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 of the invention of Group I and Species A (Figures 1-5) in the reply filed on 10 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Regarding claims 14-16 in particular, it is noted that these claims are directed to the nonelected species of Figures 6-7.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “foam concentration adjustment device for providing foaming liquid” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such corresponding structure(s) is/are: an adjusting seat body with one or more vent holes, an adjusting rod, and a fine-tuning knob, as shown in figs. 3 and 5 and described in paragraphs 61-65.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the front end" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ball” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a cylindrical object,” while the accepted meaning is “a spherical object.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being indefinite for depending from indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said air inlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 1 recites “one or more air inlets”, it is unclear to which of these “said air inlet” in claim 2 refers.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the front end of said rotating sleeve" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the front end of said foaming part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the bottom end of said connecting sleeve" in line 3, “the bottom end of said connecting pipe” in line 7, and “the bottom end of said pot body” in line 8. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected for depending from indefinite claim 6.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the tail end of said connector base" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is further rejected as being indefinite because the term “tightly" is subjective and does not particularly and distinctly limit the metes and bounds of the claim. The term "tightly" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this claim, the term "tightly" describes the manner in which the elastic cap connects the connector base; however, what one of ordinary skill in the art might consider to be “tightly”, another having ordinary skill in the art might not. Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. See 2173.05(b)IV.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said inner hole cross-section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2, 6, 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jia (US 2020/0290064).
Regarding claim 1, Jia teaches a foam pot, comprising:
a foaming body (fig. 1; par. 1), said foaming body comprising a main fluid inlet and a main fluid outlet, a fluid channel being formed between said main fluid inlet and said main fluid outlet (fig. 13); a connector assembly (10) is provided at said main fluid inlet (fig. 1); a foaming and nozzle device (annotated figure below) is provided at said main fluid outlet (fig. 1); a spray pot assembly (1) and a foam concentration adjustment device (7) for providing foaming liquid are also provided between said main fluid inlet and said main fluid outlet (fig. 1), said foaming and nozzle device comprising,
a mixing tube (annotated figure) provided on said foaming body (fig. 1), said mixing tube comprising an inlet end and an outlet end (annotated figure), a mixing channel being provided between said inlet end and said outlet end of said mixing tube (annotated figure), one or more air inlets being provided at said inlet end (annotated figure), and a groove being provided on said mixing tube (annotated figure);
a rotating sleeve (12) is sleeved on said outlet end, said rotating sleeve comprising a foaming part (11) having a cross-section smaller than said rotating sleeve body and provided at the front end (fig. 1), and a foaming ball (15) is provided inside said foaming part (fig. 1);
a card hole (fig. 1 – the hole in which pin 14 is disposed) corresponding to the position of said groove is also provided on said rotating sleeve, and a card pin (14) extending into said groove is provided inside said card hole (fig. 1);
a clip bracket (13) is sleeved on said foaming part (fig. 1), and a clip (“A/B/C/D/E”, Applicant’s Specification appears to be using the term “clip” to mean nozzle) is provided inside said clip bracket (fig. 1);
an angle adjustment knob (outside perimeter of 13, see fig. 3) for adjusting the opening and closing angle of said clip is sleeved on said rotating sleeve (par. 36; figs. 3-7 – rotating element 13 changes the spray mode by opening and closing different nozzles having different angles).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Jia for Claim 1
Regarding claim 2, Jia teaches the foam pot described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the main fluid outlet of said foaming body is provided with an outwardly extending conical part having a gradually decreasing cross-section (annotated figure), said air inlet provided on said mixing tube is located within the range of said conical part (annotated figure), there is a gap between said conical part and said mixing channel (annotated figure), and gas passing through said air inlet can enter said mixing channel through the gap (annotated figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Jia for Claim 2
Regarding claim 6, Jia teaches the foam pot described regarding claim 1, and further wherein said spray pot assembly includes a connecting sleeve connected to said foaming body (annotated figure), the bottom end of said connecting sleeve is connected with a pot lid (4, see fig. 1), inside said connecting sleeve, there is also a connecting pipe (3, see fig. 1), said connecting pipe passes through said pot lid from inside of said pot lid (fig. 1), clamping said pot lid between said connecting sleeve and said connecting pipe to prevent foaming liquid from leaking (fig. 1); a pot body is screwed onto said pot lid (fig. 1); at the bottom end of said connecting pipe, there is a liquid suction pipe (2) that extends to the bottom of said pot body (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Jia discloses the foam pot described regarding claim 1, and, as shown in the annotated figure, further wherein said connector assembly includes a spray core provided on said foaming body, said spray core is coaxially arranged with said mixing tube, said connector assembly also includes a connector base provided at said main fluid input end, inside said connector base, there is a flow stabilizing sleeve, the front end of said flow stabilizing sleeve abuts against said spray core, at the tail end of said connector base, there is a quick plug connector; on said foaming body, there is an elastic cap that tightly connects said connector base and said foaming body.
PNG
media_image3.png
359
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Jia for Claim 8
Regarding claim 9, Jia discloses the foam pot described regarding claim 1, and further wherein said inner hole cross-section near said spray core end of said flow stabilizing sleeve is larger than said inner hole cross-section near said quick plug connector end (fig. 1 – the diameter of the hole at the left end of the flow stabilizing sleeve is larger than that at the right end).
Regarding claim 11, Jia discloses the foam pot described regarding claim 1, and further wherein said foam concentration adjustment device includes an adjusting seat body (8) provided on said foaming body (fig. 1); an adjusting rod (13) is provided inside said adjusting seat body (fig. 1); a fine-tuning knob (7) is provided at the top end of said adjusting rod (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Jia discloses the foam pot described regarding claim 11, and further wherein said adjusting seat body is connected to said foaming body by threads (fig. 1, 14); one or more vent holes are provided on said adjusting seat body (fig. 14 – unlabeled, holes where air enters); said adjusting rod is connected to said adjusting seat body by threads (par. 37 – rotation moves the rod in and out; therefore, there must be threads); said adjusting rod is tapered near the end close to said foaming body (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Jia discloses the foam pot described regarding claim 11, and further wherein said fine-tuning knob is fixed on said adjusting rod by bolts (fig. 1, 14 – unlabeled, but shown).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia.
Regarding claim 3, Jia discloses the foam pot described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the inlet end of said mixing tube is connected to the external thread on said foaming body through an internal thread (fig. 1); on the outer circumference of the inlet end of said mixing tube, there is a first sealing ring groove, and a first sealing ring is provided in said first sealing ring groove, which provides a seal for the connection between said rotating sleeve and said mixing tube (fig. 1); on the outer circumference of the outlet end of said mixing tube, there is a second sealing ring groove, and a second sealing ring is provided in said second sealing ring groove, which provides a seal for the connection between said foaming part and said mixing tube (fig. 1). Jia does not disclose that the number of air inlets is four.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the number of air inlets four, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Jia already discloses two air inlets, and doubling this to four would have been known to provide an increased amount of air into the mixture to produce a “drier” foam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Jia discloses the foam pot described above, but not wherein said angle adjustment knob has a buckle, and said buckle buckles into a second card slot on the front end of said roaring sleeve.
Regarding claim 5, Jia discloses the foam pot described above, but not wherein said clip bracket has a circular buckle, and said circular buckle buckles into a third card slot on the front end of said foaming part.
Regarding claim 7, Jia discloses the foam pot described above, but not wherein there is a gear-shaped protrusion at the bottom end of said connecting sleeve, and there are coaxial and communicating first through hole and second through hole inside said connecting pipe, the cross-sectional area of said first through hole is smaller than that of said second through hole and the cross-sectional area of said second through hole gradually increases from one end of said first through hole towards another end of said connecting pipe.
Regarding claim 10, Jia discloses the foam pot described above, but not wherein said spray core is connected to said foaming body by threads; said flow stabilizing sleeve is connected to said connector base by threads; said quick plug connector is connected to said connector base by threads; said elastic cap has flange inside, said elastic cap presses against said connector base through flange, said elastic cap connects to said foaming body via threads.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carpanese (US 2017/0259281), Rowen et al. (US 2023/0141018), and Xie (US 11,813634) all disclose foam pots having elements of the claimed invention.
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