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
The response filed on May 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Three pages of amended claims were received on 5/20/2026. Claim 14 is newly presented. Claim 14 is objected to as noted below. The pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s elections without traverse of the foam-forming device of Invention Group I and Foam Forming Devices Species B (Fig. 3) in the reply filed on 6/16/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 4/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 10 was withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 3-5 and 8 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 14 Line 3, “the cavitation effect of the rotating agitator” should be revised to “a cavitation effect caused by rotation of the agitator” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3,268,212 to Ziselberger (“Ziselberger”) in view of US Patent 2,685,436 to Hasselquist (“Hasselquist”).
As to Claim 1, Ziselberger discloses a foam-forming device (See Figs. 1-5) for forming a foam from a cleaning fluid for a wiper system for wiping at least one glazed surface of a vehicle (See Col. 1 Lines 11-25 and Col. 2 Lines 43-46 disclosing a soap solution being foamed, thus the device is capable of forming a foam from a cleaning fluid that can be used for a wiper system for wiping a glazed surface of a vehicle), the foam forming device comprising at least one cleaning liquid inlet (#32, See Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2 Lines 40-45), a chamber (#14) intended to receive the cleaning fluid (See Figs. 4-5 and Col. 2 Lines 31-35) and delimited by a housing (See Annotated Fig. 5, the housing is made up of #26, #12, and #34), an agitator (See Annotated Fig. 5, the agitator is #16a that includes slots #19) configured to rotate in the chamber thru the cleaning fluid (See Col. 2 Lines 1-25, the agitator rotates in #14 thru cleaning fluid that travels through #19 and fluid is agitated to some extent) about an axis of rotation (See axis A1 in Annotated Fig. 5), a drive device for driving the agitator (See Annotated Fig. 5 showing the drive device made up of #15, #17, #18 and a bottom portion of #16. Per Col. 2 Lines 1-4 an electric motor is included for rotating #16) and at least one foam outlet (#36), with the drive device including a shaft (#17 and #15) with a ring at an end of the shaft (See Annotated Fig. 5, a part of #16 that surrounds a bottom end of the shaft is equivalent to a ring) and the agitator is fastened to an annular bearing element that connects to the ring (See Annotated Fig. 5, the agitator #16a is fastened by being directly attached to a portion of #16 that is an annular bearing on the shaft and is directly connected to the ring portion on #16).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the foam-forming device of Ziselberger as applied to Claim 1 above, Ziselberger does not disclose wherein the agitator includes a toroidal coil (See Figs. 4-5, the agitator #16a has slots #19 that fluid passes through but is not equivalent to a toroidal coil).
However, Hasselquist discloses, in the same field of endeavor of foam dispensing (See Col. 1 Lines 1-5) a foam-forming device (See Figs. 1-2) comprising an agitator (#41) configured to rotate in a chamber (#78) thru a fluid (See Col. 2 Lines 5-20 and See Fig. 5. The agitator #41 has spaces between each coil such that it moves thru a fluid being foamed), wherein the agitator comprises a toroidal coil (See Fig. 5 and Col. 1 Lines 33-35) that is fastened to an annular bearing element (See an outer segment at #39 in Fig. 2 that #41 attaches to and see Col. 2 Lines 9-11) that connects to a ring of a drive device (See #39 that attaches to #37 in Fig. 2 and See Col. 4 Lines 3-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foam-forming device of Ziselberger as applied to Claim 1 above by replacing #16 of Ziselberger with #41 and #39 of Hasselquist such that the agitator includes a toroidal coil, since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of facilitating mixing of fluids being foamed (See Hasselquist Col. 2 Lines 12-16) with an agitator that can be easily removed for servicing (See Hasselquist Col. 2 Lines 9-11). Such a modification would allow for the foam-forming device of Ziselberger to continue to operate to form and dispense foam without destroying functionality of the foam-forming device, since fluid is already driven towards the agitator by a metering pump and an air regulator (See Ziselberger Col. 2 Lines 40-55).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the foam-forming device of Ziselberger in view of Hasselquist as applied to Claim 1 above, Ziselberger further discloses wherein the drive device includes at least one electric motor (See Ziselberger Col. 2 Lines 1-4).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the foam-forming device of Ziselberger in view of Hasselquist as applied to Claim 1 above, Ziselberger further discloses wherein the housing is cylindrical (See Figs. 1-2 and See Annotated Fig. 5), with the at least one cleaning fluid inlet and the at least one foam outlet being arranged circumferentially on the housing (See Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 5, #32 of the cleaning fluid inlet and #36 of the foam outlet are both arranged on a circumference portion of the housing).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the foam-forming device of Ziselberger in view of Hasselquist as applied to Claim 1 above, Ziselberger further discloses wherein the at least one foam outlet is disposed vertically above the at least one cleaning fluid inlet (See Annotated Fig. 5. Depending on a chosen reference direction for which way is up and which way is down based on an arbitrary x-y-z coordinate system, the foam outlet #36 can be considered either above or below the cleaning fluid inlet #32. If the y direction shown in Annotated Fig. 5 is considered an upwards direction, that #36 can be considered above #32).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the foam-forming device of Ziselberger in view of Hasselquist as applied to Claim 1 above, Ziselberger further discloses wherein the chamber does not have an air inlet, such that foam is formed exclusively from air dissolved in the cleaning fluid released by the cavitation effect of the rotating agitator, without any addition of air from an external source (See Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5 and Col. 2 Lines 31-38. The chamber has an inlet for soap from #33 mixed with air from #30 to enter the chamber. The inlet can be considered a fluid mixture inlet and not an air inlet. Air is not introduced from an additional external source beyond the fluid mixture inlet and is introduced as a mixture with soap and then foam is formed from air dissolved in soap due to rotation of the agitator , which causes a cavitation effect to some extent due to rotation of the coil causing some pressure drop, thus Ziselberger reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziselberger in view of Hasselquist and US PGPUB 2018/0325304 A1 to Savioz et al. (“Savioz”).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the foam-forming device of Ziselberger in view of Hasselquist as applied to Claim 1 above, Ziselberger further discloses wherein the at least one cleaning fluid inlet extends along a main extension (See Fig. 2 showing #32 extending in a horizontal direction and see D1 in Annotated Fig. 5) perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the agitator (See Fig. 2 and See Annotated Fig. 5. D1 is perpendicular to A1) and the at least one foam outlet extends along a general extension direction (See Fig. 2 showing #36 extending in an angled direction).
Regarding Claim 7, Ziselberger does not disclose the at least one foam outlet extending along a general extension direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the agitator, with the main extension direction and general extension direction being parallel (See Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 5, the at least one foam outlet extends at an angle to the axis of rotation A1 of the agitator, and the main extension direction and general extension direction are not parallel).
However, Savioz discloses, in the same field of endeavor of foam dispensing (See Paragraph 0001), a foam-forming device (See Figs. 1, 2A, and 2B) comprising a foam outlet (#204) that extends along a general extension direction that is perpendicular to an axis of rotation (#304) of an agitator (#202, See Figs. 1, 2A, and 2B.).
Furthermore, it has been held that claims to a device which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of a component were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the component would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foam-forming device of Ziselberger in view of Hasselquist as applied to Claim 1 above such that the at least one foam outlet #36 of Ziselberger extends along a general extension direction that is perpendicular to the axis of rotation A1 of the agitator, with the main extension direction D1 and general extension direction along #36 of Ziselberger being parallel, since doing so would shift position of components to yield the predictable result of having fluid flowing through the foam-forming device in a desired direction with a desired turbulence without otherwise modifying overall operation of the foam-forming device.
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1030
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for being unpatentable over Ziselberger in view of Hasselquist, applicant argues that the rejection is improper because the proposed combination would destroy the operative principle of Ziselberger. Applicant argues that replacing rotor #16 of Ziselberger with the toroidal coil #41 and wheel #39 of Hasselquist cannot be done without destroying the operative principle of Ziselberger. Applicant argues that rotor #16 of Ziselberger has a close tolerance fit with the defining walls #11, #12, and #13 of chamber #14 and that the precise dimensional relationship rather than merely the rotation of a rotor through a fluid forces the foam-forming solution through the restrictive passages #19 and produces fine-textured foam. Applicant argues that Ziselberger expressly discloses that the weight per unit volume of the foam produced is dependent upon the quantity of air entrained in the feed solution and the operation of these restrictive passages, not upon any general agitation of the fluid, and that Hasselquist's rotor, by contrast, comprises a wheel #39 and an annular helical spring #41 which snaps into place and is easily removed for cleaning, and is not dimensioned to maintain a 0.01-inch tolerance fit with any chamber wall or to operate by forcing fluid through restrictive passages under pressure. Applicant argues that introducing such a structure into Ziselberger's closed, close-tolerance chamber would eliminate the pressure differential across the restrictive passages that Ziselberger relies upon to produce foam. Applicant argues that the Examiner's assertion that fluid is already driven toward the agitator by a metering pump and an air regulator does not address this deficiency: the presence of fluid pressure at the inlet does not preserve the operative mechanism of Ziselberger if the close-tolerance rotor that converts that pressure into foam-generating passage flow is removed. Applicant states that a person of ordinary skill in the art, understanding the functional basis of Ziselberger's foam generation, would not substitute a snap-in helical spring assembly for a precision-fit annular rotor, because doing so would render the Ziselberger device inoperable for its intended purpose.
These arguments are not found persuasive. A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). The claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). The motivation for modifying a primary reference need not come from the primary reference itself, but may come from a secondary reference. In re Laskowski, 10 USPQ2d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1989). As to the desirability of the modification, the proper inquiry is “whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination,’ not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foam-forming device of Ziselberger as applied to Claim 1 above by replacing #16 of Ziselberger with #41 and #39 of Hasselquist such that the agitator includes a toroidal coil, since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of facilitating mixing of fluids being foamed (See Hasselquist Col. 2 Lines 12-16) with an agitator that can be easily removed for servicing (See Hasselquist Col. 2 Lines 9-11). Such a modification would allow for the foam-forming device of Ziselberger to continue to operate to form and dispense foam without destroying overall functionality of the foam-forming device, since fluid is already driven towards the agitator by a metering pump and an air regulator (See Ziselberger Col. 2 Lines 40-55). Regardless of how #16 of Ziselberger operates in a close tolerance fit, utilizing the agitator #41 and #39 of Hasselquist will still result in fluid being agitated and foam being produced, with the benefit of improving maintainability of the foam-forming device, even if the foam-forming device may have changes in pressure differential. Therefore, even if such a modification would change aspects of the foam-forming device of Ziselberger, such a modification would still allow for the foam-forming device of Ziselberger to produce foam and would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant additionally argues that the claimed drive device is configured to generate a rotational speed of the agitator of between 9,000 and 11,000 rpm, and that neither Ziselberger nor Hasselquist discloses operating an agitator at such rotational speeds for the purpose of generating cavitation-induced foam from dissolved air. Applicant argues that the combined teachings of the cited references, taken as a whole, therefore fail to disclose or suggest the claimed agitator configured to generate foam through cavitation, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to arrive at the claimed combination.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When the prior art fails to disclose a functional limitation, the examiner may be able to rely on the theory of inherency. See: MPEP §2112. In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See: MPEP §2112 IV; Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). The claims do not require any specific rpm that the foam-forming device is operated at. Newly presented Claim 14 requires “wherein the chamber does not have an air inlet, such that foam is formed exclusively from air dissolved in the cleaning fluid released by the cavitation effect of the rotating agitator, without any addition of air from an external source”. Based on Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5 and Col. 2 Lines 31-38 of Ziselberger, the chamber has an inlet for soap from #33 mixed with air from #30 to enter the chamber. The inlet can be considered a fluid mixture inlet and not an air inlet. Air is not introduced from an additional external source beyond the fluid mixture inlet and is introduced as a mixture with soap and then foam is formed from air dissolved in soap due to rotation of the agitator which causes a cavitation effect to some extent due to rotation of the coil causing some pressure drop, thus Ziselberger reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation.
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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights