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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li doesn’t teach the claimed amendment of the mixing chamber cross sectional rea being greater than a liquid conduit cross sectional area. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would no perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Here, modifying the device of Li to have the claimed relative sizing would not affect its operation and further Applicant has not shown criticality of such a feature as the specification is silent to that affect, thus one having ordinary skill would fine it obvious to adjust sizing based on design choice.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8, 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B and C , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/14/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Patent No. 8,955,719), and further in view of Renfrew (US 2013/0140331 A1).
Re: Claim 1, Li discloses the claimed invention including a foam-at-a-distance soap or sanitizer dispenser (embodiment of Fig. 4, which includes the pump and valving structures of Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (3) (Fig. 1);
a container (1) for holding a foamable liquid (Fig. 1);
a pump (4) in fluid communication with the container (Fig. 1);
the pump having
an air pump chamber (51);
an air pump chamber air inlet (52);
an air pump chamber air inlet valve (52);
an air pump chamber air outlet (53);
an air pump chamber air outlet valve(53);
a liquid pump chamber (42);
a liquid pump chamber liquid inlet (46);
a liquid pump chamber liquid inlet valve (46);
a liquid pump chamber liquid outlet (41D); and
a liquid pump chamber liquid outlet valve (41); and
an air conduit (64);
the air conduit extending from the air pump chamber air outlet to a remote mixing chamber (92) (Fig. 4);
a liquid conduit (60) (Fig. 2A);
the liquid conduit extending from the liquid pump chamber liquid outlet to the remote mixing chamber;
wherein the liquid conduit has a first cross-sectional area at the remote mixing chamber (Fig. 2A) and the remote mixing chamber has a second cross-sectional area (Fig. 2A) except for expressly showing the second cross-sectional area is larger than the first cross-sectional area. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would no perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li by causing the second cross-sectional area to be larger than the first cross-sectional area. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular relative sizing (see Specification wherein the claimed comparison in sizing isn’t even mentioned) and it appears that the device of Li would work appropriately if made within the claimed relative sizing of the first and second cross sectional area;
wherein the remote mixing chamber is located at a distance from the air pump chamber air outlet and the liquid pump chamber liquid outlet and wherein the distance is greater than about 3 inches (Fig. 1 depicts a greater distance away from the outlets);
an outlet nozzle (70) located proximate the remote mixing chamber (Fig. 4),
and a mixing chamber housing, wherein the mixing chamber housing has a mixing chamber air inlet (74) and a mixing chamber liquid inlet (72) wherein a centerline of the mixing chamber liquid inlet and a centerline of the mixing chamber air inlet (Fig. 4); and wherein the mixing chamber is configured so that the liquid flows along a liquid path (81, and at 85) and the air flows along an air path (82) and wherein the liquid flowing along the liquid path and the air flowing along the air path first contact (at 81 or 85) each other at an angle that is less than 90 degrees (Fig. 4, at some point along the liquid path there is an intersection that is less than 90 degrees; first contact taking place at the above claimed location taught by Li as air moves to fill the volume of the space its injected into).
except for a one-way check valve. However, Renfrew teaches a one-way liquid check valve (6) located proximate the remote mixing chamber (1) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a check valve as taught by Renfrew, since Renfrew states in para. 42 that such a modification prevents soap drips when not in use.
Re: Claim 2, Li as modified by Renfrew in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the claimed invention including the one-way liquid check valve is located less than about one inch from the mixing chamber (Renfrew: Depicted in Fig. 2).
Re: Claim 3, Li as modified by Renfrew in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the claimed invention including a mixing chamber housing, wherein the mixing chamber housing has a mixing chamber air inlet (12) and a mixing chamber liquid inlet (10), and wherein the one-way liquid check valve is located at least partially in the mixing chamber liquid inlet (Renfrew: Depicted in Fig. 2).
Re: Claim 5, Li discloses the claimed invention including the liquid path and the air path intersect at an angle that is between about 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees (Fig. 4 depicts less than 90 degrees).
Re: Claim 6, Li discloses the claimed invention including the liquid path and the air path intersect at an angle that is between about 75 degrees and less than 90 degrees(Fig. 4 depicts less than 90 degrees ).
Re: Claim 7, Li discloses the claimed invention including the pump is located below the reservoir (Depicted in Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 9, Li discloses the claimed invention including the housing comprises a base (2) and wherein the base is configured to sit on a counter top during use (Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 16, Li discloses the claimed invention including a foam-at-a-distance table top soap or sanitizer dispenser (embodiment of Fig. 4, which includes the pump and valving structures of Fig. 1) comprising:
a base (2) (Fig. 1);
a housing (3) extending upward from the base (Depicted in Fig. 1 extending upward into the cantilevered portion);
a pump (4) located in base (Fig. 1);
the housing having a cantilevered portion extending outward the upward extending housing (Fig. 1 at nozzle (70);
an outlet nozzle (70) located in the cantilevered portion of the housing (Fig. 1);
a removable and replaceable reservoir (1) carried by the housing (Fig. 1);
a remote mixing chamber (92) located by the outlet nozzle (Fig. 4);
wherein the remote mixing chamber is located at least 3 inches from the pump (Fig. 1, at least 3 inches away);
the mixing chamber having an air inlet (74), a liquid inlet (72) and a fluid outlet (77);
an air conduit extending from the pump to the mixing chamber air inlet;
a liquid conduit (60) extending from the pump to the liquid inlet, wherein a one-way liquid inlet valve (41) is located in a liquid flow path from the pump to the mixing chamber liquid inlet; and
wherein the liquid conduit has a first cross-sectional area at the remote mixing chamber (Fig. 2A) and the remote mixing chamber has a second cross-sectional area (Fig. 2A) except for expressly showing the second cross-sectional area is larger than the first cross-sectional area. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would no perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li by causing the second cross-sectional area to be larger than the first cross-sectional area. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular relative sizing (see Specification wherein the claimed comparison in sizing isn’t even mentioned) and it appears that the device of Li would work appropriately if made within the claimed relative sizing of the first and second cross sectional area;
wherein the mixing chamber is configured so that liquid flows along a liquid path and air flows along an air path and the liquid path and the air path are at an angle of less than 90 degrees with respect to one another (Fig. 4); and
Li discloses the claimed invention except for a one-way liquid inlet valve proximate the mixing chamber inlet. However, Renfrew teaches a one-way liquid inlet valve (6) located proximate the liquid inlet (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a check valve as taught by Renfrew, since Renfrew states in para. 42 that such a modification prevents soap drips when not in use.
Re: Claim 17, Li discloses the claimed invention including a mixing chamber housing (92) (Fig. 4).
Re: Claim 18, Li as modified by Renfrew in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses the one-way liquid inlet valve (6) is located within the mixing chamber housing (3) (Renfrew: Depicted in Fig. 2).
Re: Claim 19-20, Li in view of Renfrew depict a parallel orientation of the liquid path with respect to air path as seen in Fig. 2A and a less than perpendicular in Fig. 4), and in view of Renfrew show less than 90-degree orientation of the liquid inlet with respect to air inlet as seen in Fig. 2 except for expressly stating the degree. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Li in view of Renfrew by causing the angle between the liquid and air paths to be less than 30 degrees to parallel. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (see Specification wherein a plurality of angles are given based on design choice) and it appears that the device of Li in view of Renfrew would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of angles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights