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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Control unit (claim 1)
Electrical power source (claim 1)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6 recites the limitation “the receptacle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kessler et al., US PGPub 2021/0189631.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kessler et al. discloses a metering system (4) for dispensing at least one flowable preparation (332,333,349) into an interior of a washing machine (1), which system is suitable for being freely positioned within the interior of the washing machine (1) and comprises: -at least one metering device (3) and at least one container (32,33) which can be coupled to the metering device (3) for storing the at least one flowable preparation (332,333,349), wherein the metering device (3) has at least one electrical power source (required for functionality of pump, sensor unit, etc.) for operating the metering device (3), at least one metering unit (35) for dispensing a predefined quantity (see [0045]-[0048) of the at least one flowable preparation (332,333,349), at least one sensor unit (31) for monitoring the metering unit (35), and at least one control unit (36) coupled to the metering unit (35) and the sensor unit (31), and wherein the metering unit (35) has a peristaltic pump (see [0094]) for dispensing the at least one flowable preparation (332,333,349).
Regarding claim 7, Kessler et al. discloses the metering system according to claim 1, wherein the container (32,33) is suitable for the separate storage of at least two flowable preparations (332,333,349).
Regarding claim 10, Kessler et al. discloses the metering system according to claim 1, wherein the metering system (4) comprises a substantially spherical outer shell (see fig 3) which is suitable for receiving the metering device (3) and the container (32,33).
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) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler et al. in view of Bogen, US Patent 4,645,434.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Kessler et al. discloses the metering system according to claim 1, wherein the peristaltic pump (see [0094]) but does not explicitly disclose the common components of a peristaltic pump such as an eccentrically mounted rotary body within a receptacle and a pump hose and including a valve.
PNG
media_image2.png
284
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bogen teaches a similar peristaltic pump (see fig 2) comprises a rotary body (12) which is eccentrically mounted (mounted eccentrically relative to 6) within a receptacle (1) for conveying the at least one flowable preparation through a pump hose (11). (claim 2)
wherein the rotary body (12) can be moved by the control unit into a valve position (closing of 15) for tightly sealing the peristaltic pump (fig 2). (claim 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pump structure described by Bogen in the system disclosed by Kessler et al. in order to employ a simple and inexpensive pump embodiment.
Regarding claim 3, Kessler et al. in view of Bogen discloses the metering system according to claim 2, wherein the control unit (36) can control the rotary body (12 – Bogen) using at least one signal transmitted by the sensor unit (31).
Regarding claim 4, Kessler et al. in view of Bogen discloses the metering system according to claim 2, wherein the sensor unit (31) has at least one Hall sensor and the rotary body has at least one magnet (see [0088]).
Regarding claim 6, Kessler et al. in view of Bogen discloses the metering system according to claim 1, wherein the receptacle (1 – Bogen) of the peristaltic pump is narrowed in places (via 15 – Bogen).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler et al.
Regarding claims 8-9, Kessler et al. discloses the metering system according to claim 1, but does not specify that the peristaltic pump is a double head or bidirectional. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to a double head or bi-directional pump since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of the forms of peristaltic pumps for their use in the dispensing art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motived to employ a bi-directional or double head pump in order to maintain constant volume withing the washer chamber to avoid transient vibrations during dispensing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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 A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654