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 1.84(1) because numerous structural lines in the figures are faint, light, and insufficiently well-defined for satisfactory reproduction. Drawing lines must be clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick, and well-defined. Replacement drawing sheets containing solid, dark, reproducible lines are required.
The replacement sheets should retain all presently disclosed structure and reference characters and must not introduce new matter. Replacement sheets must use the same reference character consistently for the same element throughout the drawings.
Specification
The specification is objected to because several reference numerals are inconsistent with the structures otherwise identified throughout the disclosure.
First, the specification states that bag (11) is introduced into the "lower body 2." Reference numeral (2) identifies the upper body, whereas the lower body is identified by reference numeral (14). The passage should be corrected to refer to lower body (14), if intended.
Second, the specification later refers to "upper skirt 62." Reference numeral (62) identifies the lower skirt, whereas the upper skirt is reference numeral (13). Appropriate correction is required.
Third, the specification states that the pump is "screwed back 30 into the neck (10)." Reference numeral (30) identifies the support element and appears to have been inadvertently inserted into the sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because it recites "wherein that the lower body comprises a bottom .... ". The word "that" should be deleted to correct the grammatical informality.
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 12 is 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 12 recites that "a height formed by the fixing base of the support element is configured to correspond to a height formed by the open housing via the lower skirt." Claim 8, however, defines the open housing as being formed by the bottom wall extending from the bottom in a direction opposite the lower skirt. The written description similarly identifies housing (67) as being formed by bottom wall (61) relative to bottom (3), while lower skirt (62) extends in the opposite direction. It is therefore unclear whether the claimed housing height is intended to be the height of bottom wall (61), lower skirt (62), or another dimension.
Applicant is required to clarify the limitation.
Claims 1-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Toh et al. ("Toh") (U.S. Pub. 2019/0200812) in view of Turbett et al. (“Turbett”) (U.S. Pat. 5,875,836).
Regarding claim 1, Toh discloses a dispenser body (110), dispenser lid (140), refill cavity (113), and pump sub-system (170). Toh further discloses a neck (141), opening (142), first clip tube (171), dispensing orifice (172), pump actuator (173), and collar (174). Toh teaches that the distal end of first dip tube (171) may be "pointed, sharpened, or otherwise configured to penetrate a film covering the refill cartridge" so that assembly automatically opens the cartridge. Toh, ¶ [0074].
Toh additionally teaches an embodiment in which the cartridge body, or its fluid cavity, "may contain or be formed by a collapsible bag" holding the personal-care fluid. Tob, ¶[0144]. Toh does not expressly disclose in the same embodiment that the pointed dip-tube end pierces the sealed dispensing region of that collapsible bag.
Turbett discloses a collapsible pouch having an annular fitment and frangible septum, together with a sharpened mouth at the lower end of the connector tube for puncturing the septum. Turbett states that the sharpened mouth punctures the septum "to begin product flow" and that "puncture can be triggered through joinder of the cartridge to the pump mechanism." Turbett, col. 3, lines 27-34.
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 configure the pointed distal end of Toh's dip tube (171) to pierce the sealed dispensing region of the collapsible bag when the pump is installed, as taught by Turbett, because Turbett expressly teaches puncturing the frangible septum with the sharpened connector-tube mouth "to begin product flow," with puncture being triggered by joinder of the cartridge to the pump mechanism. Turbett, col. 3, lines 27-34.
Regarding claim 2, Toh teaches removable threaded attachment of the pump sub-system to the dispenser lid by collar (174) and neck (141), thereby permitting the pump to be screwed onto and removed from the upper dispenser portion.
Regarding claim 3, Toh discloses the threaded neck (141), complementary threaded collar (174), and dip tube (171) extending through opening (142).
Regarding claim 4, Toh discloses actuator (173) at the pump end opposite the distal end of dip tube (171).
Regarding claim 5, Toh teaches actuation of the pump to withdraw personal-care fluid and dispense the fluid through dispensing orifice (172). As modified by Turben, the sharpened dip-tube end establishes fluid communication with the flexible bag upon installation.
Regarding claim 17, Toh teaches that the dispenser lid may be coupled to the dispenser body using mating screw threads, thereby providing a reversible threaded connection between the removable body portions.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Toh in view of Turbett as applied above, and further in view of Cassia (U.S. Pat. 4,214,676).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Toh/Turbett disclose cooperating removable dispenser-body portions but do not expressly disclose the precise upper-skirt/lower-skirt telescoping relationship recited by the claims. Cassia discloses a liquid-soap dispenser housing formed by two telescoping housing members (110, 150), with the outer housing member surrounding the inner housing member. Cassia, col. 3, lines 1-16; claim 7.
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 configure the upper and lower body portions of the Toh/Trurbett dispenser so that an outer upper skirt telescopically surrounds an inner lower skirt, as taught by Cassia, because Cassia expressly uses the telescoping inner and outer housing members to form the enclosed housing of a wall-mounted liquid-soap dispenser. Cassia, col. 3, lines 1-16.
Claims 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Toh in view of Turbett and Cassia as applied above, and further in view of Lewis et al. ("Lewis") (U.S. Pub. 2002/0079331).
Regarding claim 8, the combination above does not disclose the claimed support arrangement in which a fixing base is received within an open housing bounded by a dispenser wall so that the dispenser surrounds and conceals the fixing base.
Lewis discloses a wall mounting mechanism integrated into dispenser housing (14). Lewis teaches that the mounting mechanism is encircled by a border of the housing and that, when the housing is mounted, "the mounting mechanism is not visible from any angle." Lewis, ¶ [0074]. Lewis further discloses recess (50) molded into the housing and defined by generally vertical side walls (52), with complementary engagement structure for wall mounting structure (58). Lewis, ¶ [0075].
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 the lower portion of the modified dispenser with a recessed open housing bounded by a surrounding dispenser wall and to receive the fixing base substantially within that housing, as taught by Lewis, because Lewis expressly teaches encircling the mounting mechanism by the dispenser housing so that "the mounting mechanism is not visible from any angle" and so that there is essentially no space through which a potential vandal could insert a prying device. Lewis, ¶ [0074].
Lewis locates its recess at the rear of the dispenser rather than specifically at the bottom. Relocating the known concealed mounting recess to the bottom of the dispenser would have been a predictable rearrangement of the mounting interface while preserving the same support and concealment functions taught by Lewis.
Regarding claim 10, Lewis discloses wall mounting structure (58) defined by plate member (64), which is attached to wall surface (12), for example by screws or adhesive. Lewis, ¶ [0077]. Providing the fixing base transverse to, and the wall plate generally parallel with, the longitudinal dispenser axis follows directly from mounting a projecting engagement structure to a wall plate in the disclosed wall-mounted dispenser arrangement.
Regarding claim 12, Lewis teaches sizing the received wall-mount structure and the surrounding recess so that the support is substantially contained within the dispenser body and concealed by the housing. Lewis explains that the recess may be completely encircled within the back-wall border so that it is not visible from any angle and the back wall appears essentially flush with the support wall. Lewis, ¶ [0076].
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 dimension the fixing base and receiving housing to corresponding heights so that the fixing base is substantially superimposed with the dispenser bottom, because Lewis expressly teaches dimensional accommodation of mounting structure (58) within recess (30) to provide a secure, tight, concealed wall-mount interface. Lewis, ¶ [0076].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the references applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Geiberger (U.S. Pub. 2013/0092708).
Regarding claim 9, Lewis does not expressly characterize introduction of its fixing structure into the receiving recess as a form-fitting engagement. Geiberger discloses fastening hook (10) received in depression (11). The fastening hook includes sub-region (30) that "engages, preferably in a form-fitting manner," in a circumferential groove-like sub-region of depression section (13). Geiberger, ¶ [0028].
Geiberger further explains that the appropriately shaped hook/depression engagement prevents axial and pivotal movement and that the refill unit is thereby "retained securely and firmly" on the wall holder. Geiberger, ¶ [0026].
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 dimension the complementary fixing base and receiving housing of the modified dispenser so that the fixing base is introduced in a form-fitting manner, as taught by Geiberger (¶ [0028]), because Geiberger expressly teaches that the complementary hook/depression arrangement prevents unwanted axial and pivotal movement and causes the refill unit to be "retained securely and firmly" on the wall holder. Geiberger, ¶ [0026].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the references applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Steiner et al. (''Steiner") (EP 0 514 068 Al).
Regarding claim 11, the support arrangement discussed above does not necessarily require that the fixing base and wall fixing plate be molded together. Steiner discloses housing (30) as preferably being of unitary one-piece molded-plastic construction, with base wall (31) and mounting wall (32) integral with one another. Steiner, EP 0 514 068 Al, p. 3, lines 1-9.
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 mold the fixing base and wall fixing plate of the modified support as a single integral component, as taught by Cassia, because Cassia expressly identifies an objective of a liquid-soap dispensing system having "a minimal number of parts and great ease of assembly." Steiner, EP O 514 068 Al, p. 2, lines 5-9. This conclusion is additionally consistent with In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), concerning replacement of rigidly associated parts with a one-piece construction, absent a new or unexpected result.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the references applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Granville (U.5. Pat. 5,148,948).
Regarding claim 13, Lewis does not expressly disclose a central orifice through the fixing base aligned opposite a central orifice through the dispenser bottom for receiving a fixing means. Granville discloses mounting base (10) secured by integral threaded stud (13), which depends from the bottom of base (10) and extends through hole (14) in support surface (9), with washer (15), washer (16), lock washer (17), and wing nut (18) securing the mounting base. Granville, col. 2, lines 27-43.
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 employ a separate threaded fixing device passing through corresponding aligned apertures in the fixing base and dispenser bottom in place of Granville's integral threaded stud, because Granville expressly teaches a threaded fixing connection extending through the mounting interface and clamped by washers and a threaded nut to maintain the mounting base in a fixed, locked position. Granville, col. 2, lines 27-43.
Locating the aligned fastening apertures centrally in substantially superposed fixing-base and dispenser bottom members would have been a predictable symmetric placement of the known fastening connection, particularly where the instant specification identifies no different mechanical function or unexpected result attributable to a noncentral location.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the references applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Granville (U.S. Pat. 5,148,948).
Regarding claim 14, Granville discloses a liquid-soap dispenser bottle releasably secured to mounting base (25) by radially projecting pins (29) received in corresponding slots (30) and arcuate retaining recesses (32). Granville explains that the resilient bottom structure biases pins (29) upwardly into recesses (32), "effectively locking them in the recesses to discourage and inhibit removal of the dispenser bottle from base 25." Granville, col. 3, lines 35-44.
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 the modified fixing base with peripheral tenons received in corresponding circumferentially distributed grooves or recesses, as taught by Granville, because Granville expressly teaches biasing its circumferential pins into retaining recesses to "discourage and inhibit removal of the dispenser bottle from base 25." Granville, col. 3, lines 35-44.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the references applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chan (U.S. Pat. 6,520,470) and Baines et al. ("Baines") (U.S. Pub. 2006/0029455).
Regarding claim 15, Granville teaches circumferentially spaced engagement locations but does not expressly teach a second radially inward row staggered circumferentially between the first-row grooves, Chan discloses two engagement sets. Lower pins (114) engage groove portion (22), while upper pins (118) engage groove portion (20) to lock dispenser (10) against disengagement from base portion (100). Chan, col. 3, lines 10-40. Chan expressly states that the arrangement provides a "simple yet effective locking feature." Chan, col 3, lines 53-59.
Baines teaches a plurality of mounting-element sets spaced around the periphery. Baines explains that circumferential spacing allows one mounting element to pass between adjacent elements, and further teaches that the bayonet arrangement is advantageous because a bayonet can pass axially “between adjacent mounting lugs." Baines, ¶ [0027]. Baines additionally teaches sufficient circumferential spacing between adjacent bottle elements to permit the cap element to pass between them with a margin for error. Baines, ¶ [0028].
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 supplement Granville's first circumferential engagement set with a second set at another radial position, as taught by Chan, and to circumferentially offset the second set so that its engagement locations occupy spaces between adjacent engagement locations of the first set, as taught by Baines. Chan expressly teaches; its second engagement arrangement as a "simple yet effective locking feature" (Chan, col. 3, lines 53-59), while Baines expressly teaches circumferential spacing that allows one mounting element to pass between adjacent mounting elements (Baines, ¶ [0027]-[0028]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the references applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cassia (“Cassia ‘858”) (U.S. Pat. 4.173,858).
Regarding claim 16, Granville does not disclose the claimed distributed lumens through the fixing base.
Cassia ‘858 discloses drain holes (128) through the bottom wall of well (125). Cassia ‘858 states that if liquid soap is accidentally spilled into the bottom of the well around piercing member (130). "it will eventually drain through the drain holes 128 into the container 110." Cassia ‘858, col. 7, lines 39-46.
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 distributed drainage lumens through the fixing base in the available region between the central fastening opening and the peripheral engagement members, as taught by Cassia ‘858, because Cassia ‘858 expressly teaches providing drain holes so that liquid accumulated around the dispenser structure "will eventually drain through the drain holes 128 into the container 110." Cassia ‘858, col. 7, lines 39-46.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,318,793, alone or in combination with Toh and/or Turbett as indicated below.
The instant application is a divisional of Application No. 18/078,651, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,318,793. No restriction requirement was made in the parent application; therefore, the safe-harbor protection of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply merely because the instant application was filed as a divisional.
Instant claim(s)
U.S. Pat. 12,318,793 claim(s)
Reason
1
1 in view of Toh and Turbett
Claim 1 claims the same basic dispenser/body/support context. Toh teaches the removable threaded pump and pointed dip tube, and Turbett teaches using a sharpened tube to pierce the scaled flexible pouch to begin product flow.
2-5
1 in view of Toh/Turbett
The additional threaded pump, neck, actuator, piercing, and dispensing limitations are obvious refinements taught by Toh and Turbett.
6-8
1
Claim 1 expressly recites the lower body with bottom/lower skirt, upper skirt surrounding the lower skirt, support clement with wall fixing plate/fixing base, and projecting bottom wall forming an open housing surrounding the fixing base.
9
2
Claim 2 expressly requires the fixing base to be introduced into the open housing in a form-fitting manner.
10
3
Claim 3 expressly requires the transverse fixing base, parallel wall fixing plate, and fixing-element orifices.
11
4
Claim 4 expressly requires the fixing base and wall fixing plate to be molded together.
12
5
Claim 5 expressly recites the corresponding fixing-base/housing heights and superimposition relative to the dispenser bottom.
13
6
Claim 6 expressly recites the central orifice of the fixing base, opposed central orifice of the dispenser bottom, and fixing device.
14
7
Claim 7 expressly recites the uniformly distributed first row of grooves and corresponding tenons.
15
8
Claim 8 expressly recites the second row of grooves positioned between the first-row grooves and closer to the central orifice.
16
9
Claim 9 expressly recites lumens distributed uniformly between the central orifice and the tenons.
17
10
Claim 10 expressly recites the reversible threaded connection between the lower and upper bodies.
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
