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 § 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) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102021106805A1 to Duden et al. (see machine translation) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0012466 to Sperry et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0284150 to Doubles et al.
As to claim 1, Duden discloses a container for a metering system that can be positioned in the interior of a dishwasher comprising at least one chamber for receiving a preparation (see Duden Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0066]-[0071] and a connection piece which is paired with the chamber and connected to the chamber and being connectable to a connection receiving area of a metering device of the metering system in order to produce a liquid-tight connection between the chamber and the metering device wherein the connection piece has a main part (see Duden Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0066]-[0071]).
Duden does not explicitly disclose a finger ring secured to the main part which can be moved from a starting position into an active position, the finger ring being designed such that, in the active position, a human finger can engage behind it in order to introduce a force into the main part and the force allows the connection piece to be separated from the connection receiving area. Sperry discloses that it is known in the art for a container to have gripping means such as a pull ring (see Sperry paragraph [0089]) and Doubles discloses that pivotable pull rings are known in the art of detergent containers (see Doubles paragraph [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a pivotable pull ring (read as a pull ring with an initial position and active position) on the container in order to improve the gripping means on the cartridge for insertion and removal.
As to claim 2, the combination of Duden, Sperry and Doubles discloses that the finger ring is rotatable about a pivot axis (see Doubles paragraph [0052] where the pull ring is pivotably mounted relative to the base).
As to claim 4, the combination of Duden, Sperry and Doubles discloses that the finger ring can be circular and since it is circular, is understood as extending across an angular range of 180-270 degrees (see Doubles Fig. 2 disclosing a circular pull ring 58).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102021106805A1 to Duden et al. (see machine translation) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0012466 to Sperry et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0284150 to Doubles et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2005/0045634 to Ward et al.
Duden, Sperry and Doubles are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 3, the recitation of the finger ring being fastened to the main part by two connecting webs is considered as an obvious design choice for a pivotable pull ring and does not provide patentable significance. For example, Ward discloses a pivotable pull ring wherein the pull ring pivots about a mount (see Ward paragraph [0036]) and wherein the mount can be considered as two webs (the top of the mount and the bottom of the mount) (see also MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) where making parts separable is prima facie obvious) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use two connecting webs to fasten the finger ring as is known in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102021106805A1 to Duden et al. (see machine translation) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0012466 to Sperry et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0284150 to Doubles et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2009/0117776 to Kuo et al.
Duden, Sperry and Doubles are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 5, the combination of Duden, Sperry and Doubles does not explicitly disclose that the finger ring has a handle tab for moving the finger ring from the starting position to the active position. Kuo discloses that it is known in the art of finger rings for the finger ring to have a tab (see Kuo Fig. 1 where the ring 31 has a tab). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a tab on the finger ring as disclosed by Kuo in order to improve the gripping of the finger ring.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102021106805A1 to Duden et al. (see machine translation) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0012466 to Sperry et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0284150 to Doubles et al. and U.S. Patent No. 2009/0117776 to Kuo et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0102583 to Baughman et al.
Duden, Sperry, Doubles and Kuo are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 6, the combination of Duden, Sperry, Doubles and Kuo does not explicitly disclose a fixing web provided in the proximity of the handle tab which holds the finger ring in the starting position. Use of temporary fixing webs to hold pull rings is known in the art of pull rings (see Baughman paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a temporary web to hold the pull ring in place until needed as is known in the art.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102021106805A1 to Duden et al. (see machine translation) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0012466 to Sperry et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0284150 to Doubles et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE202008010295U1 to Weber et al. (see machine translation).
Duden, Sperry and Doubles are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7 and 8, the combination of Duden, Sperry and Doubles does not explicitly disclose that the main part has a weld-in part with an inflow channel wherein the weld-in part is sealing attached to a chamber wall of the chamber and the inflow channel is connected to the chamber and the main part has a plug-in part with an outflow channel, wherein the plug-in part is insertable into the connection receptacle. Weber discloses a similar container having part sealingly attached to a chamber wall of the chamber and the inflow channel is connected to the chamber and a part with an outflow channel, wherein the part is insertable into the connection receptacle (see Weber Fig. 4 disclosing a part 27 that is sealingly attached to the chamber 16’, 17’ with an inflow-channel to the chamber and a part 30 with an outflow channel wherein the part is insertable to the connection receptacle 20’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Duden and Kessler to have said weld-in part and plug-in part as disclosed by Weber in order dispense the contents of the container as is known in the art (see Weber paragraphs [0074]-[0079]).
As to claim 9, the combination of Duden, Sperry, Doubles and Weber discloses that the membrane can be arranged between the inflow channel and the outflow channel (see Weber Fig. 4, ref.#26’; see also Duden paragraphs [0016] and [0071] disclosing a membrane in the container).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102021106805A1 to Duden et al. (see machine translation) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0012466 to Sperry et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0284150 to Doubles et al. and DE202008010295U1 to Weber et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0174346 to Kessler et al.
Duden, Sperry, Doubles and Weber are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 9.
As to 10, the combination of Duden, Sperry, Doubles and Weber that the membrane is integrally formed on the main body. Kessler discloses that it is known in the art that the cartridge can be made as a single-part construction (see Kessler paragraphs [0199], [0250]-[0254]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the connection piece have a main part onto which the membrane is integrally formed, wherein the main part and the membrane are made of the same material as disclosed by Kessler and the results would have been predictable (see Kessler paragraphs [0199], [0250]-[0254]; see also MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) where making parts integral is prima facie obvious).
As to claim 11-14, Doubles further discloses that the container can include handles, bars, notches and rods (read as a pressure plate for receiving a human finger) (see Doubles paragraph [0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further include handles or bars on the container as disclosed by Doubles in order to improve the gripping means. The recitation of the finger ring being in the initial position surrounding the pressure plate and lies substantially in the same plane as the pressure plate, the membrane lying in a plane which extends in parallel with the plane of the pressure of the pressure plate, and the pressure plate being arranged coaxially to the membrane are considered an obvious design choice and does not provide patentable significance (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) where rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious).
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 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10-11 of copending Application No. 19/182,206 (reference application herein referred to as “the ‘206 application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
As to claim 1, the ‘206 application discloses a container with a chamber and being connectable to a connection receiving area of a metering device of a metering system wherein the connection piece has a main part and a finger ring secured to the main part which can be moved from a starting position to an active position (see the ‘206 application claims 1 and 10).
As to claim 2, the ‘206 application discloses that the finger ring can be rotatable about a pivot axis (see the ‘206 application claims 1 and 11).
As to claim 3, the ‘206 application discloses that the finger ring is fastened to the main part by two connecting webs (see the ‘206 application claims 1 and 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not explicitly disclose the main part has an air chamber with an air chamber wall for ventilating the chamber, wherein a projection is formed on the air chamber wall, which projection has a support spaced from the air chamber wall for an abutment of the connection receptacle, so that a force which acts on the support of the projection when the connection piece and the connection receptacle are connected generates a bending moment, by which the projection is rotated and an opening is torn into the air chamber wall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights