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 .
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) 1-2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 200412354 Y1 (“KR ‘354”; machine translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-8, KR ‘354 (in Figs. 1-5 and associated text) discloses a crosspiece forming a spider for a laundry appliance, comprising:
a plurality of support arms (300) extending from a center, the support arms configured to be attached to a drum of the laundry appliance, wherein the center is configured to receive a shaft (100) of a drive mechanism of the laundry appliance providing rotational motion to the drum during use,
wherein the support arms are formed from a first part (220 or 300) and a second part (other of 220 or 300), where the first part is coupled to the second part to form a hollow interior and increase inertia momentum of the spider during use (note the spider of KR ‘354 has hollow portions and is fully capable of the recited intended use of increased momentum (inherent property of increased mass),
wherein the support arms form a quadrilateral cross-section (see ends of parts 300 with rectangular end), wherein the first part is coupled to the second part by welds (see p. 3, third to last para. of translation),
wherein the first part is made of a first material and the second part is made of a second material (any material forming the first and second parts reads on the claimed “first material” and “second material”, as they can be the same or different materials),
wherein the first material is the same as the second material (both parts are made of a “metallic material”; see p. 3 of translation).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 2022/0243381 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 17-18, Kim (in Figs. 1-2, 4-5, and associated text) discloses a crosspiece forming a spider for a laundry appliance (100), comprising:
a plurality of support arms (62,63,64) extending from a center, the support arms configured to be attached to a drum of the laundry appliance, wherein the center is configured to receive a shaft (S) of a drive mechanism (41) of the laundry appliance providing rotational motion to the drum during use,
wherein the support arms are formed from a first part (one of 733 and 713) and a second part (the other of 733 and 713, where the first part is coupled to the second part to form a hollow interior and increase inertia momentum of the spider during use (the support arms of Kim are fully capable of the intended use of increasing inertia momentum which is an inherent property of increased mass),
wherein the support arms form a quadrilateral cross-section (see end at recess 755a in Fig. 4),
wherein the first part is formed having three sides and wherein the second part has a single side configured to close the three sides of the first part (see end at 751 in Fig. 4, with the top or bottom part having three sides and the other of the top or bottom part as one side forming a hollow therein),
wherein the three sides of the first part form a trapezoidal shaped cross-section (see end of arm in Fig. 5),
wherein the first part is made of a first material and the second part is made of a second material (manifestly, both parts of Kim are made of a material and read on first and second materials),
wherein the first material is the same as the second material (implicit to pair of parts forming single spider),
a crosspiece forming a spider for a laundry appliance, comprising: a plurality of support arms extending from a center, the support arms configured to be attached to a drum of the laundry appliance, wherein the center is configured to receive a shaft of a drive mechanism of the laundry appliance providing rotational motion to the drum during use; and where each support arm includes a first part and a second part, where the first part is coupled to the second part which cooperate to form a quadrilateral cross-section with a hollow interior to increase strength and inertia momentum of the spider during use (see above),
wherein the first part is formed of three sides and wherein the second part is a single side configured to close the three sides of the first part (see above),
wherein the three sides of the first part form a U-shaped cross-section (see above, note the recess in part 751 which has a U-shaped cross-section),
wherein the first part is made of a first material and the second part is made of a second material (see above),
wherein the first material is the same as the second material (see above).
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) 3, 6, 9-11, 13, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘354 or Kim.
Regarding claims 3 & 13 KR ‘354 and Kim, supra, disclose the claimed invention including a quadrilateral cross-section of a spider support arm. Neither discloses wherein the support arms form a square cross-section. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select any desired quadrilateral cross-section shape, such as square, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) regarding Obviousness and Changes in Shape.
Regarding claim 6 & 16 and Kim, Kim discloses the first part and second part fixed together but does not expressly disclose the parts coupled by welds. However, welding is a standard and conventional coupling means for such parts and the position is taken that it would have been well within the general knowledge and skill to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply common knowledge coupling methods such as welding to achieve the predictable coupling results.
Regarding claims 9 & 19, while both KR ‘354 and Kim disclose the parts being made of the same material, neither discloses the parts being made of different material. However, it is common knowledge in the art to apply different plastic materials, different metal materials, and combinations thereof, based on their desired properties such as strength, durability, lightweight, chemical inertness, etc. Thus, the position is taken that it have been well within the general knowledge and skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to select materials based on their desired properties in order to achieve the desired mechanical results.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, neither KR ‘354 nor Kim expressly disclose forming the spider from a plastic material. However, it is common knowledge that such washing machine components are generally made of either a type of plastic or metal material. Thus, the selection of one of a finite number of conventional materials for forming the spider would have been obvious (particularly the selection of one of two conventional washing machine materials). The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Regarding claim 11, each of KR ‘354 and Kim disclose spiders with hollow portions but neither discloses a fill material therein to increase inertial momentum. However, mass and inertia are directly correlated and increasing the spider mass by filling at least part of the hollow portions in order to increase inertial momentum would have been well within the general knowledge and skill in the art and would produce the same predictable increased inertial momentum results.
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