DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim appears to contain a misspelling of “within” as “withing” (line 6 of claim 6; line 2 of claim 15). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such limitations that use the word “means” include: “stirring means for preventing a sediment from forming within the dietary supplement solution” introduced in claim 1, with corresponding structure found in the specification to be (i) “a rotatable dietary supplement additive unit provided with the plurality of cartridges” (Specification; Page 2, last full paragraph) and/or (ii) “a metallic ball that loosely sits on top of the hollow tip and a permanent magnet which is fixedly housed within a casing of the dispenser” (Specification; Page 3, second full paragraph).
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The claim recites “the stirring means includes a metallic ball that loosely sits on top of the hollow tip and a permanent magnet which is fixedly housed within a casing of the dispenser” in lines 2-4. Claim 1 recites “each of the replaceable cartridges [. . .] including a stirring means” in lines 5-7. It is unclear whether each cartridge is required to have a magnet. According to Examiner’s best understanding in light of the written description (Specification; Page 3, second full paragraph), the device requires a single magnet located outside of the cartridge to provide the intended functionality.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2016/0058245) in view of Junge et al. (US 2023/0108527) and Hart et al. (US 2012/0212729).
Regarding claim 1, Smith et al. disclose a dispenser (see especially the embodiment of Figs. 11-13) for dispensing an individualized amount of dietary supplements (see the Abstract), the dispenser comprising:
an additive unit (1100; Figs. 11-12) having a plurality of replaceable cartridges (300), each of the replaceable cartridges containing a liquid dietary supplement solution (Paragraphs 0050, 0054), wherein each of the replaceable cartridges includes an injector (308; Fig. 3) that is configured to controllably dispense the dietary supplement solution (308 controls opening 306 for dispensing; Paragraph 0051);
a discharge port of the dispenser (606; Paragraph 0074), the discharge port configured to discharge a predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution and a predefined amount of the water (Paragraph 0052; see Fig. 3); and
a control system (400; Paragraph 0057; Fig. 4) for controllably and selectively delivering the predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution from at least one of the replaceable cartridges and the predefined amount of the water to the discharge port (Paragraphs 0109-0111).
Smith et al. further disclose a liquid dispenser (302; Fig. 3) for dispensing water (Paragraph 0052), but are silent regarding the details of this feature and thus do not explicitly disclose the claimed water reservoir or control valve. Smith et al. further disclose a stirring means (turn table 1300) in accordance with the instant application, but, as best understood by the Examiner, the amended claim requires a separate stirring means for each cartridge.
Junge et al. teach a dispenser (100; Figs. 1 and 8-9) having a water reservoir to store water received by the dispenser (refillable internal water tank 122; Paragraph 0027); and a control valve (158) for controlling a flow of the water from the water reservoir (Paragraph 0043; Fig. 8). Junge et al. teach these features as a source of water in a beverage dispenser (Paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the liquid dispenser of Smith et al. with a water reservoir and control valve, as taught by Junge et al., in order to dispense water in a manner consistent with the disclosure of Smith et al. Since Smith et al. is silent as to the details of the dispenser, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, of which Junge et al. provides a suitable example.
Smith-Junge in combination still do not disclose a stirring means included in each cartridge. As noted above, Smith et al. discloses a turn table holding the cartridges that prevents settling of dietary supplement particles within each of the cartridges. Smith et al. further discloses a mixing mechanism that could take a variety of forms, including a magnetic mechanism (Paragraph 0053), but only contemplates the use of such a mechanism for mixing dispensed amounts in a cup. Hart et al. disclose a device having a rotatable turn table (carousel 10 mounted on stage 20; Paragraph 0035; Fig. 1) containing a plurality of cartridges (disposable test bottles mounted in wells 12; Paragraphs 0026, 0035) in a similar arrangement to that disclosed by Smith et al. Hart et al. teach that the contents of the cartridges can be mixed by a magnetically coupled mixer, and further teach that this configuration may be implemented with stirring means for each cartridge (“magnetic stirrers are placed under all the bottles”; Paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Smith-Junge with stirring means included in each cartridge, since Hart et al. teach that this configuration is appropriate for mixing liquids in a similarly arranged device. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to seek such a mixing arrangement when using the combined invention with powder-based solutions that tend to settle. Though Hart et al. discloses a device with a different intended use, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it pertinent since it provides an example of a magnetic mixer (a means generally well-known in the art and suggested for use by Smith et al. as noted above) that is applicable to a turn table holding a plurality of cartridges. Thus, the combined invention of Smith-Junge-Hart renders obvious the device according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Smith et al. further disclose that the injector of each of the replaceable cartridges is an electromechanical actuator that is communicatively connected to the control system (“actuator 308 in communication with a processor [. . .] may be a solenoid, a screw motor [. . .]”; Paragraph 0051). Smith et al. does not disclose a filter. However, Junge et al. teaches a filter for filtering the water received by the dispenser as part of a water treatment assembly that includes additives (Paragraph 0044).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Smith-Junge-Hart with a filter, since Junge et al. teach that this feature can be incorporated into a similar device dispensing a beverage consisting of water mixed with an additive. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 5-7, Smith et al. further disclose that the control system includes a processor that is configured to monitor and update an inventory or volume of the dietary supplement solution of each of the replaceable cartridges (“a sensor may be incorporated into the dispensing device 110 that determines when the cartridge ought to be replaced or refilled. The sensor may cause a notification to be presented into the display 114 of the dispensing device”; Paragraph 0085). The sensing and analysis described by Smith et al. would inherently include a processor capable of updating the inventory after a discharge of the predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution, thus arriving at the dispenser of claim 5.
Smith et al. further discloses that the additive unit is configured to rotate (Fig. 13), such that a centrifugal force acting on all of the replaceable cartridges, when the additive unit is rotated, causes the dietary supplement solution to be sufficiently stirred to prevent the sediment from forming within the dietary supplement solution (as described above regarding claim 1, rotation of the turn table causes movement, i.e., stirring, of the solution within the cartridges), as claimed in claim 6. Smith et al. further discloses that the additive unit comprises: (i) a circular base (1302) that is rotatable about a central axis, the plurality of replaceable cartridges being secured to the base and circumferentially spaced from one another (Fig. 13); and (ii) an electrical motor in driving engagement with the base, the electrical motor being configured to rotate the base about the central axis (Paragraph 0084; Fig. 13), as claimed in claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Smith et al. disclose a water delivery apparatus (302, as described above regarding claim 1) for delivering a supply of potable water to the dispenser (Paragraph 0052). Examiner notes that the instant claim is being interpreted according to the description of a “watery delivery apparatus” in the specification (see Page 6, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Smith-Junge-Hart in combination disclose the dispenser according to claim 1. Smith et al. further disclose that the temperature of the water can be regulated (Paragraph 0079), but is silent regarding any details. Junge et al. teach a temperature control system for regulating temperature of the water (refrigeration system 172 and heater 234; Fig. 9), the temperature control system including an evaporator (180) to cool the water (Paragraphs 0037 and 0045-0046) and a heating unit to heat the water (Paragraph 0050). Junge et al. teach these features as a means for providing a range of hot and cold beverages (Paragraphs 0002-0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Smith-Junge-Hart with a temperature control system including an evaporator and heating unit, as taught by Junge et al., in order to provide a range of hot and cold beverages.
Regarding claims 12-14, Smith-Junge-Hart in combination disclose the dispenser according to claim 10. Smith et al. further disclose an interface for submitting a request to the control system for a desired dietary supplement transfer operation by which a predefined dose of each of a combination of dietary supplement solutions is discharged to the discharge port, wherein the interface is a touch screen (e.g., display 114 and button 608, which may include touch screen buttons; Paragraphs 0071, 0074).
Smith et al. further disclose that the interface for submitting the request to the control system comprises a communication apparatus (mobile device 108; Paragraph 0071), the communication apparatus being configured to receive the request by a signal transmitted from a dedicated application running on a processor of a computerized device (an inherent configuration of the disclosed mobile device).
Regarding claim 15, Smith et al. further disclose that the sediment that is prevented from forming within the dietary supplement solution is powder that is maintained as a dispersed suspension within the dietary supplement solution (Paragraph 0054).
Claims 3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Junge et al. and Hart et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dittrich (US 2014/0305969).
Regarding claim 3, Smith-Junge-Hart in combination disclose the dispenser according to claim 1. Smith et al. further disclose that each of the replaceable cartridges is fitted with a cylindrical barrel prefilled with a specific dietary supplement solution (see Fig. 13), and further disclose that the injector of each of the replaceable cartridges may take a variety of forms, including a screw motor or linear actuator (Paragraph 0110), but are silent regarding the specific components of the injector.
Dittrich teaches a dispenser having a plurality of cartridges (reservoirs 2, 4; Paragraph 0057), with each cartridge being associated with a corresponding injector (28 refers to the injectors collectively, but each is independently operable; Paragraphs 0023 and 0058; see Figs. 1-2) that comprises a piston (30, 32) that is sealingly engaged with the barrel (Fig. 1), a plunger (34, 36) connected to the piston, and an electromechanical actuator (38, 40) positioned above the barrel for causing plunger displacement (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the cartridges of Smith et al. with the injector having a piston, plunger, and electromechanical actuator, as taught by Dittrich, since this configuration is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to achieve the objective of dispensing the solution from the cartridge. Since Smith et al. suggests potential injector members, but is silent regarding the details of the configuration, one having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the prior art for known potential solutions, of which Dittrich provides a suitable example.
Regarding claim 8, Smith-Junge-Hart-Dittrich in combination disclose the dispenser according to claim 3. Smith et al. further disclose that a bottom end of the barrel of each replaceable cartridge has lower tapered surfaces that taper into a hollow tip (see the funnel shape of the cartridge leading to orifice 306 in annotated Fig. 3 below) from which a conduit extends radially inwardly to the discharge port (the tip of the funnel shape terminating with 306 extends from the hollow tip at the radially inward side of the cartridge, with respect to the centerline of the discharge port [spout 606; see e.g., Fig. 6], which would hold true when configured as shown in Fig. 13), such that the predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution is urged to flow through the barrel, conduit and discharge port.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Smith et al., annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 9, Smith-Junge-Hart-Dittrich in combination disclose the dispenser according to claim 8. As noted above regarding claim 1, Hart et al. teach a stirring means in the form of a magnetically coupled mixer. The stirring means taught by Hart et al. is implemented with one of the coupled elements fixedly housed within a casing, causing mixing to occur through rotation of the turn table (“magnetically coupled mixer, at a mixing station mounted at a fixed position in the stage. The bottles are mixed in sequence as the carousel is rotated past the mixer”; Paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the dispenser of the combined invention of Smith-Junge-Hart-Dittrich with stirring means having a metallic ball in the cartridge and a permanent magnet fixedly housed within a casing of the dispenser, since a magnet within the cartridge may unintentionally become coupled to other objects during storage and handling. When implemented in the cartridge disclosed by Smith et al., the metallic ball would necessarily settle to loosely sit on top of the hollow tip, and the permanent magnet would be magnetically coupled with the metallic ball of the cartridge instantaneously rotated to a given region of the casing. Rotation of the turn table during normal operation of the device would cause the metallic ball to become unseated from the hollow barrel tip and also to be rotatably displaced within the barrel by an agitating action, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Junge et al., Hart et al., and Dittrich, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Girard et al. (US 2006/0000851).
Smith-Junge-Hart-Dittrich in combination disclose the dispenser according to claim 3. Dittrich further teaches that the electromechanical actuator is a stepper motor in data communication with the control system (Paragraphs 0023-0024), and that the plunger is a plunger rod extending from a drive shaft of the stepper motor and being connected to the piston (Paragraph 0058, Fig. 1). Dittrich also notes that gears may be included to facilitate an appropriate force and speed of the piston (Paragraph 0023), but neither reference explicitly discloses the claimed configuration including a cylinder in threaded engagement with the plunger rod.
Girard et al. teach a dispenser for dispensing a beverage concentrate from a similar cartridge (50) using an injector (38) with an electromechanical actuator (64) that operates via a cylinder (tapped gear 65) surrounding in threaded engagement with a plunger rod (56; Paragraph 0046; Fig. 3). Girard et al. teach this configuration as a means for extending the plunger rod downward from the drive shaft of the actuator (67) such that the speed of rotation of the actuator controls the rate of axial movement of the piston and thus the amount of content dispensed (Paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Smith-Junge-Hart-Dittrich with a set of gears including a cylinder in threaded engagement with the plunger rod, as taught by Girard et al., in order to translate rotation of the stepper motor into axial movement of the piston. Doing so would facilitate limited and determinable rotational displacement of the plunger rod and corresponding discharge of the predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution in response to plunger rod rotation by applying an appropriate force and speed to the piston, as suggested by Dittrich.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/31/2026 with respect to the water dispensing and stirring means limitations of amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues: “Smith does not disclose or suggest "a water reservoir to store water received by the dispenser," recited in claim 1” and “Smith does not disclose or suggest "a control valve for controlling a flow of the water from the water reservoir," as recited in claim 1” (Remarks, Page 10). As described in the above rejection of claim 1, Smith discloses a liquid dispenser for dispensing water, but is silent regarding the details of this feature. Further search and consideration necessitated by the amendments has resulted in a new grounds of rejection using the teaching of Junge et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant further argues: “Smith does not disclose or suggest "each of the replaceable cartridges...including a stirring means for preventing a sediment from forming within the dietary supplement solution," recited in claim 1” (Remarks, Page 11). Examiner notes that the “stirring means” feature is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as described above. Though a rotatable additive unit is described as a stirring means in the specification, the context of claim 1 as amended appears to require a stirring means to be included in each cartridge. Thus, the claim is now interpreted to require a metallic ball or equivalent thereof, hence the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the Hart reference previously cited for the related subject matter of claim 9.
Applicant makes several arguments with respect to features disclosed by the references relied upon in the rejections presented in the Office Action dated 1/13/2026. These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons outlined below.
First, Applicant argues: “Smith fails to disclose at least the following features of amended claim 1: an additive unit having a plurality of replaceable cartridges, each of the replaceable cartridges containing a liquid dietary supplement solution...” and supports this argument by citing Paragraph 0050 of Smith, discussing the dispensing of powder (Remarks, Pages 10-11). Examiner disagrees, since Smith further discloses “While the above examples describe the nutrients being in the form of a powder, the nutrient may take any appropriate form. For example, the nutrients may be dispensed in the form of a pill, paste, sauce, slurry, pellet, liquid, mist, other form, or combinations thereof.” (Paragraph 0054).
Next, Applicant argues: “The Office Action appears to equate the claimed injector to an "actuator 308" of Smith. Office Action, page 9. With reference to FIG. 3 of Smith [. . .] Smith undoubtedly fails to disclose or suggest that "each of the replaceable cartridges includes an injector that is configured to controllably dispense the dietary supplement solution" as recited in claim 1” (Remarks, Page 11). Examiner disagrees, since Smith further discloses “The nutrients may be dispensed out of the cartridges through an orifice 306. The orifice 306 can be opened by activating an actuator 308 in communication with a processor. In some examples, the actuator 308 may be a solenoid, a screw motor, a linear actuator, a magnetic actuator, a hydraulic actuator, a pneumatic actuator, another type of actuator, or combinations thereof.” Thus, actuator 308 of Smith controls dispensing, as required by the claim. If Applicant intends to distinguish the claimed injector from the actuator of the prior art, additional structure must be further delineated in the claim language (as in claim 3). It is further noted that amended claim 2 further defines the injector as “an electromechanical actuator”.
Next, Applicant argues: “Smith fails to disclose at least the following features of amended claim 1: a discharge port of the dispenser, the discharge port configured to discharge a predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution and a predefined amount of the water; and a control system for controllably and selectively delivering the predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution...and the predefined amount of the water to the discharge port.” Applicant provides no support for this argument. Examiner notes that the claimed features are present in Smith, as described in the above rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to the Dittrich reference discussed on Pages 12-14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues: “Dittrich fails to disclose or suggest at least the following features of claim 3: wherein the injector of each of the replaceable cartridges comprises a piston that is sealingly engaged with the barrel, a plunger connected to the piston, and an electromechanical actuator positioned above the barrel for causing plunger displacement”, and supports this argument by noting that “The Office Action is understood to erroneously equate "reservoirs 6, 8" of Dittrich to the claimed replaceable cartridges” and “the Office Action appears to equate the claimed injector to a "dispense mechanism 28" of Dittrich. However, [. . .] the dispense mechanism 28" of Dittrich operates BOTH Dittrich's reservoirs 2 and 4” (Remarks, Pages 12-13). Examiner acknowledges that the Office Action dated 1/13/2026 erroneously used reference characters “6” and “8” instead of “2” and “4”, as Applicant notes, and that reference character “28” is used by Dittrich to refer to a collection of components rather than the individual components of each cartridge. However, these inconsistencies do not negate the substance of the rejection of claim 3, which Examiner maintains, with clarified and corrected reference numbers, above.
Applicant further argues that: “Dittrich's reservoirs 2 and 4 cannot be equate to the claimed replaceable cartridges, because Dittrich's reservoirs 2 and 4 are NOT replaceable”, and that “the Office Action appears to erroneously equate the claimed piston with "plungers 30, 32" [. . .and . . .] the claimed plunger with "pistons 34, 36" of Dittrich” (Remarks, Page 13). Examiner disagrees, since Dittrich further discloses “reservoirs 6, 8 are designed as cartridges” (Paragraphs 0036, 0057) and “When the pressure exerted on the plungers 30, 32 and thus on the fluids 6, 8 is high enough, the respective fluid 6, 8 will be dispensed” and “plunger 30 is connected to a piston 34, while the plunger 32 is connected to the piston 36” (Paragraph 0058). Thus, Dittrich explicitly describes the reservoirs as removable cartridges and clearly describes the claimed structures, albeit with different nomenclature.
Finally, Applicant argues: “Smith and Dittrich, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the features of claim 8” because “a cartridge 300 of Smith is not replaceable and there is no plurality of replaceable cartridges in Smith” (Remarks, Page 14). Examiner disagrees because Smith explicitly discloses “The cartridges 300 are replaceable” (Paragraph 0085; see also Figs. 11-13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
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. 15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 June 11, 2026
