DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of claim 11 a typographical error is present, “emical” should be “chemical”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9, 13-14, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ackerman (US 5555461 A).
Claim 1, Ackerman discloses a canister of product (14) comprising a nozzle (22), wherein the system is configured to move the canister within the system;
a wiper plate (33) comprising an opening (34) through which a dispensed product may pass when the nozzle is positioned over the opening; and
an elastomeric wiper (30, 31; claim 2) removably coupled to the wiper plate, wherein the wiper is positioned to contact the nozzle when the nozzle is moved from its position over the opening to a position where it contacts the wiper plate (FIG 3-4).
Claim 3, Ackerman discloses wherein the wiper (30, 31) is coupled to the wiper plate by sliding the wiper into a channel (37) of the wiper plate.
Claim 4, Ackerman discloses wherein the channel (37) features a ridge (ridge inside of 37 couples with notches 35) that secures the wiper in place upon coupling.
Claim 9, Ackerman discloses wherein the opening (34) of the wiper plate (33) is surrounded by a wall that directs a flow of the dispensed product (FIG 4).
Claim 13, Ackerman discloses wherein the product is a hair dye (while not specifically disclosed the apparatus of Ackerman is inherently capable of dispensing any suitable fluid, such as dye).
Claim 14, Ackerman discloses at least one dispenser (10), configured to dispense a desired amount of a formulation into a receptacle and track the amount of undispensed formulation within a canister (13);
a tray (16) that holds one or more of the canisters and configured to track a location of the canister, wherein the tray can move the canister into a dispensing position (Col 3, line 50 to Col 4, line 4);
at least one storage device storing a program (Col 4, lines 5 – 34); and
at least one controller (Col 4, lines 5 – 34; Col 5, lines 18 – 24; Col 5, line 44 – col 6, line 3) which, when executing the program, is configured to: receive information and associate the information with the canister, wherein the information comprises at least one of the position of the canister in relation to the dispensing position, an amount of time the canister has been away from the dispensing position, an amount of dispenses of the canister, a dispensing position rate, and a dispensed rate;
receive information on the position of the tray;
record collected data associated with the canister and the tray, to a record in a database (Col 3, lines 55 – 63; receiving, recording and transmitting positional and dispensing information related to the carriage and printhead are necessary to carry out Ackerman’s normal operation); and
recommend a cleaning function based on at least some of the collected data in at least one file in the database (Col 4, lines 25 – 27).
Claim 17, Ackerman discloses wherein the cleaning function includes positioning a canister in a dispensing position, dispensing a small amount of fluid from the canister, and moving the canisters out of the dispensing position (Col 4, lines 5 – 34; Col 5, lines 18 – 23).
Claim 18, Ackerman discloses wherein the cleaning function may move a canister into a dispensing position multiple times (Col 4, lines 5 – 34).
Claim 20, Ackerman discloses wherein the cleaning function includes cleaning every canister nozzle in the system (Col 4, lines 5 – 34; Col 5, lines 18 – 23).
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) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackerman as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 10, Ackerman discloses discloses the claimed invention except for overlap between wiper and nozzle is 0.001 meters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the overlap to 0.001 meters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05
Claims 11-12 discloses the claimed invention except for wipers are made of silicone or abs plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have wipers made of silicone and abs plastic in order to provide wipers with the desired resilience and durability for the material dispensed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-8, 15-16, 19, 21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY W CARROLL whose telephone number is (571)272-4988. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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.
JEREMY W. CARROLL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/Jeremy Carroll/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights