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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 9/11/25, is hereby withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the internal cavity" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudreault et al. (US20180298543) in view of Li et al. (WO2013136238A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8-10 and 15-17, Beaudreault et al. teaches a dispenser for a laundry appliance (see abstract) comprising: a housing 110, 114 defining one or more chambers 116, 118, 120, 122 capable of receiving laundry treatment chemicals, wherein each of the one or more chambers 116, 118, 120, 122 are in fluid communication with an internal cavity 18 of the laundry appliance to facilitate delivery of the treatment chemicals to the internal cavity 18 (see paragraphs [0032]-[0036], [0046]-[0049], figures 1, 3-5); and a lid 112 secured to the housing 110, 114, configured to transition between an open position and a closed position, configured to cover at least one of the one or more chambers 116, 118, 120, 122 in the closed position and configured to provide access to the at least one of the one or more chambers 116, 118, 120, 122 in the open position (see figures 4-5, 8, 17-19, paragraphs [0049], [0089]); the lid 112 having a primary cover 140/142 (reads on external cover of claim 9) movably secured to the housing 110, 114 to facilitate transition of the lid 112 between the open and closed positions and having an internal surface configured to engage the housing 110, 114 when the lid 112 is in the closed position (see figures 4-5, 8, 17-19, paragraphs [0049], [0089]); a secondary cover 130 sandwiched between the internal surface of each of the primary covers 140, 142 and the housing 110, 114 such that it is disposed over the at least one of the one or more chambers 116, 118, 120, 122 when the lid 112 is in the closed position (see figures 5, 17, paragraphs [0056]); first 140 and second 142 lids each secured to the housing 110, 114 and configured to cover first 116/118/120/122 and second 116/118/120/122 chambers respectively, in closed positions and configured to provide access to the first 116/118/120/122 and second 116/118/120/122 chambers, respectively, in open positions (see figures 4-5, 8, 17-19, paragraphs [0049], [0089]). Beaudreault et al. does not teach the internal surface of the primary cover defining a slot along the internal surface, and the secondary cover disposed within the slot. Li et al. teaches a dispenser for a laundry appliance (see abstract) and the internal surface of the primary cover 11 defining a slot 13 along the internal surface, and the secondary cover 12 (reads on insert of claim 9) disposed within the slot 13 (reads on claim 10) and sandwiched between the internal surface of the primary cover 11 and the housing 10, allowing for easy removal of the lid, reduced wear and preventing the detergent box from escaping its position (see abstract, figures 5-6, page 7, line 17 – page 8, line 4). Since both Beaudreault et al. and Li et al. teach dispensers for laundry appliances it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a slot may be included along the internal surface of each of the primary covers (reads on outer covers of claim 16) of the system by Beaudreault et al. where secondary covers (reads on inserts of claim 16) may be disposed (reads on claim 17) so as to allow for reduced wear and easy removal of the lid, as shown to be known and conventional by Li et al. Hence, in the modified system of Beaudreault et al., it is readily apparent that the secondary cover (reads on insert of claim 15) would be positioned on the primary cover (reads on external cover of claim 15) such that the secondary cover is disposed over the at least one of the one or more chambers when the lid is in the closed position (reads on claims 8 and 15).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudreault et al. (US20180298543) in view of Li et al. (WO2013136238A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ueda et al. (WO2019044305A1).
Regarding claim 6, Beaudreault et al. and Li et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Beaudreault et al. does not teach that the secondary cover is formed of a material having anti-fungal properties. Ueda et al. teaches a dispenser for a laundry treating apparatus (see abstract) and that polypropylene (reads on material having anti-fungal properties) may be used in the construction of the detergent box lid 119b so as to provide a material suitable for lid construction and also allow for the transmission of light and facilitating the visibility of the internal features and contents of the detergent box (see page 6 of the translation). Since both Beaudreault et al. and Ueda et al. teach dispensers for laundry apparatuses it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the secondary cover may be formed of polypropylene, which is suitable for lid construction, and so as to provide light transmission that facilitates the visibility of the internal features and contents of the detergent box, as shown to be known and conventional by Ueda et al. Furthermore, it has been determined that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14, 18-20 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.
Claims 2-5, 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 of record is Beaudreault et al. (US20180298543). Beaudreault et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 2, 7, 11 and 18. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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 at 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 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711