Patent number: 6617014
Filing date: Mar 31, 2000
Issue date: Sep 9, 2003
Application number: 9/540,099

Note patent is older that the H.H. Brown patent and again not cited by the H.H. Brown patent but read this (see my bold):

What is claimed is:

1. A foam composite comprising:

a scaffold of a substantially reticulated hydrophobic polyurethane foam, said scaffold having a plurality of surfaces defining a plurality of pores; and
a coating of a substantially open cell hydrophilic polyurethane foam disposed upon said plurality of surfaces of said hydrophobic polyurethane foam;
wherein said foam composite exhibits structural characteristics of said hydrophobic polyurethane foam and absorbency characteristics of said open cell hydrophilic polyurethane foam.

2. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said coating is from about 1% to about 90% by weight of said foam composite.

3. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said coating is prepared by the in situ deposition of a hydrophilic polyurethane prepolymer from a solution of said polymer in a nonreactive solvent.

4. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said open cell hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprises the polymerization products of an isocyanate-capped polyether prepolymer having an isocyanate functionality from about 5% by weight to about 15% by weight of said prepolymer.

5. The foam composite of claim 4, wherein said isocyanate-capped polyether prepolymer has an isocyanate functionality from about 6% by weight to about 90% by weight of said prepolymer.

6. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said foam composite has a pore size distribution from about 4 pores per linear inch to about 100 pores per linear inch.

7. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said foam composite has a void volume from about 20% to about 98%.

8. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said foam composite has a surface area from about 100 ft2 per cube foot to about 2,000 ft2 per cubic foot of foam composite.

9. The foam composite of claim 8, wherein said foam composite has a surface area of from about 300 ft2 per cubic foot to about 2000 ft2 per cubic foot of foam composite and a pore size distribution in the range from about 10 pore/linear inch to about 95 pore/linear inch.

10. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said hydrophilic polyurethane coating further comprises an additive.

11. The foam composite of claim 1, further comprising a non-bioactive ingredient or a bioaffecting agent.

12. The foam composite of claim 11, wherein said non-bioactive ingredient or said bioaffecting agent is immobilized within said foam composite.

13. The foam composite of claim 12, wherein said bioaffecting agent is selected from the group consisting of pharmaceuticals, fragrances, soaps, yeasts, herbicides, pesticides, enzymes, bacteria, algae, plants, animal cells, human cells, and mixtures thereof.

14. The foam composite of claim 11, wherein said bioaffecting agent is grafted onto said non-bioactive ingredient.

15. A composition of matter comprising:

a volume of substantially reticulated hydrophobic polyurethane foam having a plurality of pores within the structure thereof, the surfaces of said pores being coated with hydrophilic polyurethane foam.

16. A composition of matter as recited in claim 15 wherein the weight of said hydrophilic polyurethane foam is from 0.01 to 15 times that of said hydrophobic polyurethane foam.

17. A composition of matter as recited in claim 15 wherein the surface area of the coated pores is from 100 ft2/ft3 to about 2,000 ft2/ft3.

18. A composition of matter comprising:

a volume of substantially reticulated hydrophobic polyurethane foam having from 4 to about 100 pores per linear inch and a void volume of up to 98%, said pores having a total surface area measured by the BET method of up to 2,000 ft2/ft3, and
hydrophilic polyurethane foam coated on the surface of said pores.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6617014

Competition seems to produce the stuff without getting sued by Spongetech:

# Soap-filled bath sponges in animal shapes for children
# Soap-filled sponges for adults

http://www.rynel.com/cosmetic.html

Consumer Products:
Exceeding Expectations

* Broad range of products, including cleaning products and chemical applicators
* High quality hydrophilic polyurethane foam, alone or in combination with other materials, such as non-wovens
* Controlled release of soaps, cleansers, detergents, deodorizers, moisturizers and other active ingredients
* Latex free and non-toxic

It may not say Rynel on the label, but most likely you have seen our foam in products sold throughout the world.

http://www.rynel.com/consumer.html

If the group acts in unison they have to file as one entity. That's how I understand it.

Any patent can be challenged, especially if prior art isn't cited on the patent application by the author. It looks like the two patents I cited were not cited in the H.H. Brown patent!

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6706775

Examiners can be missing crucial information you know. BTW I do consider myself a little bit of an expert as I have over 25 issued patents and numerous U.S. patent applications with my name on it.

Yes, but if it is obvious, it is not patentable.

yep, or they might be on the gray sheets by then IMO

printmail01,
I wasn't gonna write anything, but you know that hydrophilic sponges are not exactly a new invention, neither are soap filled sponges new, I wonder why H.H. Browns patents were even allowed:


Patent #3,508,953 Apr. 28 1970 talks about rendering Polyurethane sponges hydrophilic.

Patent #4,271,272 Jun. 2, 1981 claims:

1. A resilient polyurethane foam sponge product comprising an amount of a lotion of at least 4 percent by weight of the product sponge dispersed uniformly within the cellular structure of the synthetic polyurethane sponge, said sponge product produced by reaction of a component selected from the group consisting of polyesters and polyethers with an organic polyisocyanate in the presence of a catalyst to obtain a foam forming mass, the lotion being dispersed in the reaction mass prior to the onset of foam formation.

2. The product of claim 1 wherein the lotion is a silicone-containing material.

3. The product of claim 2 wherein the silicone-containing material comprises between 10 and 20 percent by weight of the product sponge.

4. A resilient polurethane foam sponge product comprising an amount of a pesticide of at least 4 percent by weight of the product sponge dispersed uniformly within the cellular structure of the synthetic polyurethane sponge, said sponge product produced by reaction of a component selected from the group consisting of polyesters and polyethers with an organic polyisocyanate in the presence of a catalyst to obtain a foam forming mass, the pesticide being dispersed in the reaction mass prior to the onset of foam formation.

5. A resilient polyurethane foam sponge product comprising an amount of a bath oil of at least 4 percent by weight of the product sponge dispersed uniformly within the cellular structure of the synthetic polyurethane sponge, said sponge product produced by reaction of a component selected from the group consisting of polyesters and polyethers with an organic polyisocyanate in the presence of a catalyst to obtain a foam forming mass, the bath oil being dispersed in the reaction mass prior to the onset of foam formation.

6. The product of claim 5 wherein the bath oil is selected from the group consisting of acetylated lanolin, acetylated lanolin alcohol, isopropyl myristate, mineral oil and compatible combinations of same.

7. The product of claim 1, 4 or 5 wherein the additives of said claims are first distributed within a dry, vehicular material before incorporation into the reaction mass, the vehicular material being soap.

There is a lot more of course.

I have brought this up myself. According to someone I talked to, it is legal, to book all orders as income. And those that are or are not sold as receivables. However, when you look at the cash flow statement from the previous 9 months, you see a decrease of receivables of $10 million far outstripping the net income. So, yes I think you are right, that's what they are doing. Of course at some point "the hen has to come home to roost".

"Don't think of it as a sponge but a "delivery system" that gets rid of plastic bottles."

Do you think hydrophylic polyurethane thrown out after 8 uses is better for the environment than a plastic bottle containing soap for hundreds of washes? Isn't a bottle a "delivery system" as well? Is it a better product because we slap a fancy description on an old hat?

Sorry, I don't knowingly invest into scams.

Ah, and this must be McCain, Hillary and Gore

OT,
I know, the laws are not simple and can be quite complicated. But we are not trying to settle a complicated legal situation here, we are only trying to determine if SPNG is in compliance with the securities laws or not. Here is what I gathered so far:
1. When increasing the A/S do you need to file an 8-k or not? IMO yes you need to file, they did it before why did they stop?
2. When the auditor got suspended, does the company need to file an 8-k announcing the auditor change? A person at the SEC told me definitely yes!
3. When insiders purchase or sell shares of their company as announced in a PR from a week ago, do they need to file Forms 3,4 or 5? IMO definitely yes.
4. When an investor (group) purchases more than 10% of the O/S (as Alfie proclaimed to me) do they have to file Forms 3,4 or 5? IMO definitely yes.

BTW. I read the 13d, I really have no trouble understanding it. I don't proclaim to be a securities expert, but to me the intend of the laws are pretty clear: make insider/corporate action transparent to the investors - no magic there. To me SPNG fails on all fronts and in fact, it appears that SPNG mgmt actively tries to deceive shareholders.

I'm quoting the SEC and law firms, how are those lies? Really, it is time to blame SPNG and not the SEC, securities law firms and others IMO.

http://www.legalandcompliance.com/Reporting-Requirements.html

Don't know why it didn't work, maybe spam filters on their site.

The info is good enough for SPNG investors to know that the company is not in compliance:

OTCBB or Bulletin Board Shells are in high demand by private companies seeking to go public because they are Reporting Companies and subject to all the reporting requirements of the SEC. OTCBB or Bulletin Board Shells offer owners of acquisition candidates the opportunity to acquire a controlling ownership interest in a publicly registered company without incurring the cost and time required to conduct an initial public offering.

Reporting companies are required to be "transparent" in their operations so that investors can make an informed decision before investing. In addition, in reverse merger transactions, merger candidates can make an assessment as to the current and future potential value of the stock to be issued to the private company shareholders in a reverse merger transaction.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended requires the filing of numerous reports, including periodic reports on Form 8-K; quarterly reports on Form 10-Q; annual reports on Form 10-K; proxy solicitations on Schedule 14-A; Proxy Information Statements on Schedule 14-C; and officer and director ownerships reports on Forms 3, 4 & 5.

http://www.legalandcompliance.com/Reporting-Requirements.html

http://www.sec.gov/answers/form345.htm
http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form4data.pdf
http://www.secform4.com/

Insiders and those that control more than 10% of the O/S apparently need to file Form 4

Send myself some observations to the SEC. I wonder how long it will take. For me it has been clear that this is a scam for over a year now when Moskowitz came out with some "unbelievable" stories that didn't match the numbers in their filings.

I'm not sure about the less greedy part. It appears as if they dumped a billion shares at prices between .04 and .28 this year alone, that's a lot of dough.

"...the sponge ceo and crew are squeezing it for all they can."

Sure looks that way. And they seem to be able to come up with the right rumors, PR's and filings just enough to make the believers believe a little more.

It appears as if I understand the securities laws much better than Doug Furth, Michael Metter and Steven Moskowitz or they understand the laws as well and are plain lying into shareholders faces. Either way, not good for shareholders.

Just opening another account does not shield you from your responsibilities. You know how easy it is for the SEC to view all your accounts?

No, if they act as a group and not individuals, they would have to file as a group.

"...can you please report to us the time frame in which he would have to report these holdings"

Answer: In less than two days of the purchasing transaction. Obviously he either is delinquent on his filings "as much as mgmt of SPNG is with their announced insider trades" or he does not control 300 million shares as he told me.

Form 4 has to be filed within 2 days of the transaction.

Because if you own (personal or otherwise) more than 5% you have to file/amend the 13g/13d it with the SEC. 300 million shares would obviously by any accounting be more than 5% of the OS, in fact it would be more than 10% which requires a Form 3,4 or 5 as far as I know. That goes for any reporting company on the OTCBB.

yep, so much for the 300 million share theory. Now I wonder why Alfie(aka Doug) told me he controlled 300 million shares?

I wouldn't be surprised, but it would mean extreme greed on the part of the company if they did it again. Especially at these prices.

BTW washing a dog usually does not entail using a sponge:


"Begin by having these items on hand before you start: brush, comb or rake; shampoo, conditioner, shampoo mitt, bathing tether, bath mat, drain cover, spray hose and towel."

http://www.rinseace.com/wash
http://www.wikihow.com/Wash-a-Dog

I don't know how to explain it any better:

You presume that when I buy shares of SPNG, I am buying those shares from another shareholder who is selling. That is not the case. I am buying the shares from a MM's inventory.

If shareholder sells shares, that shareholder is selling those shares to a MM.

With that in mind, the stats

BUYS 31.5 million shares
SELLS: 25.4 million shares

Mean that 31.5 million shares were bought from the MMs and 25.4 million shares were sold to the MMs.

From that, one can see that the MMs had to supply 6 million +/- shares from their inventory, or go short to fill the buy orders.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39881186

"BUYS 31.5 million shares

SELLS: 25.4 million shares.

A short of 6 million shares, plus/ minus."

No, that's not how it works. Every buy has a matching sell and ever sell has a matching buy, or you can call it simply: a trade.
If a trade happens at the current ask, it is commonly referred to as a buy and if the trade happens at the ask it is referred to as a sell. In this case there were 6 million more "buys" which simply means 6 million more shares traded on the ask than on the bid. You cannot infer short positions from those statistics.

Watched the video, I'm not impressed. They make an argument why not to buy it.
Even though the dog is very patient, it quickly becomes clear that the sponge is awkward to handle and that those bumps do nothing. And how do you rinse the dog? Do you just leave the soap in the dog? The demo for the chamois just screams "bad product" at us. It doesn't absorb anything and just got dirty after touching the 'cleaned' dog. And what was that about 'you can use it on other things like the car'? Does that mean it's good for the car because it has dog conditioner and odor killer in it. LMAO comical.
I'm now convinced that the car sponge and the pet sponge are the exact same product including the chemicals. The chamois probably has wax in it.

http://www.qvc.com/qic/qvcapp.aspx/view.2/app.detail/params.item.M18881.desc.6piece-Shampoo-Infused-Pet-Sponges-Chamois-Cloths

Can you back that theory up with a link to a pic? Pictures speak louder than words!

nice summary!

Filings don't seem to matter for this company. I see no 8k on the auditor, no form 4 on the insider trading and no 8k on the A/S increases. I guess it comes down to: who is brave enough to hold this over the weekend. Good luck!

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-idea?action=getcompany&CIK=0001201251&type=&dateb=&owner=include&count=40

Home Depot news? where?

I think we gonna see chapter 7 as soon as WFC is paid off. There are just too many of them. Turning the last few stores into rummage stores (no more NIKE no more True Value ...) isn't gonna bring the money back, they weren't even profitable before. Tom took all this money out of his left pocket to pay WFC while keeping his share in his right pocket. The vendors shut up because WFC had all the liquidation rights but now WFC will be gone. Now the vendors will swoop in for the kill.

"It is rare to see a company in its development stage with no debt and positive cash flow."
The reporter doesn't seem to be able to read a balance sheet.

I have to admit 4am in the morning is somewhat odd for a PR, but it has worked before for other companies. Gives the night crowd time to work themselves into a frenzy without any sp movement.

The legacy debt passed down from KK was around $500k. Remember how much damage that did?