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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-6, 9-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (US Patent No. 9,228,289).
Re: Claim 1, Oh discloses the claimed invention including a dosing system for dosing a preparation into a washing machine, wherein the dosing system can be freely positioned in a rotatable washing drum of a washing machine (Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 38-47, placed in washing machine), comprising a container (420) for receiving the preparation, a dosing device (440) that doses the preparation from the container into the washing drum (Fig. 6), and a substantial spherical housing (110, 120) in which the dosing device and the container are accommodated, wherein a sphere surface of the housing is covered with a ribbed structure (111), which has a plurality of spaced-apart ribs (111) (Depicted in Figs. 2-3).
Re: Claim 2, Oh discloses the claimed invention including a cross section of each of the ribs has a first rib flank, and a second rib flank (Depicted in Figs. 2-3 opposing sides of each rib).
Re: Claim 3, Oh discloses the claimed invention including a first transition region between the sphere surface of the housing and the first rib flank has a rounded shape (Depicted in Figs. 2-3).
Re: Claim 4, Oh discloses the claimed invention including a second transition region between the sphere surface of the housing and the second rib flank has a rounded shape, wherein the second transition region differs from the first transition region (Depicted in Figs. 1-3, due the S shape of the ribs each flank has different shape).
Re: Claim 5, Oh discloses the claimed invention including the ribs are formed integrally on the sphere surface (Col. 4, lines 12-14, formed integrally).
Re: Claim 6, Oh discloses the claimed invention including the cross section of each of the ribs varies in the longitudinal direction (Depicted in Figs. 2-3, they widen as they extend across the sphere surface).
Re: Claim 9, Oh discloses the claimed invention including the ribbed structure has a plurality of longitudinal ribs which extend from a first pole to a second pole diametrically opposite the first pole (Depicted in Figs. 2-3).
Re: Claim 10, Oh discloses the claimed invention including the longitudinal ribs each wind in an S-shape from the first pole to the second pole (Depicted in Figs. 1-3, stretched out S-shape due to the wave configuration).
Re: Claim 11, Oh discloses the claimed invention including in that in the vicinity of the first pole, a first annular rib (adjacent to 430) is arranged in the shape of a circle (Fig. 3), the center of which is arranged coaxially to the first pole, wherein the longitudinal ribs start at the annular rib and run in the direction of the second pole (Fig. 3, ribs extend off the first annular rib).
Re: Claim 12, Oh discloses the claimed invention including the dosing device is arranged in the vicinity of the first pole and has a control unit which can be actuated by a pressure force directed at the first pole (Col. 4, lines 59-60, external pressure actuates).
Re: Claim 13, Oh discloses the claimed invention including comprising an additional annular rib (adjacent to 410) with a closed circumference, wherein the circumference surrounds a charging region of the dosing device (Fig. 7).
Re: Claim 15, Oh discloses the claimed invention including the cross section further comprises a rounded or flattened rib tip (Fig. 3 depicts rounded tips).
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US Patent No. 9,228,289).
Regarding claim 7, Oh is silent regarding the height of the cross section. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would no perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Oh by causing the height of the cross section to be 5 to 15 mm. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular height (see Specification wherein said heigh is “preferably” in said range) and it appears that the device of Oh would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of height.
Regarding claim 8, Oh is silent regarding the distance between two adjacent ribs. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would no perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Oh by causing the distance between two adjacent ribs to be 5 to 25 mm. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular distance (see Specification wherein said heigh is “preferably” in said range) and it appears that the device of Oh would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of distance.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US Patent No. 9,228,289) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davenet et al. (US 2003/0182732 A1).
Re: Claim 14, Oh discloses the claimed invention including the ribs are made of a plastic material except for expressly stating an elastic plastic like styrene or butadiene. However, Davenet teaches a dosing system to be placed in a cleaning machine constructed of a thermoplastic elastomer comprising styrene and butadiene (Para. 25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include styrene and butadiene as taught by Davenet, since Davenet states in para. 25 that such a material resists liquids and temperature variations. Further, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References cited on the PTO-892 provide additional examples of dosing devices in laundry machines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights