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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smagac taken together with WO 2015/052702 A1, and further in view of either Gosmann or Besel.
Smagac (Abstract; Figs. 1, 5, and 8; col. 2, lines 14-19, 25-67; col. 3, lines 1-5; col. 6, line 43 through col. 7, line 2; col. 7, lines 7-53, 59-61, 66-67; col. 8, lines 1-2, 48-54; col. 10, lines 37-67) discloses a foam generation device mounted on a portable frame, i.e., a backpack (application claim 6), that is completely independent, in service, of external supplies, the device including a foaming liquid reservoir (103), a compressed gas cylinder (101) that would inherently include a pressure gauge (application claim 2), as required for safety of the user, a first pipe (109) out of the reservoir and passing through a gas driven pump (104), a second pipe (106) out of the compressed gas cylinder and passing through an expansion valve (119) to join the first pipe at a junction downstream of the pump, and a third pipe (111) for transporting a mixture of the foaming liquid and the compressed gas between the junction and the foam ejection end (114), the second pipe (106) having a bifurcation (116) leading to a port for starting the pneumatic pump, with a mixer (118) for mixing the joined compressed gas and foaming liquid, the mixer having a cylindrical wall open at the two axial ends (see Fig. 5), the cylindrical wall forming a cage for confining at least one solid body constructed of a rigid material (application claim 1) to cause turbulent agitation of the foaming liquid and compressed gas mixture to produce a foam material that will last a long time and adheres to vertical surfaces exceptionally well. Smagac further discloses an agitation means retainer bar (214 in Fig. 5) that permits foam to flow out of the chamber while retaining the agitation means (202) from moving from the confines of the mixer chamber. Smagac fails to disclose that the solid body within the mixer consists of 1 to 40 balls being 2-20 mm in diameter, in a cage of 10-400 mm length and 10-100 mm diameter.
WO 2015/052702 A1 (Abstract; Figs. 1 and 7; page 12, lines 22-25; page 13, lines 12, 18-21; page 14, lines 5-10; page 17, lines 3-5; claims 1, 4, 9, and 12) disclose a foam forming device, wherein spherical agitation elements (balls 116, 702) are provided within a mixing chamber (108, 706) that has gates (112) at each end of the cylindrical mixing chamber to contain the ball shaped agitation elements therein (application claim 5). The reference discloses that the ball shaped agitation elements may be 1-5 mm in diameter, and may be housed within a mixing chamber that is 10 or 15 mm in diameter, or larger, to allow for the one or more balls to freely move within the mixing chamber to cause aggressive agitation of the foaming liquid and gas in the mixing chamber to form a foam of desired qualities that will last a long time. While the reference is silent as to the length of the mixing chamber, it is noted that the figures (Figs. 1 and 7) illustrate a cylindrical mixing chamber that is slightly longer than the diameter thereof, and therefore, such would at least suggest, given the specifically disclosed ball diameter and chamber diameter, which each fall within applicant’s claimed ranges, that the chamber length would also fall within the wide range as set forth by instant claim 1. In any event, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to arrive at an optimal length range, which would likely fall within applicant’s claimed range, by way of routine experimentation with the device, to provide a foam of desired qualities. It would have also been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the mixing chamber of Smagac, by substituting one or more freely movable ball shaped agitation means for the helical static mixing means thereof, in view of the teachings by WO ‘702, since such would allow one having ordinary skill in the art to choose a ball shaped agitation means having a diameter specifically designed to produce a foam of desired properties (see WO ‘702 page 12, lines 23-25, and page 13, lines 12-15).
With regard to independent claim 8, which differs from independent claim 1 by requiring that the balls do not form superposed layers in the cage and that at least one of the balls in the cage has a diameter of 2 to 10 times less than a diameter of the cage, applicant’s attention is drawn to the disclosure of Figure 7, the abstract of WO ‘702, as well as page 23, lines 20-21, wherein the disclosure thereof clearly describes a mixing cage wherein the balls therein are of a diameter of 2 to 10 times less than a diameter of the cage. Further, wherein the abstract clearly discloses that the cage may have only a single ball therein (lines 6-10 of the abstract of WO ‘702, which state, “at least one agitation element 702”), clearly, a single ball (agitation element 702) cannot form superposed layers in the cage (706). As such, independent claim 8 is considered to recite an apparatus that would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, in view of Smagac taken together with WO ‘702 for the same reasons as set forth with respect to independent claim 1 above.
With regard to the language newly added to independent claim 1, providing for first and second planar gates defining a chamber of the mixer, wherein the gates allow for passage of compressed gas and foaming liquid into the chamber and to permit foam to flow out of the chamber, previously cited patent documents to Gosmann and Besel each alternatively disclose the well known use of planar gates in the form of apertured retainer screens (C, C’ in Gosmann; 14R in Fig. 2B of Besel) to define a foam mixing chamber wherein the screens allow for passage of compressed gas and foaming liquid into the chamber and to permit foam to flow out of the chamber. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide the modified foam mixing chamber, as suggested by Smagac taken together with WO ‘702, with foam liquid agitation element retention means, in the form of apertured planar gates at each end of the mixer chamber, in view of either Gosmann or Besel, since such would both retain the agitation elements (1 to 40 balls) within the mixer and allow for free flow of the gas and foaming liquid to the mixer and foam from the mixer to be able to be dispensed by the user at will.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference combination as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 above, and further in view of Schneider.
The reference combination as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 above, substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 3 and 4, except for pipe for transporting the mixture comprising a flexible nozzle and a single control lever for ejecting the foam. While these elements almost certainly exist within the scope of the Smagac reference device, since the reference is silent thereto, Schneider (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 6, lines 20-30) clearly discloses a flexible hose including a flexible nozzle on the end thereof, with a control lever (26) for dispensing the foam from the end of the nozzle of the device. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide the flexible foam dispensing hose and nozzle of the primary reference combination, with a single control lever, in view of Schneider, since such would allow a user to easily begin and stop dispensing of the foam from the device at the time desired.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference combination as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 above, and further in view of applicant’s admission of prior art.
The reference combination as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by newly added dependent claim 10, except for the specific recitation that the foam comprises a gelling agent.
Initially, it is noted that independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10, which depends directly upon claim 1, are each directed to a foam generating device, which is not limited by the materials worked on by the device, or by the fact that applicant wishes to add a gelling agent to the materials worked on by the device. In any event, applicant admits, at page 1, lines 10-14 of the instant specification, that adding gelling agents to a foam forming composition was well known within the foam generating art at the time of the filing of the application, especially where it is desired to generate foams that are less likely to run off of very inclined or vertical surfaces. Applicant cited FR 2841802 A1 as providing an example of such well known use of gelling agents within foam forming compositions. Further, it is noted that Smagac is interested in forming foams that last a long time and adhere well to vertical surfaces (see col. 10, lines 65-67 of Smagac). As such, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the foam forming composition used by the reference combination, as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 above, by adding a gelling agent, in view of the admitted well known prior art teachings, as set forth on page 1, lines 10-14 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, 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, i.e., the alleged lack of teaching of first and second planar gates at the ends of the mixer chamber.
With regard to the arguments directed to the rejection of independent claim 8, alleging that the prior art does not teach or render obvious “wherein at least one of the balls in the cage has a diameter of 2 to 10 times less than a diameter of the cage”, such is not persuasive. Contrary to applicant’s assertion that “WO ‘702 fails to mention the possible size or diameter of the agitation elements 702 or the chamber 108”, as stated in the rejection statement above, WO ‘702, at page 23, lines 20-21, specifically states, “the diameter of chamber 706 is larger than the diameter of two elements 702”, which stated another way, the balls 702 have a diameter of more than 2 times less than the diameter of the chamber 706 (which clearly meets the limitation of independent claim 8, wherein at least one of the balls in the cage has a diameter of 2 to 10 times less than a diameter of the cage).
With regard to applicant’s arguments directed to the rejection of instant claim 10, pertaining to the alleged patentability of adding a gelling agent to the foam being processed by the claimed apparatus, as stated in the rejection statement of paragraph 6 above, claim 1 and dependent claim 10, which depends directly upon claim 1, are each directed to a foam generating device, which is not limited by the materials worked on by the device, or by the fact that applicant wishes to add a gelling agent to the materials worked on by the device. In any event, applicant admits, at page 1, lines 10-14 of the instant specification, that adding gelling agents to a foam forming composition was well known within the foam generating art at the time of the filing of the application, especially where it is desired to generate foams that are less likely to run off of very inclined or vertical surfaces. Smagac, the primary prior art reference applied against all of the instant claims, is interested in forming foams that last a long time and adhere well to vertical surfaces (see col. 10, lines 65-67 of Smagac). One having ordinary skill in the art would definitely consider adding well known gelling agents to the applied prior art, given the admission by applicant that such would encourage the adherence of a foam formed therewith to a vertical surface.
It is noted that applicant has not argued the rejection of claims 3 and 4 separate from the arguments directed to independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/4-3-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights