DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/16/2026.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending and 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 .
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 1-5, 8-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (WO2021165850A1) (cited by Applicant) in view of Girondi (WO2021079226A1) (cited by Applicant), Surdick et al. (US 2019/0076760 A1) and JP 2007326041 A (machine translation attached).
Re claims 1-4, Simon discloses a filter apparatus (title, abstract) positionable outside a washing machine (abstract) and being connectable to a drain device of the washing machine (p. 4, intended use See MPEP 2114), the filter apparatus comprising: a housing (ref. 1) including an inlet and an outlet (refs. 3 and 4), having
a filter chamber (ref. 2) that are configured so that, with the filter apparatus positioned outside the washing machine and connected to the drain device, water from the drain device is flowable through the inlet on the housing into the filter case, and thereafter through the outlet of the housing and is contained within the filter chamber/filter housing while flowing from the inlet of the housing to the outlet of the housing (see fig. 1, p. 5 ¶3);
a filter (ref. 7) detachably installable in the housing so that water flowing through the inlet is flowable through the filter, and then to the outlet; and
circuitry (ref. 40, 41 and sensors 44-48, and electrical conductors (not shown) p. 7 ¶ 2), between the housing and the filter and including a controller (refs. 40, 41) configured to control the filter apparatus, and a communicator (ref. 43) configured to transmit information obtained by the filter apparatus to at least one of the washing machine or a user device. Re claim 2, at least one sensor connected to the circuitry, wherein the controller is configured to control the communicator to transmit a signal that is based on a signal detected by the at least one sensor to the at least one of the washing machine or the user device (refs. 44-48, p. 8 ¶ 2-4 to p. 9 ¶ 1). Re claims 3-4, wherein the at least one sensor includes a first sensor configured to detect an inflow of water through the inlet (ref. 46 p. 8 ¶ 2), and the controller is configured to control the communicator to transmit a drainage sensing signal to the at least one of the washing machine or the user device, in response to a detection of an inflow of water through the inlet by the first sensor (p. 11); wherein the controller is configured to control the communicator to transmit a drainage interruption signal to the at least one of the washing machine or the user device (p. 11 Blockage alarm), in response to a detection of an interruption of a water inflow through the inlet by the first sensor.
Simon does not explicitly disclose a filter case, including an inlet and an outlet, inside the housing and the circuitry outside of the filter case, so as not to be in a flow of water from the inlet to the outlet, and a user interface connected to the circuitry and exposed to outside of the filter apparatus through a portion of the housing.
However, Girondi teaches it is well known in the filter apparatus art (abstract) to provide a filter case (case of ref. 2) including an inlet and an outlet (see figs. 7a-7b refs. 81 and 82; see also fig. 6 with inlet and outlet at bottom of ref. 8) inside a housing (ref. 1, see figs. 4-6) that includes an inlet and an outlet (see fig. 4b ref. 1 inlet at ref. 951 and outlet at ref. 920; see also fig. 6 the inlet and outlet is the bottom opening of ref. 1), water to flow through the inlet of the housing and the inlet of the filter case and through the outlet of the filter case and the outlet of the housing (see figs. 4a-4c).
Regarding the location of “circuitry”, Surdick discloses it is well-known in the wireless filter indicator art (abstract) to provide circuitry (see fig. 3 ref. 50 wireless filter indicator or 54 Bluetooth transmitter) outside of the filter case, so as not to be in a flow of water from the inlet to the outlet (see fig. 3 ¶ [0026]-[0028] refs. 50 and 54 are remote from the filter 30 and not in the flow of water. Here, the positioning within the housing while on the exterior of the filter case is prima facie obvious, for purposes of integration with a “filter assembly” of Simon/Girondi, but simultaneously a standalone circuitry unit, as shown in Surdick fig. 3. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts).
Regarding “a user interface”, JP 2007326041 A discloses it is well-known in the water filtration art (abstract) to provide a housing (refs. 1 and 2, see fig. 3) with an inlet and an outlet (refs. 7 and 144, see fig. 4), a filter case (refs. 21, 51) inside the housing (see figs. 2-3), a filter (refs. 30, 60) inside the filter case, circuitry (refs. 252, 251) between the filter case and the housing (see fig. 18, housing including ref. 253), a user interface (ref. 240, 220) connected to the circuitry and exposed to outside of the filter apparatus through a portion of the housing (see fig. 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Simon to further include a filter case, as suggested by Girondi, in order to facilitate easy replacement of filters; and to further position the circuitry outside of the filter case but within the housing, as suggested by Surdick, for purposes of successfully wirelessly transferring data by Bluetooth; and to further include a user interface exposed to the outside, as suggested by JP 2007326041 A, in order to enable operational control and ease of access to information locally.
Re claim 5, Simon further discloses wherein the at least one sensor includes a second sensor configured to detect clogging of the filter (ref. 32, p. 10 ¶ 2, p. 11 filter jam), and the controller is configured to control the communicator to transmit a filter clogging signal to the at least one of the washing machine or the user device, in response to a detection of clogging of the filter by the second sensor.
Re claims 8-9, Regarding “wherein the communicator is configured to receive at least one of a drainage start signal or a drainage interruption signal from the washing machine.”, Simon further discloses drainage interruption (p. 11 blockage alarm). wherein the communicator is configured to transmit the at least one of the drainage start signal or the drainage interruption signal to the user device (p. 11 available to the user).
Re claims 12-13, Regarding “wherein the controller is configured to control the output interface to display visual information for informing clogging of the filter while the filter is installed in the filter case, in response to a detection of the clogging of the filter”, Simon disclose filter jam (p. 11) and JP2007326041A (“prompting replacement” and “filter is clogged in…time”). wherein the controller is configured to control the output interface to display visual information for informing a water inflow in response to a detection of the water inflow through the inlet (JP2007326041A digital display unit 227 for indicating the integrated flow rate and the instantaneous flow rate of the raw water flow…sensor 40…sensor 80).
Re claim 14, Simon further discloses wherein the communicator is configured to transmit information obtained by the filter apparatus to the washing machine or the user device via a server (p. 11 customer internet server account).
Re claims 15-16, Regarding “wherein the communicator is configured to transmit information obtained by the filter apparatus to the user device via the washing machine”, the mere use of a known internet connected device for data transmission is prima facie obvious in view of a server, wifi hubs or other data collection devices. There being no patentable feature in using an internet of things connected intermediary. wherein the communicator includes a wireless communication module or a wired communication module being connectable to the washing machine (transmited in real time to various physically unconnected devices).
Re claim 17, Regarding “wherein the circuitry is on an upper side of the filter case”, Simon appears to have some circuitry on an upper side (see fig. 4) and it further being an obvious rearrangement of parts depending on available space. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Re claims 18-19, Regarding “a cable connectable to an external power source for supplying power to the circuitry”, Simon teaches a battery or supercapacitor (p. 8 ¶ 8). Here, the use of an external battery is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts) and/or the use of a well-known power cord.
Claims 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (WO2021165850A1) (cited by Applicant) in view of Girondi (WO2021079226A1) (cited by Applicant), Surdick et al. (US 2019/0076760 A1) and JP 2007326041 A (machine translation attached), as applied above, and further in view of Nomura (JP 2009089947 A) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached in prior action).
Re claims 6-7, Simon/Girondi/Surdick/JP2007326041A discloses as shown above but does not disclose a filter cleaning device including a cleaning member configured to be rotatable while being in contact with a surface, through which foreign materials are filtered, of the filter while the filter is installed in the filter case, and a cleaning motor configured to rotate the cleaning member, wherein the controller is configured to operate the cleaning motor in response to a detection of a water inflow through the inlet. However, Nomura discloses a filter cleaning device (ref. 86, 87, 89, 88) including a cleaning member (ref. 86) configured to be rotatable while being in contact with a surface(see fig. 2), through which foreign materials are filtered, of the filter while the filter is installed in the filter case, and a cleaning motor (ref. 88) configured to rotate the cleaning member, wherein the controller is configured to operate the cleaning motor in response to a detection of a water inflow through the inlet (starting the brush motor along with lint amount notification). Simon discloses wherein the controller is configured to identify clogging of the filter based on a load of the cleaning motor while the cleaning motor operates, and control the communicator to transmit a filter clogging signal to the at least one of the washing machine or the user device in response to an identification that the filter has been clogged (p. 11 Filter jam).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Simon/Girondi/Surdick/JP2007326041A to further include a cleaning member, as suggested Nomura, in order to remove lint and increase efficiency.
Re claim 20, Nomura further discloses a filter cleaning device including a cleaning member configured to be rotatable while being in contact with a surface, through which foreign materials are filtered, of the filter while the filter is installed in the filter case, and a cleaning motor configured to rotate the cleaning member (see rejection to claim 6 above), wherein the controller is configured to operate the cleaning motor in response to reception of a filter cleaning command from the washing machine or the user device through the communicator (“switch for starting the driving source…provided on the operation panel”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown in the rejection above in view of JP 2007326041 A.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to Surdick, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the combination is the modification of Simon in view of Girondi and Surdick. Notably, Girondi discloses the overall nested structure of a housing (ref. 1), a filter case (ref. 8) and a filter (ref. 3), including inlets and outlets in both the housing (see fig. 4b inlet in housing ref. 1 at ref. 951 and outlet at ref. 920) and the filter case (refs. 81, 82) (see also fig. 6 showing the filter case 8 having lower inlet and outlets connecting through an opening in the housing 1 near the bottom). With regards to Surdick, the indicator 50 and bluetooth transmitter 54 are clearly on an exterior of the filter case 20 (see fig. 1). It thus being prima facie obvious in the combination integrating circuitry onto the filter casing that either and/or both the indicator 50 and the Bluetooth transmitter 54 will be on the exterior of the filter case, and thus interior of the housing when mounted into a housing, as known in Girondi.
In response to Applicant’s argument as to “control the filter apparatus”, here, the language at issue is “control the filter apparatus” wherein the filter apparatus includes at least “the circuitry” and “a communicator”. Thus, controlling the indicator and/or alarm and/or the Bluetooth transmitter fully satisfies “control the filter apparatus” as claimed. Applicant has not claimed any control not satisfied by controlling the circuitry itself.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights