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, 2, 4, 6-9, 11-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maas et al. (U.S. Patent 5,626,259, hereinafter Maas, as previously cited) in view of Metzler, III (U.S. Patent 3,786,963, hereinafter Metzler, as previously cited).
In regard to claims 1 and 6, the Maas reference discloses a fluid dispensing device comprising: a bottle 12 comprising a first compartment 14 comprising a first fluid and a second compartment 16 comprising a second fluid;
a mixing chamber 50, 52 (see Figure 16) comprising a first inlet portion 88, a second inlet portion 90, a mixing component in the form of a “void volume” (defined by the bottom tapered portion of tube 64) and a single outlet portion (defined by the end of tube 64); and
a dispensing head 18 (see Figure 2) comprising an actuator 32, a pump 26, 36, a single inlet portion (located above ball 42, see Figure 2) and an outlet portion 41 wherein the actuator is a trigger 32;
wherein the first inlet portion 88 of the mixing chamber is fluidically coupled to the first compartment 14 of the bottle by a first dip tube 96;
the second inlet portion 90 of the mixing chamber is fluidically coupled to the second compartment 16 of the bottle by a second dip tube 98;
the single outlet portion of the mixing chamber is fluidically coupled to the single inlet portion of the dispense head by a tube (defined by the tube surrounding opening 28, see Figure 2);
the fluid dispensing device is configured to mix the first fluid and the second fluid to form a dispensing fluid;
the dispensing head is configured to receive the dispensing fluid; and
the dispensing head is configured to dispense the dispensing fluid as a spray (see, for example, column 3, lines 4-5).
Although the Maas reference does not disclose the first dip tube and second dip tube have different internal diameters, as claimed, attention is directed to the Metzler reference which discloses another dispenser for dispensing two fluids which are separately stored and fed to a mixing chamber via two respective dip tubes 18 and 22 wherein the two dip tubes have different internal diameters (see column 1, lines 53-55). Such an arrangement is commonly employed in order to control the volume of each fluid in the final mixed dispensing fluid. Accordingly, 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 Maas device can be of different internal diameters should a user employ the device to dispense a final mixed dispensing fluid requiring the two fluid mixed to have different volumes.
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 4, the pump is configured to simultaneously pump the first fluid and the second fluid.
In regard to claim 7, the first inlet portion of the mixing chamber comprises a first valve 56 configured to prevent fluidic backflow and the second inlet portion of the mixing chamber comprises a second valve 54 configured to prevent fluidic backflow.
In regard to claim 8, the mixing chamber is 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).
In regard to claim 9, since the mixing chamber is not in direct physical contact with the bottle, it may be considered not mechanically coupled to the bottle.
In regard to claim 12, as discussed above, the Maas in view of Metzler 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, since the dip tubes are of different diameters, the flow rates of the fluid therethrough could obviously be different depending on the types of fluids being dispensed.
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, Maas in view of Metzler renders obvious a fluid dispensing device structured as claimed wherein the bottle, mixing chamber and dispensing head are assembled.
In regard to claims 11, 19 and 20, the Maas reference discloses the first reservoir is filled with a highly concentrated solution and the second reservoir is filled with water (see column 3, lines 17-20). Although the 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 any suitable highly concentrated solution, include a solution having a viscosity differing from water, can be used in the Maas device without effecting the overall operation thereof, especially since the Maas reference does not limit the type of concentrated solution which is used in the dispenser. As such, the dip tubes would obviously be sized accordingly to enable the proper amounts of the two fluids to be mixed and dispensed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maas in view of Metzler, as discussed above, and further in view of Foster et al. (US 2003/0201342, as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter Foster).
In regard to claim 5, the single inlet portion of the dispensing head comprises a first valve 42 that is configured to prevent fluidic backflow. Although the Maas 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 Maas in view of Metzler, as discussed above, and further in view of Conrad et al. (US 2015/0091292, as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter Conrad).
In regard to claims 17 and 18, although the Maas 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.
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 the same combination of features 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 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
6/9/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights