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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Product Inlet Species B (Figs. 10A-10D, 10G-10I, and 10K-10L) and Product Inlet Sub-Species A (Fig. 4) in the reply filed on 4/10/2026 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 28 and 34-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
See Page 1 Line 11 of the Specification which lists multiple references that have not been provided on an information disclosure statement.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “98” (See Fig. 13).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 26 Line 1, “Dispensing system” should be revised to “The dispensing system” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 26 Line 2, “consist of” should be revised to “consists of” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 44 Line 3, “the container” should be revised to “the product container” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the term “optionally” in Claim 42 and 44 is being interpreted such that the limitations following “optionally” are not required but may be present in order to meet the limitations of the claim. For reference, see MPEP 2173.05(h).II.
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.
Claim 29 is 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.
Claim 29 is indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “wherein the product inlet is substantially perpendicular to the ejector” and the term “substantially perpendicular” is a relative term. The term “substantially perpendicular” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is not clear if “substantially perpendicular” means being arranged at an angle of 89 to 91 degrees, 85 to 95 degrees, or some other range of degrees. For the purpose of examination, Claim 29 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “wherein the product inlet is perpendicular to the ejector”.
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 25-27, 29-31, 37, 39-40, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE-3022913-A1 to Becker (“Becker”).
As to Claim 25, Becker discloses a dispensing system (See Annotated Fig. 1), comprising:
a motor driven air pump (#9, See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0023 disclosing a compressed air generator powered by a battery. Based on the structure shown in Fig. 1, #9 is equivalent to a motor driven air pump) having an air inlet (See a space in #61 that air compressed by #9 enters #9) and an air outlet (#73);
a dispensing device (#3) releasably connected to the air pump (See Fig. 1), the dispensing device comprising:
an air connector connected to the air outlet of the pump (#22);
a mixture outlet (See Annotated Fig. 1, the mixture outlet is an area downstream of #23);
a product inlet (See Annotated Fig. 1); and
a product uptake system (#24) connected to the air connector, the mixture outlet, and the product inlet (See Annotated Fig. 1, the product uptake system #24 is fluidly connected to the air connector, the mixture outlet, and the product inlet); and
a product container for a product to be dispensed (#5, See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0019), the product container connected to the product inlet (See Annotated Fig. 1, #5 is fluidly connected to the product inlet),
wherein the product container is integrated in the dispensing device (See Fig. 1 and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0019).
As to Claim 26, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker further discloses wherein the product uptake system further comprises or consist of:
an ejector arranged downstream of the air connector, when considered in a flow direction of air (See Annotated Fig. 1, the ejector is an outlet of #24), wherein:
the product inlet debouches in the ejector or downstream thereof (See Annotated Fig. 1, the product inlet emerges as a wider cross section than #24 downstream of the ejector);
the mixture outlet is arranged downstream of the ejector (See Annotated Fig. 1); and
wherein the ejector has a smaller cross-sectional area than the mixture outlet (See Annotated Fig. 1, the mixture outlet downstream of #23 is a larger area than the outlet of #24).
As to Claim 27, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker further discloses the dispensing system comprising a plurality of interchangeable dispensing devices (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0018 disclosing “corresponding storage tanks”, thus various different storage tanks can be considered a plurality of interchangeable dispensing devices. Furthermore, it is understood that multiple other dispensing devices identical to #3 can replace the dispensing device shown in Fig. 1 if it is broken).
As to Claim 29, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 26 above, Becker further discloses wherein the product inlet is substantially perpendicular to the ejector (See Annotated Fig. 1, the product inlet is arranged at a 90 degree angle relative to the ejector).
As to Claim 30, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 26 above, Becker further discloses wherein the ejector is convergent when considered in the air flow direction (See Annotated Fig. 1, the ejector converges at #28 where air flows such that the ejector is considered convergent in the air flow direction).
As to Claim 31, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker further discloses the dispensing system comprising a flow restriction arranged in the product inlet (See Annotated Fig. 1, the product inlet #24 decreases in size as it approaches the product inlet).
As to Claim 37, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker further discloses wherein the air pump comprises an electric motor and an electric power supply connected to the electric motor (See Annotated Fig. 1 showing a motor of #9 and See Machine Translation of Description paragraph 0023 disclosing that a battery is used to power #9, thus the motor is an electric motor powered by the battery).
As to Claim 39, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker further discloses wherein the air pump has a variable output and comprises a controller for controlling the output (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0023 disclosing a switch #75 that turns #9 on and off. Thus the output from #9 at least varies from an off state, to an initial state when #9 is first turned on, and to an on state when #9 is at full speed, as controlled by #75).
As to Claim 40, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 39 above, Becker further discloses wherein the motor of the air pump has a variable speed and/or variable power, and wherein the controller is configured for controlling the speed and/or power of the motor (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0023 disclosing a switch #75 that turns #9 on and off. Thus the speed of the motor of #9 shown in Annotated Fig. 1 is varied by #75 from being 0 rpm, to some speed when #9 is initially turned on, to a full speed of #9).
As to Claim 43, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker further discloses wherein the air pump, dispensing device and/or product container are configured for the dispensing system to be handheld (See Fig. 1 and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0025 disclosing the entire dispensing system being operated with one hand).
As to Claim 44, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker further discloses wherein the product uptake system comprises or consists of:
a container inlet which connects the air connector to the container (See the ejector in Annotated Fig. 1), wherein:
the product inlet is connected to the mixture outlet (See Annotated Fig. 1), and optionally a further fluid connection between the air connector and the mixture outlet (See #27 in Annotated Fig. 1 and See Machine Translation of Description paragraph 0017. The valve #27 is an additional fluid connection that is between the air connector #22 and the mixture outlet).
