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.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler, III (U.S. Patent 3,786,963, hereinafter Metzler) in view of Maas et al. (U.S. Patent 5,626,259, hereinafter Maas).
In regard to claims 1 and 6, the Metzler reference discloses a fluid dispensing device comprising:
first and second compartments (not shown, defined as reservoirs, see column 1, lines 59-62) comprising respective first and second fluids;
a mixing chamber 12 comprising a first inlet portion 16, a second inlet portion 20, a mixing component in the form of a “void volume” (defined by the interior of chamber 12) and a single outlet portion 36; and
a dispensing head comprising an actuator 52, a pump 46, a single inlet portion (defined above ball valve 52) and an outlet portion (not numbered, defined by the opening in the actuator 52 through which fluid is dispensed);
wherein the first inlet portion 16 of the mixing chamber is fluidically coupled to a first dip tube 18; the second inlet portion 20 of the mixing chamber is fluidically coupled to a second dip tube 22;
the first dip tube 18 and the second dip tube 22 having different internal diameters (see column 1, lines 53-54); and
the single outlet portion 36 of the mixing chamber is fluidically coupled to the single inlet portion of the dispense head by a tube (not numbered, defined by the tube below ball valve 52 having aperture 48).
Although the Metzler device does not specifically disclose the compartments are part of a bottle, as claimed, attention is directed to the Maas reference, which discloses another fluid dispensing device for mixing two fluids in a mixing chamber wherein the device includes a bottle 12 having a first compartment 14 and a second compartment 16 in which dip tubes 96 and 98 extend in order to enable the device to conveniently and separately store two fluids prior to mixing. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the two compartments in the Metzler device can be part of a bottle in order to conveniently and separately store the fluids prior to mixing.
In regard to claim 2, the fluid dispensing device is configured to mix the first fluid and the second fluid entirely in the mixing chamber to form a dispensing fluid.
In regard to claim 3, the dispensing head is configured to receive the dispensing fluid.
In regard to claim 4, the pump is configured to simultaneously pump the first fluid and the second fluid.
In regard to claim 7, the first inlet portion 16 of the mixing chamber comprises a first valve 28 configured to prevent fluidic backflow and the second inlet portion 20 of the mixing chamber comprises a second valve 32 configured to prevent fluidic backflow.
In regard to claim 8, the Maas reference discloses mixing chamber being mechanically coupled to the bottle with a screw fitting (not numbered, see Figure 2 which shows a threaded collar on the bottle neck which secures the mixing chamber to the bottle). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the mixing chamber in the Metzler device can be coupled to the bottle with a screw fitting.
In regard to claim 9, since the mixing chamber in the Maas device is not in direct physical contact with the bottle, it may be considered “not mechanically coupled to the bottle”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the mixing chamber in the Metzler device can be coupled such that it is “not mechanically coupled to the bottle”.
In regard to claim 11, although the Metzler reference does not specifically disclose the two fluids are of differing viscosity, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the device can be used to mix various fluids, including fluids having different viscosities, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Metzler reference does not limit the viscosities of the fluid being mixed.
In regard to claim 12, as discussed above, Metzler in view of Maas renders obvious a fluid dispensing device structured as claimed wherein actuating the actuator dispenses a dispensing fluid from the fluid dispensing device.
In regard to claim 13, although the Metzler reference does not disclose the first and second fluids flow through the dip tubes at different flowrates, given the size difference in the internal diameters of the dips tubes, the fluids most likely flow at different flow rates. In any event, depending on the viscosities of the fluids being dispensed (wherein, as discussed above, the viscosities can obviously differ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the fluids will flow through the dip tubes at different flow rates should the fluid viscosities cause differing flow rates.
In regard to claim 14, as discussed above, the first and second fluids are mixed entirely in the mixing chamber to form the dispensing fluid.
In regard to claim 15, as discussed above, the dispensing fluid is received in the dispensing head.
In regard to claim 16, as discussed above, Metzler in view of Maas renders obvious a fluid dispensing device structured as claimed wherein the bottle, mixing chamber and dispensing head are assembled.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler in view of Maas as applied above, and further in view of Foster et al. (US 2003/0201342).
In regard to claim 5, the single inlet portion of the dispensing head comprises a first valve 54 that is configured to prevent fluidic backflow. Although the Metzler reference does not disclose the use of a second valve at the outlet portion for preventing fluidic backflow, attention is directed to the Foster reference, which discloses another fluid dispensing device for dispensing multiple fluids simultaneously wherein the dispensing head includes a first valve 44 at the inlet portion and a second valve 72 at the outlet portion in order to prevent fluidic backflow from the inlet portion.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Maas device can include an additional valve at the outlet portion in order to prevent fluidic backflow from the inlet portion.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler in view of Maas as applied above, and further in view of Conrad et al. (US 2015/0091292, hereinafter Conrad).
In regard to claims 17 and 18, although the Metzler reference does not disclose the dip tubes have upper portions inserted into the inlet portions of the mixing chamber which are colored in order to indicate to a user the dip tubes are fully inserted, as claimed, attention is directed to the Conrad device, which discloses another tubing arrangement wherein the ends of the tubes 100, 200 are colored in order to indicate to a user the tubes are properly inserted into the fitting 600.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the ends of the tubes in the Maas device can be colored in order to indicate to a user the tubes are properly inserted into the mixing chamber during manufacturing.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler in view of Maas as applied above, and further in view of Lang et al. (US 2014/0061233, hereinafter Lang).
In regard to claims 19 and 20, although the Metzler reference does not specifically disclose the dip tube internal diameters are calculated based on the viscosities, densities, desired flow rates or desired mixing/dilution ratios, as claimed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the diameters of the dip tubes in the Metzler device can be calculated in order to provide a desired mixing ratio since it has been held wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Further, attention is directed to the Lang reference, which discloses another fluid mixing and dispensing device having two dip tubes 29, 75 in two different compartments wherein the inner diameter of dip tube 75 may be altered (via restriction 76) in order to enable a specific dilution ration (see paragraph 0099). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the specific diameters of the dips tubes in the Metzler device can be calculated in order to enable a specific dilution ratio if desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
3/13/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754