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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 July 2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0007481 (hereinafter “Mario”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0272222 (hereinafter “Swenson”).Regarding claims 1, 13 and 17 Mario teaches a washing machine comprising a tub including a shell (an external aesthetic/casing component having an external surface) 20, where the shell includes at least one insert 30 connected to a wall 25 (abstract and Figure 7). Mario teaches the insert (second polymeric material) 30 comprises a polymeric material and the wall (first polymeric material) 25 of the shell 20 comprises a thermoplastic polymer (paragraphs [0050] and [0052], and Figure 7). Mario illustrates the wall (first polymeric material) 25 defines at least part of an external surface of the shell (component) 20 with the wall (first polymeric material) 25 covering the insert (second polymeric material) 30, and the insert (second polymeric material) 30 is encased within the wall (first polymeric material) 25 (Figure 7). Mario does not explicitly teach the insert (second polymeric material) 30 comprises a recycled material. Swenson teaches a co-injection molded multilayer plastic article (abstract). Swenson teaches the multilayer plastic article includes an interior core layer (second polymeric material) which is formed from a first polymeric material and one or more skin layers (first polymeric material) are formed from a different polymeric layer (paragraph [0078]). Swenson teaches the interior core layer 602 is encased within the skin layers 606 (paragraphs [0101] and [0107], and Figure 11). Swenson teaches the interior core layer (second polymeric material) includes polyolefins and may be made from a cost-reducing recycled material (paragraph [0082]). Mario and Swenson are analogous inventions in the field of multilayered plastic articles. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the polymeric material of the insert (second polymeric material) 30 of Mario with the recycled material of Swenson to provide a lower cost for the material of the insert. The limitations: (1) “[the aesthetic component is] configured to be assembled on an exterior of a water bearing appliance;” (2) “the external surface of the component is visible when assembled on the exterior of a water bearing appliance;” and (3) “an external casing component of a water bearing appliance” have been considered. However, these limitations merely recite the intended use of the claimed component, and fails to provide any additional structure to the claimed aesthetic/external component. Furthermore, regarding (2), this is a contingent limitation which is not required to meet the claim. The broadest reasonable interpretation, for a contingent limitation, of a product claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The product claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the product regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP §2111.04(II). It is the position of the examiner that the external surface of the aesthetic component would be visible if assembled on the exterior of a water bearing appliance.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Mario does not teach the use of recycled materials (Mario – entire reference), and Swenson teaches the use of recycled materials in only the interior core layer (paragraphs [0079] and [0082]), which corresponds to the wall (first polymeric material) 25 from the combination of Mario and Swenson does not comprise a recycled polymeric material.Regarding claim 3 In addition, Mario illustrates the external surface of the shell (component) 20 is completely constituted by the wall (first polymeric material) 25 and the wall (first polymeric material) 25 completely covers the insert (second polymeric material) 30 (Figure 7).Regarding claims 5 and 18 In addition, Mario teaches the wall (first polymeric material) 25 of the shell 20 comprises a thermoplastic polymer (paragraph [0050]). Mario also teaches the insert (second polymeric material) 30 comprises polyolefins (thermoplastic material), polystyrene (thermoplastic material), etc. (paragraph [0052]).Regarding claims 6 and 19 In addition, claims 6 and 19 are directed to an intermediate product (status of the recycled materials prior to their use in the claimed component), where the claimed component is directed to a final product. Therefore, due to the fact that there is no additional structure implied by the source of the recycled material to the final product, the structure of the claimed component from claims 6 and 19 are considered to be met by the structural limitations for the claimed component from claims 1 and 17, respectfully.Regarding claim 11 In addition, Mario teaches the wall (first polymeric material) 25 of the shell 20 and the insert (second polymeric material) 30 form a one-piece monolithic body (Figure 7 and paragraph [0065]).Regarding claim 12 In addition, Mario teaches the wall (first polymeric material) 25 of the shell 20 and the insert (second polymeric material) 30 are co-injected material resulting from a co-injection molding process (paragraph [0065]).
Alternatively, the use of product-by-process limitations has been noted in claim 12, for example, "the first polymeric material and the second polymeric material are co-injected material resulting from a co-injection molding process ". "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, "although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product", In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP § 2113.
Claims 6-10, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mario and Swenson as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of an article titled “RoHS regulated Substances in Mixed Plastics from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment” by Patrick A. Wäger, et al (hereinafter “Wager”).Regarding claims 6, 7, 19 and 20 The limitations for claims 1 and 17 have been set forth above. In addition, the combination of Mario and Swenson is silent with regards to specific recycled materials, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional materials. Wager provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to obtain recycled materials from post-consumer plastic and/or post-industrial plastic material, where the recycled materials include a polymeric material comprising one or more chemical elements from the group consisting of: lead; cadmium; mercury; hexavalent chromium; and bromine that should be within a maximum concentration value (above or equal to a respective minimum threshold amount) (pages 628-633). Wager also teaches the recycled materials may include materials derived from high impact polystyrene (HIPS), ABS, and PP (polypropylene) (thermoplastic or polyolefin materials) (page 633). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the recycled materials from the combination of Mario and Swenson from the recycled materials from Wager motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of thermoplastic or polyolefin materials capable of being used as a recycled material.Regarding claims 8 and 9 In addition, Mario teaches the insert (second polymeric material) 30 comprises thermoplastic materials, such as polyolefins (paragraph [0051]). Swenson also teaches suitable materials for a second polymeric material for use in the interior core layer (second polymeric material) includes polypropylene (polyolefin polymer) (paragraphs [0016] and [0021]). Swenson does not explicitly teach specific compositions for the recycled materials; therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional materials. Wager provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to obtain recycled materials from post-consumer plastic and/or post-industrial plastic material, where the recycled materials comprise a polymeric material comprising one or more chemical elements from the group consisting of: lead; cadmium; mercury; hexavalent chromium; and bromine that should be within a maximum concentration value (above or equal to a respective minimum threshold amount and/or below or equal to a respective maximum threshold amount) (pages 628-633). Wager also teaches the recycled materials may include PP (polypropylene), which are from large household appliances and small appliances for high-temperature applications (last full paragraph in the left hand column on page 633). Wager teaches an example of such an application includes small appliances for high-temperature applications (P24) (first full paragraph in the right hand column on page 633). Wager teaches heavy metal and BFR (brominated flame retardant) contents for example P24 includes: cadmium at about 20 ppm, lead at about 900 ppm, mercury at about 0.9 ppm, chromium (hexavalent chromium) at about 800 ppm, and bromine at about 0.8 g/kg (800 ppm) (addition of TBBPA and DecaBDE in category 4, from Figure 2) (Figures 1 and 2), each of which falls within a range for at least one of claim 8 or 9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the recycled materials from the combination of Mario and Swenson from the recycled polypropylene materials from Wager motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of polypropylene materials capable of being used as a recycled material.Regarding claim 10 In addition, Mario teaches the insert (second polymeric material) 30 comprises thermoplastic materials, such as polystyrene (paragraph [0051]). Swenson does not explicitly teach specific compositions for the recycled materials, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional materials. Wager provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to obtain recycled materials from post-consumer plastic and/or post-industrial plastic material, where the recycled materials include a polymeric material comprising one or more chemical elements from the group consisting of: lead; cadmium; mercury; hexavalent chromium; and bromine that should be within a maximum concentration value (below or equal to a respective maximum threshold amount) (pages 628-633). Wager also teaches the recycled materials may include HIPS or ABS (polystyrene), which are from monitor and TV set applications, such as CRT TVs (last full paragraph in the left hand column on page 633). Wager teaches an example of such an application includes CRT TVs (P41) (Figure 1). Wager teaches heavy metal content for example P41 includes: cadmium at about 2 ppm to about 95 ppm, lead at about 12 ppm to about 400 ppm, mercury at about 0.1 ppm to about 0.3 ppm, and chromium (hexavalent chromium) at about 20 ppm to about 700 ppm (Figure 1), each of which falls within or overlaps the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the recycled materials from the combination of Mario and Swenson from the recycled polystyrene material from Wager motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of polystyrene materials capable of being used as a recycled material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued Mario does not disclose or suggest an aesthetic or casing component as recited in claims 1 and 17 because Mario teaches a washing machine including a tub with a shell, where the tub is not a water bearing appliance and the shell is not an external or aesthetic component. However, the applicant’s arguments are directed to the intended use of the claimed components. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The applicant has failed to provide any evidence or persuasive reasoning establishing any structural difference between the prior art product and the claimed product when considering the intended use recitations from the claims. See MPEP §§2111.02 and 2114(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783