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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 22 June 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-11 and 22 are pending with claims 12-20 being withdrawn from consideration due to the restriction election made by the applicant on 22 January 2025. Claim 21 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the body of the cylinder does not contact a trigger mechanism of a wall of the convention spray bottle) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 as currently filed recites “without attachment to a trigger mechanism or a wall of the conventional spray bottle”.
The applicant points to figures 12A and 16 being exemplary embodiments of the current invention. However, these figures clearly depict the cylinder in contact with the walls of the conventional spray bottle, so it is unclear how these figures would represent the exemplary embodiment of the invention if claim 1 was amended to incorporate the limitation “without contacting a trigger mechanism or a wall of the conventional spray bottle.
The applicant also asserts that because the cylinder as taught by Klima does not touch the bottom of the spray bottle, it cannot fulfill the limitations of the current invention. However, this is an additional limitation that is not recited in the rejected claims. As cited above, the claims may be interpreted in light of the specification, but limitations from the specification cannot be imported into the claims.
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-7, 11, and 22 with respect to Klima are maintained. Similarly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8 with respect of Klima in view of Andre and Kong, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 9 with respect to Klima, Andre, and Kong in view of Sere, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 10 with respect to Klima, Andre, and Kong in view of Krafft are maintained.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights