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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species A in the reply filed on September 26, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 23-28, 31 and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 26, 2025.
Claims 17-22, 29 and 30 will be examined on the merits.
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 17-22, 29 and 30 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “such as” in line 1, the phrase "e.g." in line 3 and the phrase “in particular” in lines 3 and 4 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18-22, 29 and 30 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 17.
Furthermore, regarding claim 29, the phrase "e.g." in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, regarding claim 30, the phrase "in particular" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 21, 22, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102020116298A1 to Saier et al. (see machine translation).
As to claim 17, Saier discloses a metering device (see Saier Figs. 2 and 3 disclosing dosing device 10; paragraph [0095]) capable of being attached to a container with powdery or solid-like medium wherein the support or the container comprises a grid which can prevent the medium from exiting the container (see Saier paragraph [0095] disclosing a holder for a container with a sieve or a type of grid) and comprising: a spray nozzle by means of which, controlled by a controller of the metering device, water for solvating the medium can be dispensed, wherein the medium dissolved in water and passing through the grid can be supplied to the washing or cleaning system via a supply device, wherein the metering device comprises a switching device that can be activated by the controller and comprises at least two different switching states for operating the spray nozzle in different operating modes (see Saier paragraphs [0091]-[0093] and [0098]-[0105] disclosing spray nozzle 19, controller 15 wherein controller 15 is capable of activating a switching device 16 to operate the spray nozzle in different operating modes (on and off)).
As to claim 18, Saier discloses that a first operating mode of the spray nozzle can include a spraying mode of the spray nozzle in order to apply water to the grid (see Saier paragraphs [0091]-[0093] and [0098]-[0105] where the valve 16 can be switched on to apply water to the grid).
As to claim 21, Saier discloses that the metering device is capable of being arranged externally to the washing or cleaning system (see Saier Figs. 2 and 3 disclosing metering device 10 located externally from washing or cleaning system 14).
As to claim 22, Saier discloses that the controller of the metering device can be configured to communicate with the washing or cleaning system (see Saier paragraphs [0098] and [0105]).
As to claim 29, Saier discloses that the metering device can comprise a collecting device arranged below the grid and capable of collecting the medium dissolved in water (see Saier Figs. 2 and 3, ref.#26, paragraphs [0106], [0112], [0120]-[0121]).
As to claim 30, Saier discloses that the supply device can comprise a pump which can be activated (see Saier Fig. 3, ref.#35, paragraphs [0121]-[0124]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102020116298A1 to Saier et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claims 17 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. 5,389,344 to Copeland et al.
Saier is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 17 and 18.
As to claims 19 and 20, Saier does not explicitly disclose that the valve is capable of having a second operating mode of the spray nozzle that includes a rinsing mode of the spray nozzle in order to supply water to a collecting device, without applying the grid or that the switching device supplies a higher volumetric flow rate of water to the spray nozzle in the first switching state and a second volumetric flow rate of water, which is lower compared to the first volumetric flow rate, in the second switching state. Copeland discloses a similar metering device wherein the valve is capable of controlling and varying the rate of water flow through the nozzle (see Copeland col. 4, line 54 – col. 5, line 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Saier to use a control valve capable of varying the water flow rate as disclosed by Copeland in order to better control the concentration. Said control valve disclosed by the combination of Saier and Copeland is fully capable of having different operating modes of the spray nozzle including supplying water to the collecting device and having a lower volumetric flow rate of water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714