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 Amendment filed 19 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-15, 19-20, 22, 25-27, and 30 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments overcome each and every 112(b) rejection and the prior art rejections of claim 1 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 19 September 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, it appears that --generator-- should be inserted between “foam” and “having”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arminak (US 2014/0097205).
Regarding claim 11, Arminak teaches a foam dispenser (20, see par. 19 and fig. 1) comprising:
one or more pumps (24) that pump air and liquid separately (par. 20); and
a remote foam generator (70) that is configured to mix air and liquid (par. 31) at a location away from the one or more pumps that pump air and liquid separately (fig. 1); the remote foam generator comprising: a cylindrical housing (78, see fig. 6); an end wall (fig. 6 – the wall at the upper end); a liquid inlet extending outward from the end wall (fig. 6); an air inlet (72) extending outward from the end wall (fig. 6); the cylindrical housing has a central axis (fig. 6 – the central longitudinal axis); a center of the air inlet is located closer to the central axis than a center of the liquid inlet (fig. 6); an inner cylindrical projection extending inward from the end wall (outer surface of 76, see annotated figure); an outer cylindrical projection extending inward from the end wall (see annotated figure); the air inlet in fluid communication with an area between the inner cylindrical projection and the outer cylindrical projection (fig. 6); the liquid inlet in fluid communication with an area between the outer cylindrical projection and an inside wall of the cylindrical housing (fig. 6); an outer mixing chamber (86); an inner mixing chamber (80); a deflector (76); the deflector having a mixing chamber separator (fig. 6, 6A); and a deflecting surface (fig. 6A – the upper conical surface); wherein the deflecting surface deflects air flowing from the air inlet into the outer mixing chamber (par. 31; fig. 6A); a foaming chamber (fig. 6 – the space in which 90 is arranged); one or more mix media (90) located in the foaming chamber (fig. 6); and a foam outlet (fig. 6 – outlet of 78).
Regarding claim 12, Arminak teaches the foam dispenser generator described regarding claim 11, and further comprising a flow restrictor located between the inner mixing chamber and the foaming chamber, as indicated in the annotated drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Arminak teaches the foam dispenser generator described regarding claim 11, and further wherein the cross-sectional area of the inner mixing chamber is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the foaming chamber (fig. 6 – the inner mixing chamber has a smaller cross-sectional area in the vertical direction).
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis (US 7,819,289) in view of Brown et al. (US 4,394,289).
Regarding claim 1, Willis discloses a foam dispenser (10, see col. 1, ln. 9-11 and fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (col. 1, ln. 66—col. 2, ln. 3 – the “counter” is interpreted to be a housing since it covers and supports the dispenser); a liquid reservoir (12); a liquid pump chamber (14); an air pump chamber (16); a remote foam generator (24b); wherein the remote foam generator is at least 3 inches from the liquid pump chamber and the air pump chamber (col. 3, ln. 30-33);
the remote foam having a housing (70); a liquid inlet (inlet of 74); an air inlet (inlet of 76); a central axis (fig. 3 – the central longitudinal axis); an inner mixing chamber (82); an outer mixing chamber (80); a deflector (at 78, see fig. 3); the deflector having a first surface angled to deflect air flowing from the air inlet into the outer mixing chamber (fig. 3); the liquid inlet directing liquid flow into the outer mixing chamber (fig. 3); one or more fluid flow windows placing the outer mixing chamber in fluid communications with the inner mixing chamber (fig. 3 – interpreted to be the opening between 80 and 82); a foaming chamber (fig. 3 – space in which 84 is arranged); one or more mix media (84) located in the foaming chamber (fig. 3); and a foam outlet (26).
Willis does not disclose that the air inlet is located above the central axis, the liquid inlet is located below the central axis, and wherein the outer mixing chamber surrounds the inner mixing chamber.
Regarding the first two deficiencies, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the air inlet above the central axis and the liquid inlet below the central axis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, such a modification would not interfere with operation of the disclosed remote foam generator, and would be advantageous as it would preclude the liquid from leaking when the apparatus is not being used by orienting the path 74 in an upward configuration.
Regarding the final deficiency, Brown teaches a remote foam generator (fig. 4) comprising a housing (12); a liquid inlet (20); an air inlet (30/32); a central axis (fig. 4); an inner mixing chamber (56); an outer mixing chamber (58); and wherein the outer mixing chamber surrounds the inner mixing chamber (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Willis to arrange the outer mixing chamber surrounding the inner mixing chamber, as taught by Brown, since this was known to permit greater foam production rate without unduly increasing the overall length (col. 5, ln. 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Willis in view of Brown discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a mixing chamber separator (fig. 3 – the wall between 80 and 82).
Regarding claim 5, Willis in view of Brown discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 4, and further wherein the deflector is an angled surface of the mixing chamber separator, wherein the angled surface is located in an air flow path extending from the air inlet (col. 4, ln. 45-48; fig. 3 – angled wall forming 78).
Regarding claim 7, Willis in view of Brown discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 1, and further comprising an inner cylindrical projection (col. 4, ln. 43-45) and an outer cylindrical projection (col. 5, ln. 27-29; fig. 1 – the tube supplying air to 76), and wherein an air flow passage extends between the inner cylindrical projection and the outer cylindrical projection (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Willis in view of Brown discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the foam outlet has a central axis (fig. 3 – the central longitudinal axis of the opening in 26) and wherein the angle between the central axis of the foam outlet and the central axis of the foam generator is between about 90 degrees and about 180 degrees (fig. 3 – the axes are parallel so they are interpreted to be 180 degrees apart).
Claims 1-2, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arminak in view of Willis and Brown.
Regarding claim 1, Arminak discloses a foam dispenser (20, see par. 19 and fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (fig. 1); a liquid reservoir (22); a liquid pump chamber (par. 20 – “pumping station…to draw a dose of liquid”); an air pump chamber (par. 20 – “pumping station…to generate a flow of air”); a remote foam generator (70);
the remote foam having a housing (78); a liquid inlet (fig. 6 – unlabeled, inlet in 70 from the liquid pump); an air inlet (72); a central axis (fig. 6 – the central longitudinal axis of 78); a mixing chamber (80); a deflector (76); the deflector having a first surface angled to deflect air flowing from the air inlet into the mixing chamber (par. 31; fig. 6A); the liquid inlet directing liquid flow into the mixing chamber (fig. 6 – via openings 74); a foaming chamber (fig. 6 – the space in which 90 is arranged); one or more mix media (90) located in the foaming chamber (fig. 6); and a foam outlet (fig. 6 – outlet of 78).
Arminak does not explicitly disclose wherein the remote foam generator is at least 3 inches from the liquid pump chamber and the air pump chamber, or that the air inlet is located above the central axis and the liquid inlet is located below the central axis.
Willis teaches the foam dispenser described regarding claim 1, and in particular wherein the remote foam generator is at least 3 inches from the liquid pump chamber and the air pump chamber.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the foam dispenser of Arminak such that the remote foam generator is at least 3 inches from the liquid pump chamber and the air pump chamber, as taught by Willis, since this was a known arrangement for such a system for installation under a bathroom counter for providing a station for hand washing.
Arminak in view of Willis still does not disclose that the air inlet is located above the central axis, and the liquid inlet is located below the central axis. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the air inlet above the central axis and the liquid inlet below the central axis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, such a modification would not interfere with operation of the disclosed remote foam generator, and would be advantageous as it would preclude the liquid from leaking when the apparatus is not being used by orienting the path 74 in an upward configuration.
Lastly, Arminak does not disclose a mixing chamber having an outer mixing chamber and an inner mixing chamber, wherein the outer mixing chamber surrounds the inner mixing chamber, and one or more fluid flow windows placing the outer mixing chamber in fluid communications with the inner mixing chamber.
Brown teaches a remote foam generator (fig. 4) comprising a housing (12); a liquid inlet (20); an air inlet (30/32); a central axis (fig. 4); an inner mixing chamber (56); an outer mixing chamber (58); the liquid inlet directing liquid flow into the outer mixing chamber (fig. 4); the air inlet directing air into the outer mixing chamber (fig. 4); wherein the outer mixing chamber surrounds the inner mixing chamber (fig. 4); and one or more fluid flow windows placing the outer mixing chamber in fluid communications with the inner mixing chamber (fig. 4 – interpreted to be the annular opening at the top of 54).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mixing chamber of Arminak to comprise an outer mixing chamber and an inner mixing chamber, wherein the outer mixing chamber surrounds the inner mixing chamber, and one or more windows placing the outer mixing chamber in fluid communication with the inner mixing chamber, as taught by Brown, since this was known to permit greater foam production rate without unduly increasing the overall length (col. 5, ln. 4-6).
Regarding claim 2, Arminak in view of Willis and Brown discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a fluid flow restrictor located between the inner mixing chamber and the foaming chamber, as indicated in the annotated drawing.
Regarding claim 3, Arminak in view of Willis and Brown discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the one or more fluid flow windows is located through at least a portion of the deflector (fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 7, Arminak in view of Willis and Brown discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 1, and further comprising an inner cylindrical projection (annotated figure) and an outer cylindrical projection (annotated figure), and wherein the air flow passage extends between the inner cylindrical projection and the outer cylindrical projection (annotated figure).
Regarding claim 9, Arminak in view of Willis and Brown discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 7, and further wherein the inner surface of the outer cylindrical projection is angled to match the angle of the deflector (fig. 6 – the inner surface of the outer cylindrical projection at 72 has an angle that matches the angle of 76).
Claims 19-20, 22, 25-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arminak in view of Willis.
Regarding claim 19, Arminak discloses a foam dispenser (20, see par. 19 and fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (fig. 1); a liquid reservoir (22); a liquid pump chamber (par. 20 – “pumping station…to draw a dose of liquid”); an air pump chamber (par. 20 – “pumping station…to generate a flow of air”); a remote foam generator (70);
the remote foam having,
a cylindrical housing (78, see fig. 6);
a liquid inlet (fig. 6 – unlabeled, inlet in 70 from the liquid pump);
an air inlet (72), the air inlet located above the liquid inlet (fig. 6);
an inner mixing chamber (80);
an outer mixing chamber (fig. 6 – unlabeled space in which 84/86/88 is arranged), the outer mixing chamber having an interior wall (fig. 6A – the exterior surfaces of 76);
a first air passage (fig. 6 – passage between 72 and conical portion of 76) directing the air into the outer mixing chamber (par. 31), the first air passage having an outer wall (fig. 6 – wall of 72);
the outer wall of the first air passage located away from the interior wall of the outer mixing chamber (fig. 6);
the liquid inlet directing liquid flow into the outer mixing chamber (fig. 6 – via openings 74);
one or more fluid flow windows (openings at bottom of 84/86) placing the outer mixing chamber in fluid communications with the inner mixing chamber (par. 31);
a foaming chamber (fig. 6 – the space in which 90 is arranged);
one or more mix media (90) located in the foaming chamber (fig. 6); and
a foam outlet (fig. 6 – outlet of 78).
Arminak does not explicitly disclose wherein the remote foam generator is at least 3 inches from the liquid pump chamber and the air pump chamber.
Willis teaches the foam dispenser described regarding claim 1, and in particular wherein the remote foam generator is at least 3 inches from the liquid pump chamber and the air pump chamber.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the foam dispenser of Arminak such that the remote foam generator is at least 3 inches from the liquid pump chamber and the air pump chamber, as taught by Willis, since this was a known arrangement for such a system for installation under a bathroom counter for providing a station for hand washing.
Regarding claim 20, Arminak in view of Willis discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 19, and further comprising a fluid flow restrictor located between the inner mixing chamber and the foaming chamber, as indicated in the annotated drawing.
Regarding claim 22, Arminak in view of Willis discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 19, and further comprising a deflector (fig. 6, 6a – conical portion of 76), wherein the deflector comprises an angled surface to deflect the air into the outer mixing chamber (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 25, Arminak in view of Willis discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 19, and further wherein an outer surface (fig. 6A – conical surface of 76) of the interior wall of the outer mixing chamber is an angled surface, wherein the angled surface is located in an air flow path extending from the air inlet (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 26, Arminak in view of Willis discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 19, and further wherein the one or more fluid flow windows (openings at bottom of 84/86) are located along a horizontal axis (figs. 6, 6A – the openings are all arranged on the same horizontal axis).
Regarding claim 27, Arminak in view of Willis discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 19, and further comprising an inner cylindrical projection and an outer cylindrical projection, as shown in the annotated figure, and wherein the air flow passage extends between the inner cylindrical projection and the outer cylindrical projection (par. 31; fig. 6).
Regarding claim 30, Arminak in view of Willis discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 19, and further wherein the foam outlet has a central axis (fig. 6 – interpreted to be the horizontal axis extending through the center of 90) and wherein the angle between a central axis of the foam outlet and the central axis of the foam generator is between about 90 degrees and about 180 degrees (fig. 3 – the axes are 90 degrees apart).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis, in view of Brown, and further in view of Babikian et al. (US 2020/0146516).
Regarding claim 8, Willis in view of Brown discloses the foam dispenser described regarding claim 7, but not further comprising a pair of ribs extending between the inner cylindrical projection and the outer cylindrical projection, and wherein the air flow passage extends between the pair of ribs.
Babikian teaches a foam dispenser (fig. 1) comprising an inner cylindrical portion and an outer cylindrical portion, and having a pair of ribs extending between the inner cylindrical projection and the outer cylindrical projection, and wherein a fluid flow passage extends between the pair of ribs, as indicated in the annotated figure.
PNG
media_image2.png
696
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam dispenser of Willis in view of Brown to comprise a pair of ribs extending between the inner cylindrical projection and the outer cylindrical projection, and wherein the air flow passage extends between the pair of ribs, as taught by Babikian, since this was known to provide a means for securing the outer cylindrical portion to the inner cylindrical portion in order to form a fluid flow passage.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arminak in view of Ciavarella et al. (US 2013/0233441).
Arminak discloses the foam dispenser generator described regarding claim 11, but not further wherein the cross-sectional area of the foaming chamber is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the outer mixing chamber.
Ciavarella teaches a foam dispenser (100) comprising an outer mixing chamber (134a) and a foaming chamber (144), and wherein the cross-sectional area of the foaming chamber is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the outer mixing chamber (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam dispenser of Arminak to make the cross-sectional area of the foaming chamber smaller than the cross-sectional area of the outer mixing chamber, as taught by Ciavarella. Such a modification would provide a larger volume space in which to mix the liquid and the air, which would allow more air to be added to the liquid to produce more foam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues that Arminak fails to teach “an inner mixing chamber” since element 86 is described as an “air channel” (it appears that Applicant mistakenly refers to the “inner” here when they intended to refer to the “outer mixing chamber”). Applicant does not include further explanation or evidence as to why this element cannot be considered to be “an outer mixing chamber”. It is noted that element 86 of Arminak is a space for air that guides the air in a manner that “results in improved mixing” with a liquid; therefore, it is still considered to teach the limitation to “an outer mixing chamber, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752