DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach a container having a mechanical coding configured for cooperating with switching element of the cleaning assembly. Although the mechanical coding taught by the prior art is not disclosed as intended to be used with switching elements, the coding is nonetheless descriptively indistinguishable from the coding recited in the claims. The mechanical coding would be configured for cooperating with switching elements simply by providing corresponding switching elements. Mechanical coding as contemplated by the preset application and the prior art would be capable of cooperating with switching elements as well as capable of functioning as the prior art intended. The intended use of the coding does not patentably distinguish the claims over prior art when the prior art teaches a container with the same structure that is capable of functioning as claimed.
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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102016108822A1 by Klose et al.
As to claim 1, Klose discloses a container for storing a chemical used in a cleaning assembly for a cleaning a cooking appliance, the container having an open end to be mechanically connected to a port of a cleaning assembly, the container having a mechanical coding, the coding capable of cooperating with switching elements of a cleaning assembly (para. 47, note that while Klose does not disclose a cleaning assembly having switching elements, the assembly is not positively recited as part of the claimed invention; the container disclosed by Klose has mechanical coding that can cooperate with switching elements of a cleaning assembly configured as such).
As to claim 9, Klose discloses a group of containers with different mechanical coding (para. 47).
As to claim 10, Klose discloses that the container is in the form of an exchangeable cartridge (para. 47).
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 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015056063A1 by Zanchetta et al. in view of DE1020152086347A1 by Klose et al. (hereinafter “Klose ‘634”).
As to claim 1, Zanchetta teaches a container 210 for storing a chemical used in a cleaning assembly for a cleaning a cooking appliance, the container having an open end to be mechanically connected to a port of a cleaning assembly (fig. 1). Zanchetta does not explicitly teach that its container has a mechanical coding, the coding capable of cooperating with switching elements of a cleaning assembly. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the container taught by Zanchetta to have mechanical coding. Klose ‘634 teaches a container for storing a chemical used for cleaning a cooking appliance, the container having a mechanical coding, the coding capable of cooperating with switching elements of a cleaning assembly (para. 32, a geometric design that can be identified by a reading device, note that while the reading device is not further described, the cleaning assembly is not positively claimed and switching elements are not required by the claim, a geometric design is capable of cooperating with a reading device embodied as switching elements). Klose ‘634 teaches that the coding allows for identification of the chemical in the container to avoid incorrect operation (para. 24). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the container taught by Zanchetta in order to realize this benefit taught by Klose ‘634. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Zanchetta teaches that the mechanical connection is non-destructive (para. 18).
As to claim 3, Zanchetta teaches that the mechanical connection comprises one side of a thread connected for cooperating with a complementary structure of a cleaning assembly (para. 18).
As to claim 4, Zanchetta teaches that the mechanical connection comprises one side of a bayonet connected for cooperating with a complementary structure of a cleaning assembly (para. 18).
As to claim 5, Zanchetta teaches that the mechanical connection comprises a plug portion for cooperating with a sealing ring at a cleaning assembly (fig. 1, para. 18).
As to claim 10, Zanchetta teaches that the container 210 is in the form of an exchangeable cartridge (fig. 3).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016108822A1 by Klose et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140220184 by Boggs et al.
As to claims 6 and 7, Klose does not teach that its container has an RFID tag or one of a data matrix and a bar code. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an RFID tag and a data matrix or bar code. Boggs teaches a container for storing a cleaning chemical, the container embodied as a cartridge, the container for storing a cleaning chemical, the container having an RFID tag or bar code for the purpose of allowing its system to identify the chemical in the cartridge (paras. 94-95). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that RFID tags and bar codes were commonplace, and it would have readily been within the routine skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to use RFID technology and bar codes for their established and intended purposes as demonstrated by Boggs. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 8, Boggs teaches that its container has an opposite end with at least two recesses that are capable of allowing a user to grab the container (fig. 1).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015056063A1 by Zanchetta et al. in view of DE1020152086347A1 by Klose et al. (hereinafter “Klose ‘634”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140220184 by Boggs et al.
As to claims 6 and 7, Zanchetta does not teach that its container has an RFID tag or one of a data matrix and a bar code. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an RFID tag and a data matrix or bar code. Boggs teaches a container for storing a cleaning chemical, the container embodied as a cartridge, the container for storing a cleaning chemical, the container having an RFID tag or bar code for the purpose of allowing its system to identify the chemical in the cartridge (paras. 94-95). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that RFID tags and bar codes were commonplace, and it would have readily been within the routine skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to use RFID technology and bar codes for their established and intended purposes as demonstrated by Boggs. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 8, Boggs teaches that its container has an opposite end with at least two recesses that are capable of allowing a user to grab the container (fig. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
