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 .
Claims 4-28 are pending. Claims 1-3 are canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 and 4 (claims 5, 9 and 14) in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 10, 16 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/17/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 05/06/2026 appears to be identical to the information disclosure statement filed 06/17/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
On page 1 of the specification, in paragraph [0001], the phrase “, n issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,065,939”, or the like, should be added immediately after “2022” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 23, the word “method” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “apparatus”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations are “means for mixing”, “means for growing” and “meaning for reducing” in claim 1.
Based on a review of the specification, “means for mixing” is interpreted to include a plenum with impeller, or equivalents thereof; “means for growing” is interpreted to include a mesh, or equivalents thereof; and “meaning for reducing” is interpreted to include a smaller mesh than the means for growing, or equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-7, 11, 17-23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0087175 to Petter et al. (“Petter”) in view of US 8,322,633 to Hubert et al. (“Hubert”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Petter teaches an apparatus useful for foaming a water soluble liquid cleaning agent (abstract, para [0043], [0046], [0047]), comprising: means for mixing a pressurized gas with a pressurized water soluble liquid cleaning agent to create a foam (Fig. 16, ref. 202, para [0040] – [0043], [0067], [0074]).
Petter does not explicitly teach means for growing the size of the cells of the foam; and means for reducing the size of the grown cells. Hubert teaches an apparatus for generating foam (abstract) and discloses that a mesh (Fig. 6, ref. 118, incl. ref. 140, col. 4, lines 43-67) can be sized to produce a desired expansion or reduction of foam and that larger bubbles have a high expansion ratio and require less solution to produce (col. 4, lines 43-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Petter apparatus in view of Hubert wherein it includes a growing mesh, or means for growing the size of the cells of the foam, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of that a mesh can be sized to produce a desired expansion of foam and that larger bubbles have a high expansion ratio and require less solution to produce, and in view of the disclosure of flowing the first foam over member and increasing the size of the cells of the first foam (Petter, para [0043], [0078] – [0081], note flow path between ref. 202 and ref. 40).
Hubert discloses that discloses that larger cells have a high expansion ratio, but lower thermal stability than smaller cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the Petter apparatus in view of Hubert wherein it includes a smaller mesh, or reducing mesh, or means for reducing the size of the grown cells, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance process control and thermal stability.
It is noted that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious, as is changes in size. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and (VI)(V).
Regarding claim 6, since the growing means of the Petter/Hubert teaching has surface area and appears to be substantially identical to that of the presently claimed apparatus, it appears to be fully capable of being used to provide surface area for attachment and merging of cells of the foam from said mixing means.
Regarding claim 7, Petter/Hubert disclose an apparatus wherein said growing means includes a mesh, or plurality of first passageways, and said reducing means is adapted and configured to reduce the size of at least some of the grown cells by passing the grown cells through a plurality of a reducing mesh, or second passageways, smaller than the first passageways (Hubert, col. 4, lines 43-58, note Fig. 6, ref. 118, incl. ref. 140).
Regarding claim 11, since the Petter/Hubert apparatus includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, i.e. wherein said mixing means imparts swirl into the flowing liquid by injection of the gas.
Regarding claim 17, since Petter/Huber disclose the claimed structural features, the Petter/Hubert apparatus appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, i.e. wherein said mixing means, said growing means, and said reducing means have substantially the same flow area.
Regarding claim 18, Petter discloses a housing defining an internal flowpath and having an internal wall and an internal axis, and the direction of the internal flowpath is radially from the axis toward the internal wall (Figs. 9A and 9B, ref. 122, para [0050] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 19, Petter/Hubert does not explicitly teach the apparatus wherein at least two of the said mixing means, said growing means, and said reducing means are concentric. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Petter/Hubert apparatus wherein at least two of the said mixing means, said growing means, and said reducing means are concentric, with a reasonable expectation of success, since they are part of a single flowpath. It is noted that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 20, Petter/Hubert does not explicitly teach the apparatus wherein the reducing means is outermost from said mixing means or said growing means. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Petter/Hubert apparatus wherein the reducing means is outermost from said mixing means or said growing means, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is downstream from them. It is noted that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 21, Petter/Hubert does not explicitly teach the apparatus wherein said mixing means is innermost of the said growing means or said reducing means. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Petter/Hubert apparatus wherein said mixing means is innermost of the said growing means or said reducing means, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is upstream from them. It is noted that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 22, Petter/Hubert does not explicitly teach the apparatus wherein said mixing means, said growing means, and said reducing means are concentric, and said growing means is between said mixing means and said reducing means. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Petter/Hubert apparatus wherein said mixing means, said growing means, and said reducing means are concentric, and said growing means is between said mixing means and said reducing means, with a reasonable expectation of success, since they are part of a single flowpath, with the growing means downstream from the mixing means, and the reducing means downstream from the growing means. It is noted that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 23, Petter/Hubert does not explicitly teach wherein said mixing means includes flowing the liquid in a first direction and injecting the gas in a second direction that has a velocity component at least partly opposite to the first direction. However, since the Petter/Hubert apparatus includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, i.e. flowing the liquid in a first direction and injecting the gas in a second direction that has a velocity component at least partly opposite to the first direction.
Regarding claim 28, since the Petter/Hubert apparatus includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, i.e. wherein the pressurized liquid cleaning agent is provided at a first pressure, the pressurized gas is provided at a second pressure higher than ambient pressure, and the second pressure is higher than the first pressure
Claims 9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0087175 to Petter et al. (“Petter”) in view of US 8,322,633 to Hubert et al. (“Hubert”) and in further view of US 2,765,048 to Hersey (“Hersey”).
Regarding claim 9, Petter/Hubert does not explicitly teach the apparatus wherein said mixing means includes providing the pressurized gas into flowing liquid through a porous metal filter. Porous metal filters were known in the art as effective for cleaning gases (see, e.g., Hersey at, inter alia, col. 1, lines 47-61). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Petter/Hubert apparatus as was known wherein the mixing means includes a porous metal filter, with a reasonable expectation of success, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to clean the pressurized gas. Since the Petter/Hubert/Hersey apparatus includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated the manner as recited, i.e. the pressurized gas is provided into flowing liquid through the porous metal filter.
Regarding claim 25, Petter/Hubert/Hersey disclose an apparatus wherein the porous metal filter is cylindrical (Hubert, Fig. 3). It is noted that changes in shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0087175 to Petter et al. (“Petter”) in view of US 8,322,633 to Hubert et al. (“Hubert”) and in further view of US 2,715,045 to Thompson (“Thompson”).
Regarding claim 14, Petter/Hubert disclose an apparatus wherein said reducing means includes a mesh, as discussed for claim 4, but do not explicitly teach that the mesh is a wire mesh. However, wire meshes were known in the art as effective for foam production (see, e.g., Thompson at, inter alia, col. 2, lines 60-65), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Petter/Hubert apparatus wherein the mesh is a mesh, with a reasonable expectation of success, since they were known as effective for producing foam.
Regarding claim 15, Petter/Hubert disclose an apparatus wherein said growing means includes a mesh, as discussed for claim 4, but do not explicitly teach that the mesh is a wire mesh. However, wire meshes were known in the art as effective for foam production (see, e.g., Thompson at, inter alia, col. 2, lines 60-65), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Petter/Hubert apparatus wherein the mesh is a mesh, with a reasonable expectation of success, since they were known as effective for producing foam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, 26 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art references are: US 2013/0087175 to Petter et al. and US 8,322,633 to Hubert et al. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of: wherein said growing means is a vibrating rod (as in claim 12), wherein the porous metal filter has an upstream end and a downstream end and a porosity that is directionally oriented, with the upstream end being non-porous and the downstream end being porous (as in claim 26), and wherein the porous metal filter includes a porous metal member attached to a threaded member, and a plurality of holes each having a diameter of between 10 and 100 microns (as in claim 27), in combination with the other structural elements as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,434,275 to Mohamed et al. teaches a device for cleaning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights