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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 16 October 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-11 and 22 are pending and claims 12-21 are withdrawn from consideration due to the restriction election made by the applicant on 22 January 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-8 of the applicant’s response, filed 16 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with respect to Klima (US 5836479 A).
Applicant argues that Klima does not teach the newly added limitation “the body of the cylinder of a length operable to prevent an upper end of the cylinder from falling below a neck of a conventional spray bottle without attachment to a trigger mechanism or wall of the conventional spray bottle. However, it can be seen in multiple embodiments taught by Klima that the insert will not fall below the neck of the spray bottle due to the construction of said insert (Figure 1, Figure 26, Figure 62, Figure 64, and Figure 74). From the applicant’s exemplary embodiment of this feature (Figure 14B), it must be interpreted that simple contact with the neck of the spray bottle does not qualify as “attachment to a wall of the conventional spray bottle”. Therefore, Klima anticipates features of claim 1.
Following the above logic, the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2-11 are withdrawn. Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of claims 2-7 and 11 are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with respect to Klima. Additionally, a new ground of rejection of claim 8 is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Klima in view of Andre (US 10508031 B2) and Kong (US 20200375192 A1), a rejection of claim 9 is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Klima, Andre, and Kong in view of Seres (WO 201402556 A1), and a rejection of claim 10 is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Klima, Andre, and Kong in view of Krafft (US 20180305091 A1).
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 1-7, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klima (US 5836479 A).
Regarding claim 1, Klima teaches a apparatus comprising: a hollow cylinder having a closed end and an open end (upper end of the reservoirs are open while the lower ends of the reservoirs are closed, column 21 lines 15-17), the cylinder comprising a plurality of holes disposed on a body of the cylinder (one or more small holes provided on the internal wall, column 19 lines 4-5), the body of a length operable to prevent an upper end of the cylinder from falling below a neck of a conventional spray bottle without attachment to a trigger mechanism or a wall of the conventional spray bottle (provided with an upper flange portion to allow insert to be suspended in the first neck portion of the spray bottle, column 21 lines 54-56); and at least one packet disposed within the cylinder (cartridge contains a plurality of separate chemical concentrate tablets, column 30 lines 17-18, and tablets can be individually wrapped or packages, column 30 lines 34-35), the at least one packet containing a reactant for preparing a reactant for preparing a disinfectant agent (cartridge filled with disinfectant, column 32 lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 2, Klima teaches a packet containing a desiccant, the packet disposed within the cylinder (desiccator supplied within cartridge, column 30 lines 43-44).
Regarding claim 3, Klima teaches wherein the plurality of holes allow entry of a liquid into the cylinder (one or more small holes allow chemical to escape therethrough, column 19 lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Klima teaches wherein the cylinder is comprised of a rigid material operable to prevent expansion the packet beyond the body of the cylinder after entry of the liquid (insert is preferably made by injection molding a plastic material, column 21 lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 5, Klima teaches wherein the cylinder is configured to insertable through the neck of the conventional spray bottle (body portion is provided with an outer diameter such that it can inserted within the neck portion of the spray bottle, column 21 lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 6, Klima teaches the conventional spray bottle (abstract), wherein the cylinder is mounted to a straw of the conventional spray bottle (chemical reservoir can be formed as an integral portion of the downtube, column 15 lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 7, Klima teaches wherein the cylinder is mounted to the straw with at least one clip (chemical reservoir can be connected by plastic welding or plastic forming, column 15 lines 26-28, and can be connected by mechanical fastener, column 15 lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 11, Klima teaches a cap removably attached to the open end of the cylinder (insert provided with additional sealing device such as child safety cap, column 25 lines 51-52).
Regarding claim 22, Klima teaches wherein the body of the cylinder is of a width operable to allow for insertion into and removal out of neck of the conventional spray bottle without attachment to a trigger mechanism or a wall of the conventional spray bottle (provided with an upper flange portion to allow insert to be suspended in the first neck portion of the spray bottle, column 21 lines 54-56, and body portion is provided with an outer diameter such that it can inserted within the neck portion of the spray bottle, column 21 lines 57-59, and insert can be inserted and removed with little or no resistance, column 22 lines 3-4).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klima in view of Andre (US 10508031 B2) and Kong (US 20200375192 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Klima teaches all aspects of the current invention except a pH indicator attached to the cylinder. However, Andre teaches a pH indicator integrated into a chlorine dioxide generator (column 4 lines 5-9).
Klima is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of spray bottle chemical inserts and Andre is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of chlorine dioxide generators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the spray bottle chemical insert taught by Klima with the pH indicator taught by Andre because Kong teaches that the stability of chlorine dioxide is dependent on pH (paragraph [0006]), so pH monitoring would improve the long-term stability of the disinfectant formed by Klima.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klima, Andre, and Kong as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Seres (WO 201402556 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Klima, Andre, and Kong teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the pH indicator is cap removably attached to the open end of the cylinder. However, Seres teaches wherein the pH indicator is cap removably attached to the open end of the cylinder (pH indicator snapped or screwed into the cap, page 10 lines 4-5).
Klima, Andre, and Kong are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Seres is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of chemical containers with property indicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the chemical insert of a spray bottle taught by Klima, Andre, and Kong with the pH indicator attached to the cap as taught by Seres because Seres teaches such configuration advantageously allows a user to observe the pH of the container without opening said container (page 10 lines 7-8).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klima, Andre, and Kong as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Krafft (US 20180305091 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Klima, Andre, and Kong teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the pH indicator is a tether attached to a cap removably attached to the open end of the cylinder. However, Krafft teaches a connecting cable that may pass through the lid to attach to the sensor (paragraph [0106]).
Klima, Andre, and Kong are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Krafft is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of chemical containers with property indicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the pH indicator taught by Klima, Andre, and Kong with the tether attaches to the cap of the cylinder taught by Krafft because Krafft teaches the connecting cable allow the sensor to communicate with a chip containing a power source to drive the sensor (paragraph [0106]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799