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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 17 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0030772 to Root et al. (“Root”).
Regarding claim 1, Root discloses an appliance (100), comprising:
a cabinet (not numbered; see Fig. 2a);
a tub (101) disposed within the cabinet;
a fluid flow system (17,108,110; see Fig. 2a) disposed within the cabinet; and
a particulate reservoir (200) disposed within the cabinet (see Fig. 2a) and operable between a static condition (see Figs. 7-9 where press 204a is uncompressed) and a compressed condition (see compression operation in ¶ [0071]), wherein the particulate reservoir includes:
a capsule (structure forming chamber 201 in Figs. 6a-9) disposed within the cabinet and configured to receive a particulate-laden fluid;
a cap coupled to the capsule (see ¶ [0066]), note chamber is opened by “trap door or removable lid, not shown”); and
a nozzle (200) extending outward from the capsule, wherein the nozzle is configured to permit flow of the particulate-laden fluid into the capsule in the static condition (from filter 110), wherein particulates of the particulate-laden fluid are captured within the capsule (see Figs. 7-9 and operation in ¶ [0050] wherein particulates in the particulate-laden fluid are captured within the chamber 201).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Root.
Regarding claim 2, Root (supra) discloses the claimed invention including wherein the cap is decouplable from the capsule (see removable lid in ¶ [0066]) and the capsule being outside of the cabinet (see Fig. 2B), but Root does not expressly disclose wherein the capsule is removable from the cabinet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the capsule separate (note the lid is already removable) in order to make it easier to remove/replace/empty, since it has been held that making integral structures separate or removable for their intended purpose involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C) regarding Obviousness and Making Separable.
Regarding claim 3, Root discloses the claimed invention including wherein the particulate reservoir includes: a plunger assembly (204a), the plunger assembly including a shaft that extends through the capsule, the plunger assembly operable within the capsule to define the static condition and the compressed condition (see above), the plunger assembly being configured to compress particulates within the capsule into a compressed puck of particulates within the capsule (see above). Root does not expressly disclose the plunger assembly coupled to the cap and the shaft extending through the cap into the capsule. However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to rearrange the cap location as desired to achieve the same and predictable results of providing a removable lid/cap to the capsule to access the contents therein, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 4, Root (in Fig. 8) further discloses a handle (803) of the shaft, wherein the shaft extends through a front wall of the cabinet to the handle positioned exterior of the cabinet (see handle/drawer 803 being extracted from the washing machine in ¶ [0071]).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Root in view of US 2025/0090982 to Flisek et al. (“Flisek”).
Regarding claim 5, Root (supra) discloses the claimed invention including a capsule configured to receive microparticles in the particulate reservoir and capable of being compressed to compress the particles for disposal. Root does not disclose wherein the capsule is a pliable capsule defining a rounded shape, the pliable capsule being compressed when the particulate reservoir is in the compressed condition. Flisek teaches an art-related washing machine microfiber particulate reservoir in which the capsule (25) is rounded, pliable, and capable of being compressed in the compressed condition (see Flisek at Figs. 4-6 and associated text.
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide the particle reservoir of Root with the flexible and rounded capsule taught in Flisek to yield the same and predictable results of compressing microparticles for disposal.
Regarding claim 6, the pliable capsule of Flisek is fully capable of being compressed towards the cap.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Root and Flisek above would result in the same cap configuration (see also in Root above where the cap is connected to the cabinet via the handle/drawer).
Regarding claim 16, the combination above of Root in view of Flisek further discloses the fluid flow system including a separator (filter 110 in Root) configured to separate microplastics from fluid within the fluid flow system; and a pliable capsule (25 of Flisek) coupled to the cabinet, the pliable capsule defining a pliable body and a neck (neck 25a in Fig. 4 of Flisek) extending off of the pliable body.
Regarding claim 17, Flisek discloses the pliable body being made of a woven or non-woven fabric or a durable synthetic fabric, use of a flexible means 26 for pressing the body, as well as the combination of Root and Flisek disclosing a configuration wherein the body is compressed towards the cap (see pressing configurations of Root). But neither expressly disclose wherein the pliable body is comprised of an elastomeric material, and wherein the pliable body compresses towards the cap in the compressed condition. However, the selection of known materials (such as an elastomeric material) would have been well within the general knowledge and skill of ordinary skill in the art. In this particular case, the selection of an elastomeric material would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, in view of the many desirable physical properties such as flexibility, flexural recovery and durability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 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: The prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the cap and pliable body configuration in which the cap includes an outer portion coupled to the separator and an inner portion inserted into the outer portion and coupled to the neck. Such novel and non-obvious configuration provides a simple means to remove microplastics from the fluid flow system upon separating, collect, and compacting.
Conclusion
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