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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 6/24/2024 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
A double inclusion limitation appears for the following terms that has been cited previously:
In claim 15, line 3, for "a foam dispenser".
In claim 10, for “at least one inlet”.
In claim 10, for “at least one chamber wall”.
In claims 12 and 14, for “liquid”.
In claims 11 and 14, for “air”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-20 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.
In claim 6, a broad range or limitation followed by linking term “preferably” and a narrow range or limitation within the broad range or limitation is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Applicant is advised to delete the term.
Claim 1, recites “an inlet” in line 11, it is unclear if the limitation refers to the inlet of the air or liquid.
Claim 12 recite "at least two inlets", and further the same claim recite "the inlets". It is unclear if “the inlets” are referring to the “at least two inlets” or a particular ones of the many inlets. A similar rejection is applicable to “the wall” of the chamber in claims 8 and 10. Applicant may correct the limitations by citing “the at least two inlets” or “the at least one wall”.
In claim 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-5, 8-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banks (US 6,394,315).
Regarding claim 1, Banks discloses a foam dispenser (fig.1-11), comprising; a plastic bottle (12) made of flexible plastic (col. 3, ll. 26-28) having a bottle opening (see fig.1); a closure cap (24) which seals the bottle opening and has a dispensing opening for a foam (see fig.1); a foam-generating device for foaming a solution comprising a chamber having at least one wall (24, see fig.2), at least one inlet for air in a wall of the chamber (via area 36), and at least one inlet for liquid in a wall of the chamber (via 50), and at least one porous body (44) which is arranged in the chamber, the foam-generating device being arranged in or connected to the closure cap (see fig.3), and a riser pipe (30) which is arranged inside the plastic bottle and is connected to an inlet (see inlet in area 34 ), wherein the at least one porous body consists of an open-cell foam material and the open-cell foam material has a density of more than 0.03 g/cm3 (see col. 4, ll. 39-44, “foaming soap with a density of 1.022 g/m.sup.3” implies to the density of porous element 44).
Regarding claim 2, Banks discloses the at least one porous body is compressed in the chamber (see fig.2-3, porous body 44 must be compressed to the chamber for sturdy operation).
Regarding claim 4, Banks discloses the foam has a density of at least 0.035 g/cm3 (see col. 4, ll. 39-44).
Regarding claim 5, Banks discloses the foam has a density of at most 0.08 g/cm3 (see col. 4, ll. 39-44).
Regarding claim 8, Banks discloses a foam body is fixed to the wall of the chamber and the foam body is in full contact with side walls of the chamber (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, Banks discloses the chamber is at least partially cylindrical and the at least one porous body is cylindrical (see fig.1)
Regarding claim 10, Banks discloses the chamber, which is at least partially cylindrical, has a chamber base and at least one chamber wall which extends from the chamber base in a direction of the bottle opening, wherein at least one inlet is arranged in the chamber base and at least one inlet is arranged in the chamber wall (see openings and direction of 24).
Regarding claim 11, Banks discloses the chamber has only a single inlet in the chamber base, which inlet is connected to the riser pipe and forms the inlet for air (see 36 of 30 on 24).
Regarding claim 12, Banks discloses the chamber has at least two inlets in a side wall of the chamber and the inlets are arranged evenly spaced apart and form the inlet for liquid (pair of 28).
Regarding claim 13, Banks discloses the chamber is at least partially designed as a double-walled hollow cylinder and has an inner and an outer cylinder which are arranged concentrically to each other in an overlapping area (see fig.2, location of 24 and 20).
Regarding claim 18, Banks discloses the foam has a density of at least 0.045 g/cm3 (see col. 4, ll. 39-44).
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 3, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks (US 6,394,315).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Banks is silent in disclosing the plastic bottle contains an alcoholic solution and or the alcoholic solution is an alcoholic disinfectant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the contents of the plastic container, since inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In this instant application operating the container by mediums such as “alcoholic disinfectant” will not produce an unexpected result than using “soap” as a medium in the container of Bank.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Banks is silent in disclosing a ratio of a size of the inlet opening for air to a ratio of a size of an inlet opening for liquid is 1: 0.9 to1:1.5. Instead, Banks teaches “foaming liquid which is a foaming soap with a density of 1.022 g/cm.sup.3 and a viscosity of 40-50 cps, air passageway 36 has a bore diameter of 6.55 mm; the annular cap chamber 26 has a width of 0.25 mm; a pair of cover ports 28 have diameters of 1.8 mm; and the valve 38 opening pressure is 15-20 mbar” (col. 4, ll. 39-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ratio of air to liquid openings of 1: 0.9 to1:1.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Regarding claim 15, Banks discloses a method for foaming soap, comprising providing a foam dispenser according to claim 1 (see claim 1 in above), wherein the foam dispenser contains soap; and manually squeezing the bottle of the foam dispenser so that a foam can be obtained (col. 3, ll. 22-25).
Banks is silent in disclosing the foam dispenser contains alcoholic solution in dispensing an alcoholic foam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the contents of the plastic container, since inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In this instant application operating the container by mediums such as “alcoholic solution” will not produce an unexpected result than using “soap” as a medium in the container of Bank.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-7, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks (US 6,394,315) in view of Free (US 6,371,606).
Banks is silent in disclosing the foam in an uncompressed state has a number of pores of 50 to 130 pores/inch, preferably of 60 to 100 pores/inch, for example of about 70 pores/inch; the foam in an uncompressed state has a pore size of 0.3 mm to 0.9 mm, measured according to ASTM D 3576-2004; the at least one porous body is compressed in the chamber by 10 % to 50 %; and the foam in the uncompressed state has a number of pores of 60 to 100 pores/inch. However, Free teaches the commonality of a porous body to have foam in an uncompressed state has a number of pores of 50 to 130 pores/inch, preferably of 60 to 100 pores/inch, for example of about 70 pores/inch; an uncompressed state has a pore size of 0.3 mm to 0.9 mm, measured according to ASTM D 3576-2004 (col. 5, ll. 15-22); the at least one porous body is compressed in the chamber by 10 % to 50 % (col. 5, ll. 31-42); and foam in the uncompressed state has a number of pores of 60 to 100 pores/inch (col. 5, ll. 15-22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the porous body of Banks to the one taught by Free, in order to produce a foam of a constant quality.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks (US 6,394,315) in view of Bland (US 6,071,580).
Banks is silent in disclosing the foam has a density of at most 0.06 g/cm3. However, Bland teaches the commonality of having a foam with a density of at most 0.06 g/cm3 (col. 4, ll. 25-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the foam density of Banks to the one taught by Bland, in order to produce lightweight foam materials.
State of the Prior Arts
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts to Banks (US 6,394,315), Free (US 6,371,606), Wright (US 4,531,659), Kock (US 5,037,006) and Lee (WO 2018064118 A1) as cited in PTO-892 are also citing significant pertinent structures or features to the applicant’s claimed invention with regard to a plastic bottle made of flexible plastic having a bottle opening; a closure cap which seals the bottle opening and has a dispensing opening for a foam; a foam-generating device for foaming a solution comprising a chamber having at least one wall, at least one inlet for air in a wall of the chamber, and at least one inlet for liquid in a wall of the chamber, and at least one porous body which is arranged in the chamber, the foam-generating device being arranged in or connected to the closure cap; and a riser pipe which is arranged inside the plastic bottle and is connected to an inlet, and the at least one porous body consists of an open-cell foam material and the open-cell foam material has a density of more than 0.03 g/cm3. It appears that claim 1 does not provide any inventive concept over the cited prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754