 2, 2025” (cited on the IDS filed 515/25) was filed on 8/4/25. Further, the “International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated May 22, 2025 in Application No. PCT/FR2023/051787” (cited on the IDS filed 8/4/25) has been lined through since no copy of this document has been filed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 5, line 14, “reservoir1” should be “reservoir 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 16, it is unclear as to which element “it” (see line 3) is referring. 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 9-16 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.
In regard to claim 9, an antecedent basis for “said upper axial edge” (see line 4) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 16, an antecedent basis for “the inside of the neck” (see the last line) has not been defined.
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 9-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/140976 (as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter ‘976).
In regard to claim 9, the ‘976 reference discloses a device for dispensing a fluid product (see Figure 4) comprising a pump having a pump body 1 attached to a neck C of a reservoir R, the reservoir containing a fluid product to be dispensed and a compression element (not numbered, see the element resting on the upper surface of the neck) being arranged on an upper axial edge of the neck wherein the pump includes a turret 2”, 3” comprising an attachment portion for direct attachment to the pump body 11, a compression portion (not numbered, defined by the portion of the turret contacting the compression element) for compressing the compression element on the upper axial edge of the neck and a fitting sleeve 3” extending axially downwards under the compression portion wherein the fitting sleeve fits into the neck of the reservoir during assembly of the pump on the reservoir and wherein the fitting sleeve comprises at least one radial sealing profile 31 which, after assembly, sealingly engages with the neck of the reservoir.
Although the ‘976 reference does not specifically disclose the reservoir includes a closed bottom opposite the neck such that compression element is arranged on the upper edge of the neck furthest from the bottom, as claimed, the examiner takes official notice that such reservoirs having an open upper end conventionally include a closed bottom opposite the open upper end in order to enable the reservoir to store an amount of fluid therein. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the reservoir in the ‘976 device can include a closed bottom opposite the open upper end in order to enable the reservoir to store an amount of fluid therein.
In regard to claim 10, each radial sealing profile 31 is formed by a peripheral sealing bead.
In regard to claim 11, the fitting sleeve comprises a single radial sealing profile 31.
In regard to claim 12, although the fitting sleeve does not include at least two axially offset radial sealing profiles, as claimed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the ‘976 device can be designed to include a second radial sealing profile in order to better seal the reservoir since it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ.
In regard to claim 13, the compression element is made in the form of a neck seal.
In regard to claim 15, the compression element is formed by a radial annular wall of the turret.
In regard to claim 16, the turret is attached directed to the pump body, engages directly with the compression element to compress it on the upper axial edge of the neck and engages directly with the inside of the neck. Although the ‘976 reference does not disclose the turret is a one-piece part, as claimed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the turret in the ‘976 device can be designed as a one-piece part since it has been held forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in several pieces and then assembled involves only routine skill in the art. See Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘976 in view of Barriac (U.S. Patent 4,878,604).
In regard to claim 14, although the compression element in the ‘976 device is not in the form of a deformable lip secured to the turret, attention is directed to the Barriac reference, which discloses another sealing arrangement for a pump dispenser wherein the turret 22 which supports the pump includes a compression element 26 secured to the turret for sealing engaging the upper axial edge of the neck 18 wherein the compression element is in the form of a deformable lip. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the compression element in the ‘976 device can be a deformable lip secured with the turret where such a modification would amount to the mere substitution of one functionally equivalent compression seal for another and the selection of either of these compression element would work equally well on the ‘976 device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Jouan and De Pous references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other sealing arrangements for pump mechanisms mounted on container necks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
9/28/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
