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 amendment filed on 4/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because a double inclusion limitation appears for two citations of "a wall" in line 5.
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 10-12 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.
Claims 10-12 recite the chamber has a single inlet in the chamber base for air entry and at least one or two inlets arranged in the chamber wall. It seems claims 10-12 refer to an inverted container different from the container cited in an upright position in claim 1. It appears the claims 10-12 having crossing species or embodiments. Therefore claims 10-12 are not suited for examination and is considered vague and indefinite. In order to advance the prosecution of this instant application, claims 10-12 are examined as best understood in conjunction to the embodiment of claim 1.
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 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedai (JP H07215352 A) in view of Kang (US 2021/0205183).
Regarding claims 1, 4-7, 16 and 20, Sedai discloses a foam dispenser (fig.1-9), comprising: a plastic bottle made of flexible plastic having a bottle opening (see fig.1-2 and attached translation, [0017-0018], [0028], [0034]); a closure cap which seals the bottle opening and has a dispensing opening for a foam (see shape of 12); a foam-generating device for foaming a solution comprising a chamber (chamber in 14) having at least one wall (see wall in fig.5-7), at least one inlet for air in a wall of the chamber (via 14C), and at least one inlet for liquid in a wall of the chamber (via 14B), and at least one porous body which is arranged in the chamber (16 in 34), the foam-generating device being arranged in or connected to the closure cap (10 on 12) and a riser pipe (17) which is arranged inside the plastic bottle and is connected to the at least one inlet for the liquid (see fig.5-7).
Sedai is silent in disclosing 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; the foam has a density of at least 0.035 g/cm3; the foam has a density of at most 0.08 g/cm3; the foam in an uncompressed state has a number of pores of 50 to 130 pores/inch, of 60 to 100 pores/inch, or 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, Kang teaches the commonality of having 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 ([0046]); the foam has a density of at least 0.035 g/cm3 ([0046]); the foam has a density of at most 0.08 g/cm3 ([0046]); the foam in an uncompressed state has a number of pores of 50 to 130 pores/inch, of 60 to 100 pores/inch, or of about 70 pores/inch ([0050]; 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 (see [0042] size of the sponge 48v.11mm, and [0050] cites the number of porous, pore size of .3 to .9 mm is an obvious reachable size); the at least one porous body is compressed in the chamber by 10 % to 50 % ([0039]); and the foam in the uncompressed state has a number of pores of 60 to 100 pores/inch ([0050]. 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 Sedai to a porous body as taught by Kang, in order to allow consistent discharge of the content from the initial time (see Kang, [0036]).
Regarding claims 2, Sedai discloses the at least one porous body is compressed in the chamber ([0022])
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Sedai 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 liquid as a medium in the container of Sedai.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8, Sedai discloses a foam body is fixed to the wall of the chamber and the foam body is in full contact with the wall of the chamber (see 16 in fig.7).
Regarding claims 9, Sedai discloses the chamber is at least partially cylindrical and the at least one porous body is cylindrical (see fig.7).
Regarding claims 10-12, Sedai 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 (see fig.7), and wherein the at least one inlet for the air is arranged in the chamber base and the at least one inlet for the liquid is arranged in the chamber wall; the chamber has only a single inlet in the chamber base, wherein the single inlet is connected to the riser pipe and forms the at least one inlet for the air; and the chamber has at least two inlets in a side wall of the chamber and, wherein the at least two inlets are arranged evenly spaced apart and form the at least one inlet for the liquid (container 11 in an inverted position accepts air via riser pipe 17 into 14B and liquid into 14C).
Regarding claims 13, Sedai 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 (12 and 14).
Regarding claim 14, Sedai 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, Sedai teaches liquid passage 14B and air passage 14D having proper ratio in producing a quality foam (see fig.7). 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 claims 15, Sedai discloses a method for foaming a solution, comprising; providing the foam dispenser according to claim 1 (see claim 1 in above), wherein the foam dispenser contains the solution; and manually squeezing the bottle of the foam dispenser so that a foam can be obtained ([0028]). Sedai 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 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 “liquid” as a medium in the container of Sedai.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedai (JP H07215352 A) in view of Kang (US 2021/0205183) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bland (US 6,071,580).
Sedai and Kang in combination are silent in disclosing the foam has a density of at least 0.045 g/cm3; and 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 least 0.045 g/cm3; and 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 Sedai and Kang in combination to the one taught by Bland, in order to produce lightweight foam materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights