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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed on April 13, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 23-20 and 32-43 under 35 USC 102/103 over Johnson et al (US. Pat. App. Pub. 2018/0243520) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new claim objection and rejection, under 35 USC 12(b) is being made as follows:
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 23-30, 32-38 and 44 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.
Specifically, regarding independent claim 23, it states that the “diffuser” is “arranged downstream of the air inlet” and “adjacent the air inlet”, but fails to state any physical or fluid connection between the “diffuser” and the “liquid storage portion”. Without reciting that the “diffuser” extends into, contacts, or delivers air to the liquid storage portion, it is unclear how the diffuser physically interacts with the liquid to “entrain the liquid sensorial media in the generated bubbles”.
Further, independent claim 23, also states “wherein the one-way valve of the fluid outlet has a smaller diameter than the one-way valve of the air inlet” which makes the claim ambiguous. A one-way valve comprises many different structural dimensions and failing to specify which valve component’s diameter is smaller (i.e., an outer diameter, an inner diameter, etc.) makes the claim scope unclear.
Lastly, with respect to claim 23, the claim introduces “creates bubbles” and subsequently refers to “the generated bubbles”; however, maintain antecedent basis, the claim should introduce “a plurality of bubbles” first, or refer back simply to “the bubbles”.
Claim Objections
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-in line 2, between the words “on” and “second”, the word -- a -- should be inserted,
-in line 3, between the words “valve,” and “a”, the word -- and -- should be inserted,
-in line 5, between the words “inlet,”, and “wherein”, the word -- and -- should be inserted.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough review of independent claim 23 reveals the presence of allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record, namely the Johnson et al reference, relies on absorbing material and a screen (para. [0030]), but the reference contains no disclosure of a diffuser that generates bubbles in liquid to entrain liquid media and there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to substitute an absorbing wick with a bubbling diffuser. Likewise, while Johnson et al teaches that its upper valve assembly and lower valve assembly are “generally similar” [0031] and use interchangeable valves [0040], there is no disclosure or suggestion of unequal valve sizing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE WALLS MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5836. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Thursdays, 8:00AM - 4:00PM (EST).
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 H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/DIONNE W. MAYES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights