DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/02/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending in the instant application. Claims 20-21 have been added. Claims 3 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 8-13, 17,and 18 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered by the examiner and are found to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 in view of the applied prior art of record are found to be moot in view of the grounds of rejection addressing the amended claim language, as presented below.
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.
Claims 1,2, 4-13, 16-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna et al (US 2014/0283561) in view of Vaillant (US 2009/022235).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a computer-implemented method, performed by an apparatus comprising a sensor located in close proximity to or within an enzyme formulation, a processor, and a dosing unit (see at least paragraph [0025] to McKenna et al) comprising (i) sensing, via the sensor, including time-varying temperature data during storage of the enzyme formulation (see at least paragraph [0013] to McKenna et al), and obtaining an initial enzyme activity value of the enzyme formulation(see at least paragraphs [0099] and [0100] to McKenna et a); (ii) determining, a remaining activity value of the enzyme formulation based on the storage segment data and the initial enzyme activity value (20)(see at least paragraph [0089] to McKenna et al); (iii) outputting the remaining activity value to an output unit, and automatically controlling the dosing unit or dosing equipment configured to dispense the enzyme formulation, (see at least paragraph [0063] to McKenna et al).
McKenna et al does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising via the processor executing a stability model comprising an Arrhenius- type or Weibull-type temperature-dependent degradation model, and (iv) wherein the controlling adjusts an amount of the enzyme formulation dispensed during an industrial process based on the remaining activity value.
However, Vaillant discloses a device and method for monitoring a product degradation, further comprising via the processor executing a stability model comprising an Arrhenius- type or Weibull-type temperature-dependent degradation model (see at least paragraph [0008] to Vaillant), and (iv)wherein the controlling adjusts an amount of the enzyme formulation dispensed during an industrial process based on the remaining activity value (see at least paragraph [0010] to Vaillant).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for controlled dosing of treating compositions in washing machines, as disclosed by McKenna et al and the system and method for monitoring a product degradation as taught by Vaillant, in order to simplify the logistic management of routed products, in particular the transfer of responsibility between the manufacturer and their distributor (see at least paragraph [0004] to Vaillant), with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one storage segment data is determined based on sensor data from the sensor(sensor, the sensor providing the time-varying temperature data see at least paragraph [0010]to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sensor is located within the same storage space as the enzyme formulation and/or is attached to a packaging, a pallet, or an outer shell of a container of the enzyme formulation and is configured to sense the time-varying storage segment data (see at least paragraph [0024] to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the sensor data is corrected, specifically by one or both of the input unit and the processing unit, by calculating a temperature within the enzyme formulation, based on the sensed storage segment data; and or wherein the sensor data is received from at least one sensor located within the enzyme formulation (see at least paragraph [0099] to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the enzyme formulation is exposed to a multitude of non-identical storage segments differing at least in temperature (see at least paragraph [0099] to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a temperature of at least one storage segment is not controlled (see at least paragraph [0099] to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein in step (ii) the remaining activity value of the enzyme formulation is calculated based on a model comprising a time-varying temperature parameter reflecting multiple storage segments at different temperatures (see at least paragraph [0099] to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the model comprises at least one temperature-dependent Weibull type equation, rather than an Arrhenius-type equation. or in combination with an Arrhenius-type equation (see at least paragraph [0008] to Vaillant).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, further configured to perform at least one of the following: output, the value of the remaining activity value of the enzyme formulation via the output unit; output, via the output unit, the determined remaining activity value of the enzyme formulation: determine by the processing unit and output via the output determine by the processing unit and output via the output unit a dosage instruction for the enzyme formulation, including an instruction that reflects the automatic control of the dosing unit or dosing equipment; and/or automatically elicit an order of an additional batch of enzyme formulation if the remaining activity value indicates that the total enzyme activity in the enzyme formulation is below a pre-determined threshold value (see at least paragraph [0096] to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, further configured to: download relevant information including quality information, regulatory information, safety data, and/or technical documents; order enzyme formulations; and/or provide a user-feedback including usability, information content and/or enzyme formulation outcome, wherein the dosing unit is automatically controlled to adjust the dispensed amount (see at least paragraph [0041] and [0112] to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art discloses the apparatus according to any of claim 10, wherein the apparatus is a washing machine and further comprises a container unit configured to store an enzyme formulation; and a dosage unit configured to dose an amount of the enzyme formulation comprised in the container unit during a wash cycle, wherein the dosing unit is automatically controlled to adjust the dispensed amount based on the remaining activity value determined by the processing unit (see at least paragraph [0022] and [0112]to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a processor of the apparatus, cause the apparatus and/or the system to perform the method of claim 1, including automatically controlling the dosing unit or dosing equipment during an industrial process based on the remaining activity value (see at least paragraph [0137] to Yamashita et al).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art discloses a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by an apparatus cause the apparatus and/or the system to perform the method of claim 1, including the automatic control of the dosing unit or dosing equipment (see at least paragraph [0022] to McKenna et al).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 for determining a remaining activity value of an enzyme formulation in a washing machine wherein the determined remaining activity value is used to automatically control a dosage unit of the washing machine (see at least paragraph [0112] to McKenna et al, wherein he device enables intelligent dosing of detergent compositions (in terms of the total levels and the contents thereof) at various points of a wash cycle in response to the wash conditions being experienced).
Claims 10 and 20-21 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627