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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, and 8, Applicant’s amendment including both the preformed mesh and porous membrane being disposed “inside the housing” of the filter has overcome the anticipation rejection, as well as the membrane materials in claim 5. However, a new rejection necessitated by the amendment has been made as indicated below.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant’s argument are persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection has been made below as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 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. Regarding claims 1 and 5, the recitation of the preformed mesh having openings “greater than 100 microns” is new matter. The original disclosure as filed supports openings “at least about 100
µ
m (microns)” which is different in scope. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of a filter with preformed mesh and at least one porous membrane inside a housing of the washing machine as well as another filter outside of the housing of the washing machine is new matter. It appears the original disclosure as filed discloses either the filter being inside or outside of the washing machine housing, but not both as claimed in amended claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0110325 to Mattley et al. (“Mattley”) in view of US 2023/0062259 to Di Maggio et al. (“Di Maggio”).
Regarding claims 1-3, Mattley discloses a washing machine (see ¶ [0153]-[0154]), comprising:
a washing compartment (drum, see ¶ [0153]-[0154]);
a water circulation system that is configured to connect to an external water supply and to supply water from the external water supply to the washing compartment and to drain water to an outlet of the water circulation system (see ¶ [0163]-[0164]; selective recirculation to drum or drain, manifestly fluidly connected to a supply in order to recirculate and/or drain); and
a filter (100,200,300,400) operably connected to the water circulation system to filter water flowing through the water circulation system, the filter comprising a preformed mesh and at least one porous membrane downstream of the preformed mesh, whereby water flowing through the water circulation system passes through the preformed mesh and then passes through the at least one porous membrane prior to exiting the outlet, and wherein the at least one porous membrane includes a plurality of openings of 3.5 microns to 100 microns to capture particles from water flowing through the porous membrane (see coarse filter prior to filter unit at ¶ [0165], use of mesh and membrane filters at ¶ [0077]-[0079], and filter media pore size from 10-100 microns at ¶ [0073]),
wherein:
the water circulation system includes a pump (impeller, see ¶ [0094]-[0095]) that recirculates at least some water by causing water that has exited the washing compartment to flow through a detergent dispenser and then into the washing compartment;
the preformed mesh comprises a polymer material, wherein the preformed polymer mesh is positioned in a fluid passageway upstream of the detergent dispenser (see ¶ [0077]-[0079]); and
the at least one porous membrane is positioned in a fluid passageway adjacent to the outlet of the water circulation system whereby water that has passed through the washing compartment passes through the at least one porous membrane before flowing out of the outlet of the water circulation system (see above with filter in detergent drawer and in recirculation line of washing machine drum),
wherein:
the water circulation system includes a fluid passageway downstream of the washing compartment (see above, inherent/implicit in a recirculation system of a washing drum); and
the preformed mesh and the at least one porous membrane are disposed in the fluid passageway downstream of the washing compartment whereby water passes through the preformed mesh and the at least one porous membrane before flowing out of the outlet of the water circulation system (see above, the filter is in the fluid passageway of the circulation system that may circulate or drain).
Mattley discloses the claimed invention including a filter with preformed mesh openings that are greater than 100 microns (see ¶ [0073]; note “mean pore size from 10 to 100 µm”, which one skilled in the art would readily interpret the average of 100 µm to include pores above and below the “mean”). Di Maggio teaches an art-related washing machine with filter configuration having a course filter (55) and fine filter (65) within filter housing (51) for filtering microfibers and the like (see Di Maggio at Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0055]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to substitute one known filter configuration for the other to yield the same and predictable filtering results.
Further regarding claim 1, Examiner’s primary position is the “mean” pore size of 100µm (microns) in Mattley reads on the claimed range of pore size “greater than 100 microns” (which includes merely even a single micron larger). Even if assuming, arguendo, that the mean pore size of 100 microns in Mattley does not read on the claimed range, it is to be expected that a change in pore size would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart pantentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art, such ranges are termed critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite, 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl, 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher, 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman, 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson, 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola, 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus, 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934). Concentration limitations are obvious absent a showing of criticality. Akzo v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours 1 USPQ 2d 1704 (Fed. Cir. 1987).since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further regarding claim 3, Mattley teaches that it is known to provide a filter inside a washing machine housing or external to the washing machine (see ¶ [0004] – [0013]) but does not expressly disclose an embodiment using filters both inside and outside of the washing machine housing. However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to merely duplicate and rearrange the filter of Mattley in such known configuration to yield the same and predictable filtering results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattley in view of Di Maggio, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of US 2020/0179846 to Zupan.
Mattley in view of Di Maggio, supra, discloses the claimed invention including use of mesh or porous membrane filters in a washing machine, as well as micron-level porous size ranging from 1-100 micron. Mattley in view of Di Maggio does not expressly disclose the filter materials as recited in claims 4-5. Zupan teaches an art-related washing machine microfilter using cellulose acetate (CA) as the filter medium in order to filter washing machine liquid (see Zupan at ¶ [0012]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to form the microfilter of Mattley using known filter materials such as cellulose acetate, as taught in Zupan, to yield the same and predictable filtration results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattley in view of Di Maggio, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of CN 108543423 A to Wang et al. (“Wang”).
Mattley and Di Maggio, supra, disclose the claimed invention including use of mesh or porous membrane filters in a washing machine, as well as micron-level porous size ranging from 1-100 micron. Neither expressly discloses the filter materials as recited in claim 5. Wang teaches that it is known to form filter membranes for wastewater using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), cellulose acetate (CA), and graphene oxide as the filter medium in order to filter waste liquid (see Wang abstract and claim 4).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to form the microfilter of Mattley/Di Maggio using known filter materials such as PTFE, CA and graphene oxide, as taught in Wang, to yield the same and predictable filtration results.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattley in view of Di Maggio, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of US 2024/0271352 to Zhao et al. (“Zhao”).
Regarding claims 6 and 9 Mattley and Di Maggio, supra, discloses the claimed invention including use of mesh or porous membrane filters in a washing machine, as well as micron-level porous size ranging from 1-100 micron. Regarding claim 8, Mattley combined with Di Maggio further discloses a washing machine comprising: a washing compartment; a water circulation system that causes water to flow through the washing compartment prior to exiting the washing machine through a water line on an exterior of the washing machine (see above); and
a filter (100,200,300,400) that is fluidly connected to the water line, the filter comprising a filter housing (101,201,301,401) having an inner surface disposed about a filter cavity, the filter including an oblong porous filter element (102,202,302,402) disposed in the filter cavity, wherein the oblong porous filter element comprises a length and a width, wherein the length is greater than the width. Mattley in view of Di Maggio does not expressly disclose the filter materials as recited in claims 6 and 8. Zhao teaches an art-related washing machine microfilter for filtering microfibers using graphene mesh to filter microfibers (see Zhao at ¶ [0121]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to form the microfilter of Mattley using known filter materials such as graphene, as taught in Zhao, to yield the same and predictable filtration results.
Regarding claim 10, Mattley discloses the claimed porous cylindrical filter, water line, and filter housing with fittings at ends. While Mattley does not expressly disclose the fitting structures being “threaded”, the use of threading for connecting/fastening mechanical elements is well within the general skill of one having ordinary skill in the art as threaded fittings are notoriously well-known in generally all mechanical arts.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of references discloses a course and micro-filtration system including mesh and membrane filter media, and micron-level pores to achieve adequate micro-filtration, and the combination of such elements would produce the same and predictable filtration results.
Regarding claim 12, Mattley (see above) discloses micro-filtration and a detergent dispenser, as well as a circulation system to flow water therethrough as claimed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattley in view of Di Maggio, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Zupan and Zhao.
Mattley and Di Maggio, supra, discloses the claimed invention including use of mesh or porous membrane filters in a washing machine, as well as micron-level porous size ranging from 1-100 micron. Neither expressly discloses the filter materials as recited in claim 7. Zupan teaches an art-related washing machine microfilter using cellulose acetate (CA) as the filter medium in order to filter washing machine liquid (see Zupan at ¶ [0012]). Zhao teaches an art-related washing machine microfilter for filtering microfibers using graphene mesh to filter microfibers (see Zhao at ¶ [0121]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to form the microfilter of Mattley using known filter materials such as cellulose acetate and graphene, as taught in Zupan and Zhao, respectively, to yield the same and predictable filtration results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. Barr can be reached at 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711