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 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. 2011/0174346 to Kessler et al.
As to claim 1, Duden discloses a container for a dispensing system that can be positioned in the interior of a dishwasher comprising a dispensing device by which at least one preparation can be dispensed into the interior (see Duden Fig. 2, ref.#2, 2a, 2b), wherein the container has at least one chamber for receiving the preparation and a connection piece which is paired with the chamber and connected to the chamber (see Duden Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0066]-[0071]), and being connectable to a connection receptacle of the dispensing device to produce a connection between the chamber and the dispensing device (see Duden Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0066]-[0071], and wherein the connection piece has a membrane which is closed in a state as manufactured and is designed to be opened when the connection piece is connected to the connection receptacle (see Duden paragraphs [0016] and [0071] disclosing a membrane in the container that is pierced by the connecting unit).
Duden does not explicitly disclose that the connection piece has a main part onto which the membrane is integrally formed, wherein the main part and the membrane are made of the same material. 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).
Claim(s) 2 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. 2011/0174346 to Kessler et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2020/152004A1 to Kessler et al. (where the English counterpart U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0348088 will be cited to and referred to as “the ‘088 application”).
Duden and Kessler are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 2, the combination of Duden and Kessler does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the membrane. The ‘088 application discloses a similar container wherein the membrane has a thickness of 1 micron to 1000 microns (0.001mm - 1mm) (see the ‘088 application paragraph [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the membrane thickness be between 1-1000 microns as disclosed by the ‘088 application and the results would have been predictable (membrane for detergent container).
Claim(s) 3 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. 2011/0174346 to Kessler et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2020/125937A1 to Rube et al. (see machine translation).
Duden and Kessler are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 3, the combination of Duden and Kessler does not explicitly disclose that the membrane is made of polyolefin filled with a filler. Rube discloses a similar dishwashing dispenser with a membrane (see Rube paragraphs [0001], [0037], [0074]-[0075], [0198] wherein the membrane is made of polyolefin filled with a filler (see Rube paragraph [0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a polyolefin filled with a filler as disclosed by Rube as being known in the art of membranes for dishwashing dispensers and also to give the membrane both a hydrophilic and hydrophobic surface.
As to claim 4, the combination of Duden, Kessler and Rube discloses that the membrane can be made of polyolefin which is filled with calcium carbonate with a proportion by weight of 20% (see Rube paragraph [0136], [0115] and [0119]).
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. 2011/0174346 to Kessler et al. and WO2020/125937A1 to Rube et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of WO2020/152004A1 to Kessler et al. (where the English counterpart U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0348088 will be cited to and referred to as “the ‘088 application”).
Duden, Kessler and Rube are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 5, the combination of Duden, Kessler and Rube discloses that the filler size may be between 1 – 100 microns and typically from 10-30 microns, which is further reduced in size (see Rube paragraph [0116]) but does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the membrane. The ‘088 application discloses a similar container wherein the membrane has a thickness of 1 micron to 1000 microns and preferably from 50-600 microns (see the ‘088 application paragraph [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the membrane thickness be between 1-1000 microns and preferably between 50-600 microns as disclosed by the ‘088 application and the results would have been predictable (membrane for detergent container) and also for the filler size to be smaller than 30 microns as disclosed by Rube.
Claim(s) 6-8 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. 2011/0174346 to Kessler et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE202008010295U1 to Weber et al. (see machine translation).
Duden and Kessler are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 6-8, the combination of Duden and Kessler 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]). With regards to claim 8, the combination of Duden, Kessler and Weber discloses that the membrane can be arranged between the inflow channel and the outflow channel (see Weber Fig. 4, ref.#26’).
Claim(s) 10 and 12-14 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. 2011/0174346 to Kessler et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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.
Duden and Kessler are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10, the combination of Duden and Kessler does not explicitly disclose a finger ring is attached to the main part, which is movable from an initial position to an active position, wherein in the active position the finger ring is designed to be engaged from behind by a human finger in order to introduce a tensile force into the main part, by which the connection piece can be separated from the connection receptacle. 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 12, 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.
As to claims 13 and 14, 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 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).
Claim(s) 11 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. 2011/0174346 to Kessler et al., 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 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0045634 to Ward et al.
Duden, Kessler, Sperry and Doubles are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 10.
With regards to claim 11, the recitation of two webs to define the pivot axis 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).
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 10-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/181,663 (reference application herein referred to as “the ‘663 application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
As to claim 10, the ‘663 application discloses a container comprising at least one chamber and a connection piece which is paired with the chamber and connected to the chamber and being connectable to a connection receptacle of the dispensing device to produce a connection between the chamber and the dispensing device and wherein the connection piece has a membrane between the inflow and outflow channel and is integrally formed on the main body along with a finger ring secured to the main part (see the ‘663 application claims 1 and 10).
As to claim 11, the ‘663 application discloses that the finger ring can be attached to the main part and movable between an initial position into an active position (see the ‘663 application claims 1 and 10).
As to claim 12, the ‘663 application discloses that the finger ring can be attached to the main part by two webs (see the ‘663 application claims 1, 3 and 10).
As to claims 13 and 14, the ‘663 application discloses the pressure plate recitations (see the ‘663 application claims 1 and 10-14).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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