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 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of US PGPUB 2010/0059605 A1 to Plantz et al. (“Plantz”).
Regarding Claim 32, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker does not disclose the dispensing device comprising a one-way valve arranged in the product inlet.
However, Plantz discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Paragraph 0001), a dispensing system (See #10 in Fig. 1) comprising a dispensing device (See #12, #28, and #14 in Fig. 1) comprising a one-way valve (#35, See Paragraph 0025) arranged in a product inlet (#50).
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 dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above such that the dispensing device of Becker comprises the one-way valve #35 of Plantz arranged in the product inlet of Becker since doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing backflow of fluid (See Plantz Paragraph 0025).
Claims 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of US Patent 5,713,519 to Sandison et al. (“Sandison”).
Regarding Claim 33, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker does not specifically disclose the dispensing system further comprising a plurality of product inlets.
However, Sandison discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Col. 1 Lines 4-10) a dispensing system (See Fig. 5) comprising a plurality of product inlets (See #124 and #122 in Fig. 11 which connect to #178 and #196).
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 dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above such that the dispensing system further comprises a plurality of product inlets as taught by Sandison, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing to generate an atomized spray of a mixture of two fluids (See Col. 7 Lines 1-4 and Col. 12 Lines 53-57).
As to Claim 38, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker further discloses wherein the air pump is configured to draw in ambient air through the air inlet and to supply the pressurized air through the air outlet (See Fig. 1 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0023. The air pump is a compressed air generator that draws in air through some air inlet to supply pressurized air through .
Regarding Claim 38, Becker does not specifically disclose wherein the air pump is configured to pressurize the ambient air to an overpressure of between 0.1 and 2.0 bar (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0023 disclosing pressurizing air, but specific pressures are not disclosed).
However, Sandison discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Col. 1 Lines 4-10) a dispensing system (See Fig. 5) comprising a pressurized air source (See Col. 7 Lines 30-35 disclosing a source of pressurized air that is not shown) that is configured to pressurize air to an overpressure of between 0.1 and 2.0 bar (See Tables 1 and 2 in Col. 14 showing air pressures of .069 Mpa, .103 Mpa, .138 Mpa and .165 Mpa, all of which are in the claimed range).
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 dispensing system of Becker as applied above such that the air pump is configured to pressurize the ambient air to an overpressure of between 0.1 and 2.0 bar, since doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling a delivery rate and uniformity of fluid being sprayed (See Sandison Col. 14 Lines 39-41).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of US PGPUB 2017/0239675 A1 to Svendsen et al. (“Svendsen”).
Regarding Claim 36, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above, Becker does not specifically disclose wherein the product container comprises a bag-in container.
However, Svendsen discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Paragraph 0002), a dispensing system (See Fig. 1) comprising a product container that comprises a bag-in-container (See Liner #36 within #32 in Fig. 2. Paragraphs 0035-0036 disclose fluid flowing through tube #18 to drive fluid out of #36).
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 dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 25 above such that the product container comprises a bag-in-container by utilizing the liner #36 of Svendsen along with tube #18 of Svendsen, since doing so would yield the predictable result of driving fluid out of the product container to be mixed with pressurized air without having air contact the fluid in the product container (See Svendsen Paragraph 0036).
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of US PGPUB 2021/0386898 A1 to Sivagiminathan et al. (“Sivagiminathan”).
Regarding Claim 41, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 39 above, Becker does not specifically disclose wherein the air pump comprises a transceiver connected to the controller.
However, Sivagiminathan discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Paragraph 0001 disclosing aroma creation which is in the field of endeavor of fluid dispensing) a dispensing system (See #10 in Fig. 1) comprising an air pump (See Paragraph 0017 disclosing #20 having an air compressor) that comprises a transceiver (See Paragraph 0018 disclosing a communication reader) connected to a controller (See Paragraph 0025 disclosing #40 having a CPU that controls #20 and See Paragraph 0018 disclosing wireless gas flow regulation).
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 dispensing system of Becker as applied to Claim 39 above such that the air pump of Becker comprises the transceiver of Sivagiminathan connected to the controller of Becker since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing remote control of how much fluid is conveyed from the dispensing system (See Sivagiminathan Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 42, in reference to the dispensing system of Becker in view of Sivagiminathan as applied to Claim 41 above, Becker does not specifically disclose the dispensing system further comprising an identifier connected with the dispensing device or the product container, wherein the transceiver is configured for communication with the identifier, and optionally wherein the transceiver is configured for communication with an external device.
However, Sivagiminathan further discloses the dispensing system comprising an identifier (#35, which is an NFC sticker per Paragraph 0018) connected with a product container (#30, which is a cartridge containing fluid), wherein the transceiver is configured for communication with the identifier (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0018), and wherein the transceiver is configured for communication with an external device (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0028, the transceiver can communicate with #40 wirelessly).
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 dispensing system of Becker in view of Sivagiminathan as applied to Claim 41 above such that the dispensing system further comprises the identifier #35 of Sivagiminathan connected with the product container of Becker and such that the transceiver is configured for communication with the identifier and an external device, as taught by Sivagiminathan since doing so would yield the predictable result of ensuring that only an appropriate product container is utilized in the dispensing system with proper operating parameters (See Sivagiminathan Paragraphs 0022-0023).
PNG
media_image1.png
974
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
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 May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights