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 .
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “water-soluble additive”, and the claim also recites “a cleaner, a descaling agent or a rinse aid” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Similarly, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a water-soluble additive”, and the claim also recites “a cleaner, a descaling agent or a rinse aid” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Similarly, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “a radius of at least 50 cm”, and the claim also recites “at least 100 cm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further regarding claim 3, the recitation of “the bottle comprises only one supporting surface” is indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant intends. Does the bottle recite the openness of plural supporting surfaces based on the open claim language “comprising” or does the bottle consist of “only one supporting surface”? Clarification and correction of these contradictory recitations is required.
Similarly, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the supporting surface is at least 30”, and the claim also recites “at least 50” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Similarly, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a deviation of up to +/- 30”, and the claim also recites “up to +/- 5” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Similarly, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “at least 1.2 times”, and the claim also recites “at least 1.3 times” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Similarly, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “at most 2.5 times”, and the claim also recites “at most 2 times” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Similarly, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “at least 1.2 times”, and the claim also recites “at least 1.3 times” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Similarly, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “an angle of 10º to 60º”, and the claim also recites “10º to 45º” and “15º to 25º” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 recites “A kitchen and/or catering device”, which is indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant intends. Claim 1 already recites “a kitchen and/or catering device”, thus, it is unclear whether the recitation is directed to the same device of claim 1 or another and different device. While it is believed Applicant’s intent is for antecedent basis to “a kitchen and/or catering device” as in claim 1, Applicant is required to clarify and correct the antecedent basis issue. Examiner suggests rewriting the claim in independent for to avoid such issues.
Similarly, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a food chamber for treating and/or storing food”, and the claim also recites “cooking chamber” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 recites “a bottle of claim 1”, which is indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant intends. Claim 1 already recites “a bottle”, thus, it is unclear whether the recitation is directed to the same bottle of claim 1 or another and different bottle. While it is believed Applicant’s intent is for antecedent basis to “a bottle” as in claim 1, Applicant is required to clarify and correct the antecedent basis issue. Examiner suggests rewriting the claim in independent for to avoid such issues.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation of a bottle sensor pin being “operable by the bottle” is indefiniteness because it is unclear what Applicant intends. How does the bottle operate the pin? Is there a controller in the bottle to operate the sensor? Does the bottle sensor send data to a controller in the bottle or other control means therein? Precisely how does the bottle sensor pin operate? Clarification and correction of this operation is required.
Regarding claim 15, the scope of the claim is indefinite because of the confusing nature of the recitation of claims. The claim recites “two bottles”, then recites the single bottle of claim 1 or alternatively the kitchen and/or catering device of claim 14 which recites a single bottle. How is the recitation of two bottles further narrowed in a dependent claim by the recitation of a single bottle (as in claim 1) or the combination of a kitchen and/or catering device with a single bottle (as in claim 12)? Applicant may wish to rewrite the claim in dependent form based on claim 12 to recite the use of two bottles of claim 1 or otherwise fully rewrite the claim in independent for to clarify what is being claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites “an arrangement of two bottles”, which is not further limited by the recitation of the single bottle of claim 1 or the kitchen and/or catering device of claim 14. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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) 1-2, 5, 9, 12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0299137 to Budich.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 9, 12, 14-15, Budich discloses a bottle (B/B’) for inserting into a kitchen and/or catering device (100/100’), wherein:
the bottle is filled with a water-soluble additive, in particular a cleaner, a descaling agent or a rinse aid, wherein the additive is solid (usable contents of the bottle are intended use and not afforded patentable weight; notwithstanding this, Budich recites use of a solid cleaning agent 1R, see abstract),
the bottle comprises a bottom, an opening arranged opposite the bottom, and a lateral surface, wherein the lateral surface extends from the bottom to the opening and wherein a bottle length is defined from the bottom to the opening (see, e.g., the bottles of Figs. 2 and 6), and
the bottle comprises a supporting portion along the bottle length, wherein the lateral surface comprises a flattened supporting surface in the entire supporting portion, wherein the supporting portion extends over at least one third of the bottle length (see bottle B/B’ in Figs. 2-6),
wherein: a bottle diameter is defined at each position along the bottle length, the largest dimension must be measured perpendicularly to a plane of the supporting surface, and the bottle diameter is at no position outside the supporting portion larger than the largest bottle diameter in the supporting portion (see bottle B/B’ in Figs. 2-6),
wherein: the bottle comprises a center portion and an opening portion, the supporting portion is arranged in the center portion, and the bottle tapers from the center portion into the opening portion (see Figs. 4-6, particularly note tapering portion in Fig. 6),
wherein: an opening portion center axis is defined at the opening portion and a center portion center axis is defined at the center portion, and the opening portion center axis is offset relative to the center portion center axis towards an underside of the bottle (see Figs. 4-5),
a kitchen and/or catering device (1001/100’), in particular cooking device, comprising:
a food chamber (9) for treating and/or storing food, in particular formed as cooking chamber, and
at least one solids unit with:
a receptacle for inserting a bottle of claim 1 (see claim 1 above),
a supply line leading to the receptacle for supplying a fluid dissolving additive (see supply line 15 in Fig. 6), and
a discharge line leading away from the receptacle for discharging the fluid together with the dissolved additive (see bottom of chamber 9 including outlet line 14 in Fig. 6),
comprising at least two of the solids units (see Figs. 1 and 6), wherein the two solids units differ from one another in a receiving portion for the respective bottle via different asymmetrical cross-sections (note different units in Fig. 1 and different assymetrical cross sections in Figs. 4-5),
an arrangement of two bottles, respectively of one of claim 1, and a kitchen and/or catering device of claim 14, wherein the two bottles comprise the supporting surface at different sides and the two solids units are designed such that the first bottle fits only into the first solids unit and the second bottle fits only into the second solids unit (see above and Figs. 1, 4-6 of Budich).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budich.
Regarding claims 3-4, 6-8, Budich discloses wherein: the bottle comprises only one supporting surface (see Figs. 4-5 and flat portion), and/or the lateral surface is cylindrical in the supporting portion with exception of the supporting surface (see Figs. 4-6 and ¶ [0091] supporting cylindrical shape), and/or the supporting surface is flat or is curved outwards, wherein: the supporting surface comprises a supporting surface length along the bottle length and a supporting surface width perpendicular thereto (see Figs. 4-6), wherein the center portion merges into the opening portion via a sensor surface, and the sensor surface is perpendicular to the lateral surface of the opening portion (see Fig. 6, the surface of the bottle being fully capable of receiving a sensor), wherein: the opening portion is cylindrical (see Figs. 4-6); and/or the opening portion comprises an opening portion length, and/or the opening portion is formed threadlessly for plugging into a seal (see Figs. 4-6), wherein: the opening portion has an opening portion diameter and the center portion has a center portion diameter (see Figs. 4-6), the largest center portion diameter is at least 1.2 times, preferably at least 1.3 times, of the opening portion diameter; and/or the largest center portion diameter is at most 2.5 times, preferably at most 2 times, of the opening portion diameter.
Budich does not expressly disclose the particular sizes and dimensions of the bottle such as a radius range, ratio of supporting surface length and width, length of supporting surface range, a perpendicular surface deviation, a perpendicular sensor surface to the lateral surface, the length of the opening portion, or the center portion diameter ratio between the opening portion diameter, or the ratio between the largest center portion diameter of the opening portion diameter.
However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to modify the size/shape of the bottle within the dimensions claimed as desired to achieve a desired fitting of the bottle into the kitchen device, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B) regarding Obviousness and Changes in Size/Proportion and Shape.
Regarding claim 10, Budich discloses wherein: the lateral surface extends in an interior of the bottle at the underside without increasing of an inclination from the center portion via the opening portion up to the opening, and/or a vertical is defined perpendicular to the underside (see Figs. 4-6, particularly Fig. 6 and the bottle end being perpendicular to the underside). Budich does not expressly disclose the supporting surface angle range as claimed. However, such modification is prima facie obvious (see above regarding Obviousness and Changes in Size/Shape).
Regarding claim 11, Budich discloses a bottle fully capable of being gripped by user for insertion/extraction into the kitchen device. Budich does not expressly disclose a horseshoe-shaped narrowing as claimed. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that such configurations, in particular narrowing hand shaped portions designed for better grip, are old and known, and the position is taken that changing the shape of the bottom to improve user grip would have been well within the general knowledge and skill of one having ordinary skill in the art (see above regarding Obviousness and Changes in Size and/or Shape.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budich in view of US 2012/0266389 to Ihne et al. (“Ihne”).
Regarding claim 13, Budich discloses the claimed invention including a bottle capable of being received by solids unit (102). Budich does not expressly disclose a sensor for sensing the presence/absence of the bottle within the unit as recited in claim 13. However, it is old and known to provide a household appliance with a sensing unit for sensing the presence/absence of an additive bottle/cartridge. For instance, Ihne teaches a household appliance with a bottle/cartridge (50) for supplying cleaning additives to the appliance and employing a sensor (70) for determining the presence/absence within the dispensing unit (40) (see ¶ [0020] wherein the sensor 70 is used to determine the presence of the bottle/cartridge 50).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the solids unit of Budich with sensing means, such as that taught in Ihne, to yield the same and predictable results of sensing the presence or absence of an additive bottle/cartridge.
While Budich does not expressly disclose the use of a “pin” to sense the presence/absence of the bottle/cartridge, Examiner submits that such sensing means is common knowledge and would be well within the general knowledge and skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, absent an adequate showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights