DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 5/28/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending, Claim 20 is withdrawn, and Claims 1-19 have been examined.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 5/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/28/2025.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6, 11, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafleur (US 2004/0134241 A1) in view of Barnand (US 1,783,147 A).
Re claim 1, Brow Lafleur discloses a system of washing and drying a reusable diaper (abstract, title) comprising:
a housing (ref. 12) defining:
a wash cavity (ref. 25); and
a drain gate (ref. 21, 7) configured to face a toilet bowl (see fig. 1, ref. 25 is downward and ref. 7 leads to toilet bowl);
a water reservoir (ref. 25):
arranged within the housing; and
configured to store a first volume of water (¶ [0026]);
a detergent reservoir (ref. 9):
arranged within the housing; and
configured to store a second volume of dilute detergent (¶ [0025]-[0026]);
a wash drum (ref. 18):
arranged within the wash cavity; and
configured to support and retain the reusable diaper during a processing cycle (¶ [0024]);
a spray nozzle (ref. 20 water intake):
arranged within the wash cavity; and
configured to spray water, from the water reservoir, toward the reusable diaper retained on the rack (see fig. 2A, ¶ [0024]);
a fluid distribution system (see fig. 1 refs. 2, 3, unlabeled line to cleaning agent dispenser 9, to ref. 20):
arranged within the housing; and
configured to:
distribute water from a water supply into the water reservoir (¶ [0026], [0028]);
distribute water from the water reservoir to the spray nozzle (¶ [0024]);
distribute detergent from the detergent reservoir onto the reusable diaper retained in the drum (¶ [0025]-[0026]); and
release soiled water into the toilet bowl via the drain gate (¶ [0022], [0024], [0027]); and
a drying element (ref. 10):
arranged within the housing; and
configured to dry the reusable diaper retained on the rack (¶ [0024], [0026]).
Lafleur does not explicitly disclose a rack and a brush assembly: arranged within the wash cavity; comprising a brush head; and configured to sweep the brush head across the reusable diaper retained on the rack.
However, Barnand discloses it is very old and well-known in the diaper cleaning art (p. 1 col. 1 lines 1-19) to provide a rack (ref. 2, see fig. 1) and a brush assembly (p. 2 col. 1 line 63 to col. 2 line 2; col. 2 lines 84-92): arranged within the wash cavity (see fig. 1 between refs. 3); comprising a brush head (inherent in a brush); and configured to sweep the brush head across the reusable diaper retained on the rack (p. 2 col. 1 line 63 to col. 2 line 2; col. 2 lines 84-92).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drum of Lafleur to substitute with a simple rack and brush assembly, in order to enable manual scrubbing of the diaper and cleaning.
Re claim 2, Lafleur further discloses the detergent reservoir (ref. 9); a heating element (ref. 8; here the volume of the inline piping may also satisfy the water reservoir; moreover, the simple substitution of a tank and heater for an inline heater is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of laundry machines); a pump (ref. 3) (regarding a “detergent pump” and a “water pump”, the use of separate pumps for fluid control is known in the art. Here, the duplication of the pump for both the detergent and the water is prima facie obvious for the purpose of control of the amount of detergent dispensed).
Re claims 3 and 11, Lafleur discloses the heating element (see rejection to claim 2); and a pump (ref. 3) (regarding “to pump heated water from the water reservoir”, the mere rearrangement of parts of the pump downstream of the heated water (ref. 8) is an obvious rearrangement of parts, depending on space and ability to allow longer preheating of water. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts). Regarding “a valve”, Barnand discloses a hose (ref. 19) connected to a pressurized water source including a faucet of a bath tub or lavatory (thus satisfying a valve). Re claim 11, the mere duplication of pumps for moving water from a toilet tank, see Lafleur water source is toilet tank, and also from a heated tank (as opposed to in-line) is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 4, Lafleur further discloses “a valve interposed between the wash cavity and the drain gate” (¶ [0024] drain valve 21 to wastewater pipe 7) and a controller (ref. 15) to control release of water, detergent and waste (see fig. 3 ¶ [0026]-[0027]).
Re claim 5, Lafleur further discloses a controller (ref. 15) for controlling all aspects of the washer (¶ [0026]-[0027] fig. 3) including water and drying and it being prima facie obvious to further control the brush assembly.
Re claim 6, Lafleur further discloses wherein the wash drum is perforated (see fig. 2A). Barnand discloses the inclined rack (see fig. 1) and clips (ref. 14) and the brush assembly movement is prima facie obvious in view of the incline of the rack and further an intended use. See MPEP 2114.
Re claim 16, Lafleur further discloses a vent, an exhaust system and a fan (¶ [0024] integrated dryer, air intake 23 and air exhaust 24, [0030] fan), as claimed.
Re claims 18-19, Independent claim 18 and claim 19 depending therefrom read as a combination claim of limitation rejected above, and is satisfied by the combination Lafluer/Barnand.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafleur (US 2004/0134241 A1) in view of Barnand (US 1,783,147 A), and further in view of Heidtmann (US 3,439,431).
Re claim 7, Lafleur/Barnand discloses as shown above but does not disclose a microwave emitter. However, Heidtmann discloses it is very old and well-known to provide a microwave emitter for drying laundry (title, abstract, see fig. 1). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a microwave emitter and aperture, as suggested by Heidtmann, in order to provide efficient dryer control.
Re claim 17, Heidtmann further discloses humidity sensors (dryness sensor comprising circuit board 35, antenna 36…indicates moisture content) and regarding temperature sensors, Heidtmann discloses heating means (refs. 17 and 18) and it being conventionally known to control the heating means by temperature.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafleur (US 2004/0134241 A1) in view of Barnand (US 1,783,147 A), and further in view of Wagner (US 2010/0328450 A1).
Re claim 14, Lafleur/Barnand discloses as shown above including a lid (ref. 14) but does not disclose an optical sensor, as claimed. However, Wagner discloses it is well-known in the laundry washing art (abstract, ¶ [0003]) to provide an optical sensor (ref. 16 ¶ [0031]-[0032]) to scan and activate cleaning (¶ [0031]-[0032], [0048]). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lid of Lafluer/Barnand to further include an optical sensor, as taught by Wagner, in order to analyze and automate the cleaning process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 and 15 are 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:
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate a stationary frame/mobile frame as claimed including a left arm member pivotally attached to the left side of the housing and coupled to the left/first set of vertical support(s), a right arm member pivotably attached to the right side of the housing and coupled to the right/second set of vertical support(s) and configured to support the housing in a stowed position above the tank of toilet; and enable the housing to transition to an operating position above the opening of the toilet bowl, in the context of claims 8 and 10.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach an actuator; a gear rack; a brush gear; a gearbox configured to engage the gear rack; turn the brush gear; and rotate the brush head downward, the brush head in contact with the reusable diaper retained by the rack; and " a controller configured to trigger the actuator to: raster the brush head from a first position above the rack to a second position below the rack, along the gear rack; rotate the brush head downward, to brush waste toward the drain gate; in response to the brush head reaching the second position below the rack, raster the brush head to a third position, below the second position, the brush head submerged in a volume of waste liquid occupying a bottom portion of the wash cavity; in response to reaching the third position, rotate the brush head to dislodge waste accumulated on the brush head into the volume of waste liquid; and raster the brush head from the third position to the first position above the rack, along the gear rack, in the context of claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach trigger the optical sensor to capture a second image; scan the second image for a second optical fiducial; and in response to detecting an absence of the second optical fiducial in a target region in the second image: detect misalignment of a second reusable diaper; and generate a prompt to reload the second reusable diaper on the rack.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160040414 A1; US 3007329 A note portable frames for mounting/moving onto toilet.
US 8973792 B1 note optical sensor for detecting alignment of clothes for folding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711