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 § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2012/0096652), and in further view of McLean (US 2016/0377144) and Holzen (US 2023/0279604).
Regarding claim 1, Choi figures 1-2 teach a washing machine appliance, comprising:
a cabinet (10 machine body);
a wash tub (20) positioned within the cabinet;
a wash basket (30 rotary tub) rotatably mounted within the wash tub and defining a wash chamber configured for receiving a load of clothes;
a tub cover (70) positioned over the wash tub, the tub cover having a main body defining a perimeter.[0049-51]
Choi is silent to a plurality of bumpers mounted to the perimeter of the tub cover to absorb impacts between the tub cover and the cabinet.
McLean is directed towards a vibration isolator where figure 6 teaches the vibration isolator having protruding portions 62 separated by a flange 64 thereby defining a bumper.[0055-56]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a bumper as taught in McLean as Holzen teaches protrusions provided on the tub cover reduce the vibration and noise generated by the operation of washing machine appliance.[0029]
Regarding claim 2, McLean figure 6 teaches the plurality of bumpers comprises: two side arms (62 protruding portion) extending away from the perimeter of the tub cover; and a cross arm (64 flange) that extends between distal ends of the two side arms.
Regarding claim 3, figure 6 of McLean suggests the angle of the side arms (62 protruding portion) relative to the cross arm (64 flange) to be obtuse. However, the washing machine combination is silent to the two side arms extend at an extension angle relative to the cross arm, the extension angle being greater than 100 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide extension angle being greater than 100 degrees as a change in shape of the extension angle is an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular angle is significant.(MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the extension angle is about 135 degrees a change in shape of the extension angle is an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular angle is significant.(MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the two side arms and the cross arm define an arm thickness, the arm thickness being between about 1 and 5 millimeters as a change in size/ proportion is an obvious design choice.(MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the arm thickness is about 2 millimeters as a change in size/ proportion is an obvious design choice.(MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 7, Holzen figure 6 teaches bottom of tub cover 400 may have a slot 410 thereby suggesting a bumper opening is defined between the perimeter of the tub cover, the two side arms, and the cross arm to be an obvious modification.[0028]
Regarding claim 10, McLean figure 6 teaches the plurality of bumpers are spaced apart on the tub cover along a circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 11, McLean figure 6 suggests the plurality of bumpers comprise four bumpers positioned in four quadrants of the perimeter of the tub cover (as there are 6 bumpers defined as flange 64 with a protruding portion 62 on each side).
Regarding claim 12, McLean figure 6 teaches the plurality of bumpers are positioned at a front end, a back end, a left end, and a right end of the tub cover.
Regarding claim 13, McLean figure 6 teaches the plurality of bumpers cover greater than 20 percent of the perimeter of the tub cover.
Regarding claim 14, McLean figure 6 teaches the plurality of bumpers cover greater than 40 percent of the perimeter of the tub cover.
Regarding claim 15, McLean figure 6 suggests the plurality of bumpers define a depth measured along a radial direction and a width measured perpendicular to the radial direction, wherein a width to depth ratio is greater than 5:1. Furthermore, a change in size/proportion is an obvious design choice.(MPE 2144.04)
Regarding claim 16, Choi teaches the tub cover components may be integrally formed in an injection molding device to injection mold the tub cover thereby suggesting the plurality of bumpers are integrally molded with tub cover to be an obvious modification.[0069]
Regarding claim 17, Choi figure 1 teaches the washing machine appliance is a vertical axis washing machine.
Regarding claim 18, Choi figures 1-2 teach tub cover for a washing machine appliance, the washing machine appliance comprising a wash tub(20) positioned within a cabinet, the tub cover (70) comprising: a main body defining a perimeter.
Choi is silent to a plurality of bumpers mounted to the perimeter of the main body to absorb impacts between the tub cover and the cabinet.
McLean is directed towards a vibration isolator where figure 6 teaches the vibration isolator having protruding portions 62 separated by a flange 64 thereby defining a bumper.[0055-56]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a bumper as taught in McLean as Holzen teaches protrusions provided on the tub cover reduce the vibration and noise generated by the operation of washing machine appliance.[0029]
Regarding claim 19, McLean figure 6 teaches the plurality of bumpers comprises: two side arms (62 protruding portion) extending away from the perimeter of the tub cover; and a cross arm (64 flange) that extends between distal ends of the two side arms.
Regarding claim 20, Choi teaches the tub cover components may be integrally formed in an injection molding device to injection mold the tub cover thereby suggesting the plurality of bumpers are integrally molded with main body of the tub cover to be an obvious modification.[0069]
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2012/0096652), McLean (US 2016/0377144), and Holzen (US 2023/0279604), as applied to claim 1, and in further view Arzate (CA 2710735 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Choi modified by McLean and Holzen is silent to the plurality of bumpers are leaf springs.
Arzate is directed towards a tub cover design and fastening means where figure 10 teaches the tub cover 14 has resilient spring 74.[page 25]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide leaf springs as Arzate teaches to avoid the knocking between tub 11 and cover 14.[page 25]
Regarding claim 9, Arzate figure 5 teaches resilient fingers 56, can be found scattered approximately every ninety degrees on the above mentioned parapet 67, these are anchored on one end on the said parapet 67 and in cantilever thereby suggesting the plurality of bumpers are cantilevered arms extending from the perimeter of the tub cover to be an obvious modification.[page 22}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTI J TATE-SIMS whose telephone number is (571)272-1722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 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.
CRISTI J. TATE-SIMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/CRISTI J TATE-SIMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights