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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the previous 112 rejections of the claims (see FP #23 of nonfinal action dated 6/16/2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended/canceled the claims to obviate the issues. The previous objections and 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 regarding the previous 112 rejections of the claims (see FP #22, 26-28 of nonfinal action dated 6/16/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amendment to the claims addresses the issues.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains these issues still outstanding.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 regarding the previous 103 rejection of claim 8 under modified Zhang have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amendment to claim 8 regarding mechanical insertion overcomes modified Zhang.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner agrees that it appears Zhang does not teach this limitation, but Examiner however, considers this would be obvious in view of case law pertaining to automating a manual activity (see MPEP 2144.04, “Automating a Manual Activity”).
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 9 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 9 if originally-presented would have been restrictable from original claim 8 under distinct processes. New claim 9 has been broadened with respect to original claim 8 by the omission of the device for expanding or contracting the diameter of the washer or dryer tub associated with the selecting step, which was presented in original claim 8. New claim 9 has also been narrowed with respect to original claim 8 (e.g. mechanical insertion step). Due to this simultaneous broadening/narrowing of scope, new claim 9 would have different modes/functions/effects and have been restrictable form original claim 8 under distinct processes.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 9 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/906793, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claim 8 recites a method. The method does not appear to be supported by the parent application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device for expanding or contracting the diameter of the washer or dryer tub” in claims 1 & 8, “a device for removably securing the dividing wall in place” in claims 1 & 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner has applied the following 112(f) interpretations:
a device for expanding or contracting the diameter of the washer or dryer tub (claim 8): an expandable sidewall (see Applicant’s Figures 1-2, expandable feature 2. [0021], [0025]).
a device for removably securing the dividing wall in place (claim 8): a guide channel, rail, or slot (see Applicant’s Figure 5, removable wall securing device 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 have been amended to using “consisting of” language. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s disclosure (see Applicant’s Figure 1, removable wall securing device, motor 10. [0018], [0025]), and there appears to be a motor associated with removable wall securing device responsible for the mechanical insertion. This appears to violate the “consisting of” language. Examiner will consider further argument.
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.
Claim 8 is/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.
Claim 8 introduces “a washer or dryer tub” in multiple instances, such as on lines 1, 3, & 8 of claim 8. Applicant must account for the antecedent basis in line 1 of the claim (e.g. the later instances in lines 3 & 8 should be the washer or dryer tub).
Claim 8 recite “the dividing wall flap” in multiple instances, such as lines 13-14 of claim 8. Examiner however, notes that antecedent basis was established for “one or more adjustable position dividing wall flaps” earlier in the claim. Applicant must account for the “one or more…dividing wall flaps” language.
Claim 8 recites “the compartments” on the last clause, but antecedent basis was not established for this.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 106958117, “Zhang”) in view of Shaw et al. (US 5060490, “Shaw”).
Zhang teaches a washing machine comprising the following of claim 8 except where underlined:
For Claim 8:
A method for separating clothes in a washer or dryer tub consisting of:
a) selecting a washer or dryer tub comprising:
i. a removable dividing wall of a length that can divide the washer or dryer tub in half by mechanical insertion of the dividing wall in the washer or dryer (see Figures 1-2, 4-7, partition member 1200);
ii. a washer or dryer tub having a device for expanding or contracting the diameter of the washer or dryer tub (see Figures 1-2, 4-7, inner tub 1100, first slot 1120);
iii. a device for removably securing the dividing wall in place (see Figures 1-2, 4-7, main pulsator 1300, blade 1320, second slot 1321, sub-pulsators 1400). Examiner interprets the impeller/pulsator assembly (main pulsator 1300 in conjunction with sub-pulsators 1400) as reading on the device for removably securing the dividing wall in place; and
iv. one or more adjustable position dividing wall flaps attached to the dividing wall that when used, the dividing wall flap is positioned to prevent movement of the dividing wall flap during use to further divide the washer or dryer tub;
b) mechanically inserting the dividing wall into the washer or dryer tub and engaging the one or more adjustable position dividing wall flaps (see Zhang’s machine translation, [0009]-[0010], [0053]); and
c) inserting clothing in each of the compartments created by the dividing wall and the one or more adjustable position dividing wall flaps (see Zhang’s machine translation, [0009]-[0010], [0053]). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect clothes to be loaded after the partition member 1200 is inserted so as to perform the partitioned washing function.
Zhang does not teach the flaps, the device for expanding/contracting the diameter of the tub, or the mechanical insertion.
Regarding the flaps, Shaw however, teaches applying displaceable plates to a partition for a rotary dyeing machine to prevent tangling of articles of clothing (see Shaw’s Figures 1-5, cylinder 20, partition 50, compartments 52 & 54, plates 60. Column 1, lines 6-19. Column 2, lines 59-68. Column 3, lines 1-8). Examiner considers Shaw pertinent as rotary drums are conventional in the washing arts and entangling of laundry occurs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhang and more particularly to apply displaceable plates as taught by Shaw so as to prevent tangling of articles of clothing.
Regarding the device for expanding/contracting the diameter of the tub, Examiner considers the obvious act of making adjustable and further notes that Applicant has admitted to expandable tubs as being prior art to adjust the capacity (see MPEP 2144.04, “Making Adjustable”) (see Applicant’s [0003]. see MPEP 2129, “Admission as Prior Art”).
Regarding the mechanical insertion, Applicant refers to “mechanically” as hands-free insertion (see Applicant’s [0018]). Examiner however, considers this advancement would be obvious in view of case law regarding automating a manual activity (see MPEP 2144.04, “Automating a Manual Activity”). General use of equipment to automate/replace manual insertion does not appear to be a patentable distinction.
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 MARC LORENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7586 and fax number is (571)270-8586. The examiner can normally be reached from 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gordon Baldwin at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC LORENZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718