DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the wherein the connection between the connection socket and the connector can be made by moving the connector linearly along a direction which runs substantially perpendicularly to the front wall or rear wall (claim 14), wherein the connection between the connection socket and the connector can be separated by moving the connector linearly along a direction which runs substantially perpendicularly to the front wall or rear wall (claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the phrase "like" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "designed in such a way that I can be placed” renders the claim indefinite as the limitation is claimed a result to be achieved without the necessary steps or structure to achieve the claimed goal. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claims 14 and 15 recite how the connector and connector socket assemble in a motion perpendicular to the front and rear wall, this is unclear as FIG 4 shows connector (30) and connector socket (37) but no space to move perpendicular to the surface of the front and rear wall, only parallel to the front and rear wall. Further the claimed direction is not specific if it is referring to the plane of the front and rear wall, the longitudinal axis, or the lateral axis.
Claims 3-14 depend from claims 1 and 2 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler et al (US 20110139816) in view of Morad et al (US 7509705 B1).
Claim 1, Kessler discloses a flat housing (FIG 20) with a front wall and a rear wall (FIG 7), and is designed in such a way that it can be placed, like a plate, in a plate holder in the interior of the dishwasher (FIG 18; [0060]), wherein the front wall or rear wall of the housing has at least one first channel-like recess which begins at a base of the housing (108; FIG 20; [0243]),
But is silent on wherein a depth of the first recess decreases starting from the base of the housing in the direction of an upper end of the first recess.
Morad teaches wherein a depth of the first recess decreases starting from the base and continues in the direction of an upper end of the first recess (Col 2, lines 51 to 53; 22; FIG 3).
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 Kessler with depth of recess as taught by Morad in order to provide a channel that can align with and slide onto a channel.
Claim 2, Kessler discloses wherein the front wall or rear wall of the housing has a second channel-like recess (108; FIG 20), which is at a distance from the first recess and runs parallel to the first recess (FIG 20).
Claim 3, Kessler discloses the claimed invention except for the depth of the first recess is constant in a bottommost or lower third and decreases continuously in an upper third. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the depth of the recess in order to best fit and align with the struts of the rack in order to prevent lateral slippage, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Claim 4, Kessler discloses wherein the course of a groove bottom of the first recess has an inflection point (a change of direction of the bottom surface of the groove is an inherent feature of the type shown in FIG 20).
Claim 5, Kessler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the distance between the first recess and the second recess is 6 to 12 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the distance between recess in order to best fit and align with the struts of the rack in order to prevent lateral slippage, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Claim 6, Kessler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a width of the first recess is 2 to 4 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the width of the recess in order to best fit and align with the struts of the rack in order to prevent lateral slippage, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Claim 7, Kessler discloses wherein the housing has a height of 200 to 280 mm ([0061]).
Claim 8, Kessler discloses wherein the housing has a width of 200 to 280 mm ([0060] – [0061]).
Claim 9, Kessler discloses wherein the housing has a maximum thickness of between 20 and 28 mm ([0060] – [0061]; [0237]).
Claim 10, Kessler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a thickness of the housing decreases from the base in the direction of an upper housing edge of the housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the maximum depth of the recess in order to best fit in the rack and align with the struts of the rack in order to prevent lateral slippage, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Claim 11, Kessler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a maximum depth of the first recess is between 5 and 15 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the maximum depth of the recess in order to best fit and align with the struts of the rack in order to prevent lateral slippage, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Claim 12, Kessler discloses wherein the dispensing system has at least one dispensing valve (19a-c) and a dispensing opening (22a-c) associated with the dispensing valve, wherein the dispensing valve and the dispensing opening are arranged near the base (2; FIG 8-10).
Claim 13, Kessler discloses wherein the dispensing system has at least two dispensing valves (19a-c), between which the first recess is arranged (108; FIG 19).
Claim 14, Kessler discloses wherein the dispensing system has a container (3a-c) with at least one connector (15) and a connection socket (16, 23; FIG 8-9) in which the connector is inserted when the container is in the inserted state, wherein the connection between the connection socket and the connector can be made by moving the connector linearly along a direction which runs substantially perpendicularly to the front wall or rear wall (see 112 above).
Claim 15, Kessler discloses wherein the connection between the connection socket and the connector can be separated by moving the connector linearly along a direction which runs substantially perpendicularly to the front wall or rear wall (15, 16, 23; FIG 8-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY W CARROLL whose telephone number is (571)272-4988. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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.
JEREMY W. CARROLL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/Jeremy Carroll/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights