DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 9/10/2025.
Claims 29-34 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 112
Previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 29-30 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102010027993A1 (machine translation attached) in view of Moens (US 2017/0101735 A1).
Re claim 29, DE102010027993A1 discloses a system (abstract), comprising:
a household appliance (ref. 7, see fig. 2) including a treatment space (ref. 8); and
a device (refs. 1a-c) adapted to be positioned in the treatment space of the household appliance and configured to communicate with the household appliance via a wireless communication link (“signals from the household appliance to the dosing device and / or from the dosing device to the household appliance”…” a wireless transmission of electrical energy and / or electrical and / or optical signals is effected”), the device comprising:
a core (see fig. 1) comprising a dispensing module (“In or on a chamber, a metering chamber may be formed in the flow direction of the preparation in front of the outlet opening of a chamber.”…example 1 “further metering device”; see also dispensing element is a piezoelectric element”) and a reservoir (“chamber”), the reservoir in fluid communication with the dispensing module via a liquid-tight, vapor-tight,and/or gas-tight connection for transport of at least one preparation from the reservoir to the dispensing module (inherent in “a plurality of chambers for the spatially separated receiving in each case of different preparations of a washing or cleaning agent”), the dispensing module being controlled by a processor (“control unit”) configured to communicate with the household appliance and to execute program instructions to dispense and/or effect dispensing of the at least one preparation into the treatment space of the household appliance (“Control unit is converted into a control signal, in particular for the delivery element”), and
a casing adapted to be positioned in the treatment space of the household appliance (see figs. 1-2, 1a-c have a housing/casing).
DE102010027993A1 does not explicitly disclose a casing adapted to be positioned in the treatment space of the household appliance, the casing enclosing the core and comprising a first envelope element and a second envelope element, the first envelope element formed of a first material, the second envelope element is formed of a second material.
However, Moens discloses it is very well-known in the detergent dosing art (abstract) to provide a casing (ref. 3) enclosing the core (ref. 1) and comprising a first envelope element (ref. 5 see figs. 3-4) and a second envelope element (ref. 3 upper and bottom parts ¶ [0049]), the first envelope element formed of a first material (¶ [0066] plastic, natural or synthetic rubber or fiber…[p]referably…rubber), the second envelope element is formed of a second material (¶ [0067] any type of plastic, natural or synthetic rubber, or fiber).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the casing of DE102010027993A1, to further include a first envelope element and a second envelope element, as suggested by Moens, in order to enhance physical cleaning ability and protect the device or clothes from damage.
Re claim 30, DE102010027993A1 or Moens further discloses wherein the household appliance is selected from the group consisting of a washing machine, a tumble dryer, and a washer-dryer (DE102010027993A1 Description “washing machine”; Moens ¶ [0002] washing machine).
Re claim 34, Moens further discloses wherein the first material is an elastomer, and wherein the second material is a thermoset and/or a thermoplastic (here, rubber for flexibility to dispense and absorb impact and a sturdier plastic for weight and economics). This further being an obvious selection of a known material suitable for its intended use, i.e. internal washing machine dispenser subject to tumbling forces.
Re claims 32-33, DE102010027993A1 and Moens further discloses wherein the device substantially spherical in shape (DE102010027993A1 fig. 1 and Moens fig. 3). Regarding “substantially cuboid”, the mere change in shape of the device to be spherical, compact and stackable and stable, i.e. cuboid, is simply an obvious engineering expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(I) Aesthetic Design Changes and (IV) Changes in Shape.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102010027993A1 (machine translation attached) in view of Moens (US 2017/0101735 A1), as applied above, and further in view of Kohne et al. (US 2010/0000268 A1).
Re claim 31, DE102010027993A1 /Moens discloses as shown above but does not explicitly disclose biocidal properties. Kohn discloses it is known in the dispensing art (abstract) to provide a carrier body having biocidal properties (¶ [0015]-[0016] silver-containing or doped materials).
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious selection of material to further select the first and/or the second material of DE102010027993A1/Moens to similarly have biocidal properties, as suggested by Kohne, in order to prevent mold or odors build up on a cleaning device in constant contact with dirty water and/or sanitize the washing liquid. See MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose, and/or wherein the casing further comprises a third envelope element formed of a third material, wherein the third material has biocidal properties (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/10/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE102010028354A1 note wireless connected dispenser.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711