DETAILED ACTION
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/3/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No. 11585036 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/3/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No. 12195908 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
No terminal disclaimer was filed disclaiming the terminal portion of Patent No. 11091870 to overcome the previously set forth double patenting rejection of claims 21-29. The double patenting rejection is restated below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-29 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11091870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claimed subject matter is an obvious variation of the subject matter of the patent. The present claims recite a control unit that is configured to perform essentially the claimed method of the patent, and the present claims recite structural features of a washing machine that are required by the method claims of the patent, would have been inherent to a washing machine the operating method is to be performed, or would have been recognized as obvious and common features of such washing machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-29 are allowed over prior art.
Claims 30-40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 21, The prior art of record, taken alone or in obvious combination, fails to teach or suggest the totality of the limitations of the claim. The wetting operation is interpreted as suggested by the present disclosure. The first amount of water is not arbitrarily supplied or supplied based on other considerations; it is specifically selected and supplied to wet, but not dissolve or break, the unit dose package. The breaking operation conveying a second amount of water "being suitable to break the water-soluble pouch" is interpreted as suggested by the present disclosure. Page 15 of the specification states, "we will use the sole term "break" to indicate the action of perforating or cutting the water-soluble pouch P of the detergent pod DP. The action of breaking or perforating or cutting the water-soluble pouch has to be intended as an action of breaking the water-soluble pouch by a mechanical action of the water jet and not exclusively by dissolution of the water-soluble pouch in contact with water." The second amount of water is not arbitrarily supplied or supplied based on other considerations; it is specifically selected and supplied to break, by mechanical action and not by dissolving, the unit dose package. While the prior art of record teaches washing machines with various treating agents dispensers, none teach all of the claimed requirements of the claimed laundry washing machine. Some of the prior art of record teaches forming a jet of pressurized water into a treating agent compartment for purposes of, such as, dissolving detergent or flushing the compartment. However, the prior art of record does not teach the specific structural features, functional requirements, and control unit configuration required by the present claim as interpreted.
As to claims 30 and 36, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, alone or in obvious combination, a washing machine having the claimed structural features and control unit configuration. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach the claimed process
of releasing and flushing a treating agent from a unit dose package. The first period of time is interpreted to require conveying water in an amount for a period of time for the specific purpose and result of wetting a unit dose package, the amount and period of time also having the specific purpose and result of not breaking the unit dose package. The second period of time is interpreted to require conveying water in an amount for a period of time for the specific purpose and result of breaking a wetted unit dose package. The third period of time is interpreted to require conveying water in an amount for a period of time to fully flush the released treating agent. While conveying water for periods of time to a compartment of a treating agent dispenser is well-known in the art, nothing in the prior art of record suggests conveying water for the specific purposes, functions, and results recited in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights