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 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 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 14, 17-21, 26, 29 and 31-34 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 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2, 3, 5, 8-11, 13, 14, 17-21, 26, 29 and 31-34 depends from claim 1 and thus inherits the deficiencies thereof.
Regarding claim 2, the term “a certain amount of a water-soluble substance” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a certain amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to define or limit the “certain amount” by either weight or volume.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first conduit" and “the second conduit” in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and thus inherits the deficiencies thereof.
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) 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetterli, et al. (“Vetterli”) (U.S. Pub. 2018/0184839) in view of Ionnone (U.S. Pub. 2008/0163896).
Regarding claim 1, Vetterli discloses a container (1) for providing a liquid cleaning agent (¶ [0003]: “cleaning agent”), comprising:
a container wall (claim 5), which defines an inner space (¶ [0012]: “interior of the cleaning agent container”);
conduits (3, 5) which open towards the inner space of the container; and
connecting elements (4) for fluid-tight connection of the conduits to external fluid conduits (11 connected to 14b and another conduit connected to 14a).
Vetterli discloses that the container provides a cleaning agent but does not specify if it is an aqueous cleaning solution; however, Ioannone discloses a device for preparing and dispensing of beverages with cleaning device and teaches that an aqueous cleaning solution is easily dissolved and thus can be quickly and easily removed; therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Ioannone to use an aqueous cleaning agent so it can be quickly and easily removed (¶ [0020])
Regarding claim 2, Vetterli discloses a water-soluble substance for producing a cleaning agent in the inner space of the container. (¶ [0003]: “from which inside the rinsing system the rinsing solution is produced upon being mixed with water.”)
Regarding claim 3, Vetterli discloses that the conduits open at one end of the container towards the inner space of the container. (seen in Fig. 3, et al.)
Regarding claim 5, Vetterli discloses that the conduits (3, 5) are arranged in the inner space of the container. (seen in Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 9, Vetterli discloses one of conduits (3) opens at a first end (proximate top of container in Fig. 3) of the container towards the inner space of the container, and a second conduit (5) of the one or more conduits opens at a second end (towards bottom of the container in Fig. 3) of the container, facing away from the first end, towards the inner space of the container.
Regarding claim 10, Vetterli discloses a first connecting element (8a) for the fluid-tight connection of a first conduit of the container to an external fluid conduit; and a second connecting element (8b) for the fluid-tight connection of a second conduit of the container to an external fluid conduit.
Regarding claim 11, Vetterli discloses that the first connecting element (8a) and the second connecting element (8b) are arranged at a first end (proximate neck 3) of the container, and the first conduit (5) extends from the first connecting element in the inner space of the container to an opposite second end (towards the bottom) of the container. (seen in Fig. 3, et al.)
Regarding claim 13, Vetterli discloses that that the volume of the container is invariable. (¶ [0034]: made from PET or PE-HD)
Regarding claim 32, Vetterli discloses that the container provides a cleaning solution to a beverage machine. (¶ [0029]: “fully-automatic coffee maker”)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetterli and Ionnone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dick (U.S. Pub. 2016/0022088).
Regarding claim 8, Vetterli discloses the conduits connected to the container but does not specify if the conduits are detachable. Dick discloses a container (10) with conduits (20, 22, 24) which are detachably connected to the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the conduits to be detachable to aid in cleaning and repair/replacement of parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements requires only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Claim(s) 14, 17, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetterli and Ionnone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wallerstorfer, et al. (“Wallerstorfer”) (U.S. Pub. 2014/0197193).
Regarding claim 14, Vetterli does not specify if the volume of the inner space of the container is reversibly variable between a first volume and a second volume.
Wallerstorfer discloses a cleaning dispenser with a container that is made flexible. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Wallerstorfer to manufacture the container with a "bag-like" design of the container has the advantage that this can collapse during emptying so that the container can be formed closed per se (to maintain sanitary conditions) and without aeration. (¶ [0052])
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Vetterli discloses rigid walls and Wallerstorfer discloses a flexible container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute some of Vetterli’s walls with Wallerstorfer’s flexible walls, such as a first, flexible wall and a second, rigid wall, since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known container configuration for another known container configuration with the expected results that the substituted walls, being sealingly connected, would still define an inner space (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Regarding claim 21, Vetterli discloses that structure (6) is provided in the inner space of the container, which ensures a fluidic connection between the connecting element and the entire inner space of the container, even at a minimum volume.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetterli, Ionnone and Wallerstorfer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Clusserath (U.S. Pub. 2010/0108180).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Vetterli discloses that the cleaning agent is pumped out of the container (Vetterli’s container is a cartridge) but does not disclose that the container is a tubular cartridge and a piston or that the container wall comprises a bellows.
Clusserath discloses beverage bottle cleaning method and teaches that a cleaning solution may be dispensed from a space (17) using a piston (18) in a tubular housing (5) bound by a bellows (19). (¶ [0025])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Vetterli’s dispensing method (using a pump) with Clusserath’s method, including a piston and bellow sides with Vetterli’s cartridge, since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known dispensing method for another known dispensing method with the expected results that the substituted dispensing method would dispense the cleaning agent from the cartridge (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetterli and Ionnone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Standaar, et al. (“Standaar”) (U.S. Pub. 2024/0389789) (PCT Filed: Sept. 21, 2022, §371 date: Mar. 20, 2024).
Regarding claim 26, Vetterli is silent in regards to one or more connecting elements comprise at least one non-return valve. Standaar discloses a one-way valve in a cleaning fluid flow path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Standaar to include at least one non-return valve with the connecting elements so as to prevent a fluid flow upstream. (¶ [0014])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29, 31, 33 and 34 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 29 and 33 require supplying water to the container. Prior art Vetterli discloses that one of the external conduits supplies air to the container and the other external conduit pumps cleaning agent out of the container, but does not disclose a conduit for supplying water to the container and it would not have been obvious to modify Vetterli, as required, barring improper hindsight analysis. Claim 31 depends from claim 29. Claim 34 depends from claim 33.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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 J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights