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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are currently pending
Claims 5-6 are currently canceledClaims 1-4 and 7-20 are currently amended
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 12 states “and.” and instead should remove the period and further recite “and” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state “the filtering assembly-comprises” and instead should state “the filtering assembly comprises” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 7-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of co-pending Application No. 18/824467 (reference application), unpatentable over claims 1-10 of co-pending Application No. 18/824502 (reference application), and unpatentable over claims 7-8 of co-pending Application No. 18/824513 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broad enough and further disclosed by claims 1-12 of co-pending Application No. 18/824467, by claims 1-10 of co-pending Application No. 18/824505 (reference application), and by claims 7-8 of co-pending Application No. 18/824513.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajendran et al. (U.S. 2018/0148883 A1) (hereinafter “Raj”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Raj teaches a filtering system for a washing or drying machine (see FIG. 1, an appliance 14) (see FIG. 2, lint removal system 12 further including a lint processing pump 10) (see paragraphs 1, 2, 24 and 32), said filtering system comprising:
a casing internally defining a cavity, the casing comprising an inlet configured to receive a fluid, the inlet leading into the cavity (see FIGS. 3-5, casing 26 having an interior cavity in a form of a continuous processing chamber 24) (see FIGS. 2-5, a fluid/lint inlet 54) (see paragraphs 24-26 and 38), and at least one outlet configured to deliver the fluid coming from the cavity (see FIGS. 2-5, an outlet 56) (see paragraph 25);
a filtering assembly contained in the cavity and configured to conduct the fluid entering said casing through the inlet (see FIG. 5, a filter 52) (see paragraphs 25-30 and 38), the filtering assembly being configured to trap any particles contained in said fluid (see FIG. 5, a filter 52) (see paragraphs 25-30 and 38);
a compacting assembly situated in said cavity, the compacting assembly being configured for collecting and compacting the particles trapped by the filtering assembly (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a blade assembly 34 further including a rotating blade 50) (see paragraphs 24-28, 30 and 38);
a driving assembly configured to drive the compacting assembly (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a motor 70 further operating a drive shaft 72) (see paragraphs 26-28); and
a storing container situated in said cavity, the storing container facing the compacting assembly, and the storing container being configured to receive the particles collected and compacted by said compacting assembly (see FIG. 2, a disposal area 20) (see paragraph 24) (see also paragraph 37 further discussing a separate container containing fluid and lint particles that can be removed);
wherein the storing container is removably mounted in the cavity and is accessible through the casing (see FIG. 2, a disposal area 20) (see paragraph 24) (see also paragraph 37 further discussing a separate container containing fluid and lint particles that can be removed).
Although Raj teaches a filtering system capable of removing wet and dry lint along with particles, one may broadly interpret that Raj does not explicitly teach trapping any solid microplastic particles contained in said fluid, as recited in amended, independent claim 1. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the filtering system of Raj to further remove and trap any solid microplastic particles by the filter 52 of Raj for optimization purposes (see FIG. 5, a filter 52) (see paragraphs 25-30) (see MPEP 2115 regarding device/apparatus claims and the material worked upon).
Regarding Claim 2:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 1, wherein the compacting assembly is configured to remove the solid microplastic particles from a surface of the filtering assembly configured to fluidically communicate with said inlet by conveying the solid microplastic particles towards a bottom or out of said filtering assembly (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a blade assembly 34 further including a rotating blade 50) (see paragraphs 24-28, 30 and 38).
Regarding Claim 3:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 1, wherein said compacting assembly extends axially through the filtering assembly (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a blade assembly 34 further including a rotating blade 50) (see paragraphs 24-28, 30 and 38).
Regarding Claim 4:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 1, wherein said compacting assembly comprises an endless screw configured to be rotatably driven by the driving assembly, to axially push the solid microplastic particles trapped by the filtering assembly (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a blade assembly 34 further including a rotating blade 50, which further includes a plurality of apertures 74 (fluid apertures 78 and/or processing apertures 80)) (see paragraphs 24-28, 30 and 38).
Regarding Claim 7:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 1, wherein the filtering assembly comprises a hollow body having an axial through aperture conducted by said compacting assembly (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a blade assembly 34 further including a rotating blade 50, which further includes a plurality of apertures 74 (fluid apertures 78 and/or processing apertures 80)) (see paragraphs 24-28, 30 and 38).
Regarding Claim 8:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 7, wherein said hollow body has a substantially cylindrical shape internally defining said axial through aperture (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a blade assembly 34 further including a rotating blade 50, which further includes a plurality of apertures 74 (fluid apertures 78 and/or processing apertures 80)) (see paragraphs 24-28, 30 and 38).
Regarding Claim 9:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 7, wherein said hollow body has a substantially cylindrical shape internally defining said axial through aperture, and wherein said axial through aperture faces towards said storing container (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a blade assembly 34 further including a rotating blade 50, which further includes a plurality of apertures 74 (fluid apertures 78 and/or processing apertures 80)) (see paragraphs 24-28, 30 and 38).
Regarding Claim 10:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 1, wherein said casing comprises a plurality of outlets configured for delivering the fluid coming from the cavity; said filtering system further comprising a flow diverter assembly situated in the cavity and configured for assuming a plurality of operating conditions defining, through the cavity, a respective plurality of fluid paths between the inlet and the plurality of outlets (see FIGS. 2 and 5, an impeller 22) (see paragraphs 22 and 38).
Regarding Claim 11:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 10, wherein at least one of said plurality of operating conditions provides a fluid path that goes through said filtering assembly (see FIGS. 2 and 5, an impeller 22) (see paragraphs 22 and 38) (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a blade assembly 34 further including a rotating blade 50, which further includes a plurality of apertures 74 (fluid apertures 78 and/or processing apertures 80)) (see paragraphs 24-28, 30 and 38).
Regarding Claim 12:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 10, wherein at least one of said plurality of operating conditions provides an additional fluid path that does not go through said filtering assembly (see FIGS. 2 and 5, an impeller 22) (see paragraphs 22 and 38) (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a blade assembly 34 further including a rotating blade 50, which further includes a plurality of apertures 74 (fluid apertures 78 and/or processing apertures 80, wherein some of the apertures do not go through filter) (see paragraphs 24-28, 30 and 38) (see paragraph 31 further discussing filter-free appliances).
Regarding Claim 13:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 10, wherein said driving assembly is configured for controlling said flow diverter assembly, switching said flow diverter assembly between said plurality of operating conditions (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a motor 70 further operating a drive shaft 72 and impeller 22) (see paragraphs 26-28).
Regarding Claim 14:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 10, wherein said flow diverter assembly axially faces the filtering assembly (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a motor 70 further operating a drive shaft 72 and impeller 22) (see paragraphs 26-28).
Regarding Claim 15:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 10, wherein said flow diverter assembly comprises at least one diaphragm having at least one hole, the at least one diaphragm being configured to be rotatably driven (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a motor 70 further operating a drive shaft 72 and impeller 22) (see paragraphs 26-28).
Regarding Claim 16:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 15, wherein said flow diverter assembly comprises a plurality of diaphragms having at least one hole axially aligned with one another, the plurality of diaphragms having at least one hole being configured to be rotatably driven in a coordinated manner around a same axis of rotation (see FIGS. 2 and 5, a motor 70 further operating a drive shaft 72 and impeller 22) (see paragraphs 26-28).
Regarding Claim 17:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 1, further comprising a bypass assembly configured for automatically excluding the filtering assembly from a fluid flow from the inlet to said at least one outlet in predetermined operating conditions (see FIG. 2 further illustrating a bypass assembly for bypassing washing assembly 16).
Regarding Claim 18:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 17, wherein said bypass assembly comprises a non-return valve mounted upstream of the filtering assembly (see FIG. 2, check valves 142) (see paragraph 35).
Regarding Claim 19:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 1, further comprising a clogging sensor configured to detect clogging of the filtering assembly (see paragraphs 50-53 further discussing low pressure areas and clogging) (see paragraphs 54-58 further discussing modifications and variations to the filtering system). As a result, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include a clogging sensor to further detect malfunction or too much debris blocking the filtering assembly of Raj (see paragraphs 50-53 further discussing low pressure areas and clogging) (see paragraphs 54-58 further discussing modifications and variations to the filtering system).
Regarding Claim 20:
Raj teaches the filtering system according to claim 19, wherein said clogging sensor comprises a pressure sensor situated upstream and/or downstream of the filtering assembly (see paragraphs 50-53 further discussing low pressure areas and clogging) (see paragraphs 54-58 further discussing modifications and variations to the filtering system). (see paragraphs 50-53 further discussing low pressure areas and clogging) (see paragraphs 54-58 further discussing modifications and variations to the filtering system). As a result, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include a clogging sensor to further detect malfunction or too much debris blocking the filtering assembly of Raj (see paragraphs 50-53 further discussing low pressure areas and clogging) (see paragraphs 54-58 further discussing modifications and variations to the filtering system)
Other References Considered
CHENGDU et al. (CN 107447452 A) (hereinafter “Cheng”) (see attached English description) teaches a water-saving washing machine filter device.
Lim et al. (U.S. 5,331,986) (hereinafter “Lim”) teaches a dishwashing machine.
Mishina et al. (U.S. 2009/0071912 A1) (hereinafter “Mishina”) teaches a system and method for removing lint.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but focus on amended claim limitations, which have been addressed above in the updated rejection (see above).
The previous claim objections have been considered and are now updated (see above).
The previous 112(f) claim interpretation/analysis has been considered and is now withdrawn.
The previous 112(b) claim rejections have been considered and are now withdrawn as a result of the current claim amendments.
The previous provisional double patenting rejection has been considered and is held in abeyance as requested by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773