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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract should be submitted on a separate sheet with no other verbiage thereon.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 11, line 7, “inner body 26” should be “inner body 14” and “outer body 32” should be “outer body 12”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 7, on line 2, “openings” should be “opening”.
In regard to claim 12, it is unclear as to whether or not the “cleaning appliance” is intended to be part of the claimed combination, i.e., the language of claim 1 indicates the cleaning appliance is not intended to be claimed, however the language of claim 12 seems to indicate the cleaning appliance is intended to be claimed. Should the Applicant intend to claim the cleaning appliance, an antecedent basis should therefor be defined. Should the Applicant not intend to claim the cleaning appliance, “adapted to be” / “for” language should be used when referring thereto. For purposes of examination, the cleaning appliance will be considered not to be part of the claimed combination.
In regard to claim 15, on line 2, “a flexible inner body” should the “the flexible inner body” and “a rigid outer body” should be “the rigid outer body” since the flexible inner body and rigid outer body have already been defined in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 10 and 14 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.
In regard to claim 4, an antecedent basis for “each side” (see line 2) has not been defined. It appears claim 4 should depend from claim 2 (as opposed to claim 3) an in claim 4, “each side” should be “each side face’ since claim 2 defines the “side faces” of the outer body.
In regard to claim 10, the term “substantially” (see line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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.
Further in regard to claim 10, an antecedent basis for “the volume of the inner body” (see line 3) has not been defined.
In regard to claim 14, the term "preferably" 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).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deniston et al. (US 2008/0087713, as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter Deniston).
In regard to claims 1 and 12, the Deniston reference discloses a container 10 comprising:
a rigid outer body 12,
a flexible inner body 14 at least partially inside the outer body, the inner body defining a product space, and
a coupler 16, 18,
the inner body being connected to the outer body by connection means 86 (see Figure 7) to form a liquid conduit configured to cooperate with the coupler and enable liquid flow from the container.
It is noted that statements of intended use, i.e., “configured to accommodate an amount of cleaning product” and “for coupling the container to a cleaning appliance” do not lend any patentability to the claim. Further, the Deniston device is capable of being used to supply a cleaning product to a cleaning appliance should a user so choose to employ the device.
In regard to claim 2, the outer body comprises a base 28 (see Figure 4) and a plurality of side faces 22, 24, 26 and an outer body opening 66.
In regard to claim 5, the connection means 86 comprises a mechanical connector.
In regard to claim 6, the inner body comprises an inner body opening, the outer body comprises an outer body opening 66 wherein the inner and outer body openings align.
In regard to claim 7, the coupler 16, 18 aligns with the inner and outer body openings.
In regard to claim 8, the outer body comprises plastic (see paragraph 0018, lines 11-14).
In regard to claim 10, a volume encompassed by the outer body substantially corresponds to the volume of the inner body when the product space is completely filled.
In regard to claims 13 and 14, the coupler comprises a means for controlling the flow through the coupler in the form of a valve 18 (see column 17, lines 1-5).
In regard to claim 15, the Deniston reference discloses a method for preparing a packaged cleaning product (i.e., the Deniston reference discloses water may be dispensed from the container wherein water is considered a cleaning product) comprising connecting the flexible inner body 14 at least partially inside the rigid outer body to obtain the container 10 and filling the flexible inner body with a cleaning product (i.e., water).
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 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deniston.
In regard to claim 9, although the Deniston reference does not disclose the inner body comprises plastic, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the inner body can be made from any suitable material, including plastic, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not disclosed the specific material used to make the inner body is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Deniston reference does not limit the material used to made the inner body.
In regard to claim 1, although the Deniston reference does not disclose the inner body volume, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the inner body can be designed to be any suitable volume, depending on the needs of the user, including the claimed volume, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not disclosed the specific volume of the inner body is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Deniston reference does not limit the volume of the inner body.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deniston in view of Saltman (U.S. Patent 3,561,667).
In regard to claims 3 and 4, although the Deniston reference does not disclose linear connections between the outer surface of the inner body and the inner surface of the outer body, attention is directed to the Saltman reference, which discloses another container having a rigid outer body 12 and a flexible inner body 14 wherein linear connections 32 are located between the outer surface of the inner body and the inner surface of the outer body and along various inner sides of the outer body in order to enable the inner body to be securely mounted within the outer body. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Deniston device can include such linear connections between the outer surface of the inner body and the inner surface of the outer body (wherein the linear connections can obviously be positioned on various or each side of the outer body, as desired by the user) in order to enable the inner body to be securely mounted in the outer body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Ettore et al. reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as teaching of another dispensing container having an inner flexible body and an outer rigid body and the Dirksing reference is cited as being directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a dispensing container having an inner flexible body and an outer rigid body wherein the container used to supply cleaning fluid to a washing machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
12/8/25
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754