DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell et al. (US 2003/0205567 A1 – hereinafter McConnell) in view Maria del Sagrado Corazon Alegre de Miquel (US 7,621,401 B2 – hereinafter Miquel).
Re Claim 16:
McConnell discloses a method for dispensing warmed wet wipes, the method comprising: inserting dry wipes (12) into a wipes device; placing a water filled water container (40) into the wipes device; adding an additive (at 62) to combine with the water from the water container (40); wetting the dry wipes by vaporizing (by 60) a combined water and additive solution upon a defined event; and removing a warm wetted wipe from the wipes device (see Figs. 1-11), but fails to teach connecting a cartridge to a pack of dry wipes; inserting both the cartridge and the dry wipes into a wipes device.
Miquel teaches connecting a cartridge (14) to a pack (11) of dry wipes (16); inserting both the cartridge (14) and the dry wipes (16) into a wipes device (1) (see col. 6 lines 34-56) (see Figs. 1-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of McConnell with that of Miquel to assure a selective compatibility between a container and a refill pack, while also allowing for proper orientation.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Miquel and further in view of Michael John Gordon (US 2015/0048105 A1 – hereinafter Gordon).
Re Claim 17:
McConnell in view of Miquel discloses the device of claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the cartridge includes a base and a pair of guides disposed on the base that are configured to guide placement of the package within the wipes device.
Gordon further in view teaches wherein a cartridge (26) includes a base (at 26) and a pair of guides (28, 29) disposed on the base (at 26) that are configured to guide placement of a package within a wipes device (see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of McConnell in view of Miquel with that of Gordon to allow for guiding/connection of corresponding parts.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Miquel and further in view of McCarthy et al. (US 2019/0029476 A1 – hereinafter McCarthy) and William S. Shadrach, III (US 2004/0200410 A1 – hereinafter Shadrach).
Re Claim 18:
McConnell in view of Miquel discloses the device of claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the wetting further comprises: ring vaporizing the combine water and additive solution and wetting a dry wipe as the dry wipe is being remove from the wipes device.
McCarthy further in view teaches wherein wetting further comprises: vaporizing/heating (to a desired temperature) a combine water (116) and additive solution (118) and wetting a dry wipe as the dry wipe is being removed (see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of McConnell in view of Miquel with that of McCarthy to allow for a predetermined wetness of tissues for a particular use. Examiner further notes that McConnel teaches adding liquid to an already supply of liquids, thus, the combination would be capable of such using the housing 116 and 118 of McCarthy without any additional inventive skill.
Shadrach further in view teaches ring (liquid application) a solution (see Figs. 3A, 4A); and wetting a dry wipe as the dry wipe is being remove from the wipes device (see Figs. 3A, 4A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of McConnell in view of Miquel with that of McCarthy and Shadrach to allow for dispensing from a closed cartridge while being able to apply a fluid during the dispensing process. Examiner notes that the combination would be capable of providing a ring vaporizer by heating a liquid combination to a predetermined temperature, vaporizing (as suggested by McConnell), and having it dispense as suggested by both McCarthy and Shadrach. Such would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination as cited, and would not require any additional inventive skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 21-32 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights