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 with traverse of Species G in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because there is a search and/or examination burden at least when the claims require a different field of search, for example, by employing different search queries. Applicant has indicated that claims 1-20 are drawn to the elected embodiment; however, claims 5-8 and 15-18 are directed to nonelected embodiments and so are considered to be withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,979. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are either broader than or substantially the same as the conflicting claims with only minor differences in language.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,731. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are either broader than or substantially the same as the conflicting claims with only minor differences in language or only minor obvious differences. For example, claims 1 and 2 are broader than the conflicting claims, and despite differences in wording, are considered to be anticipated by the conflicting claims. And for example, claim 3 recites differences in structure, but those differences are considered to be minor differences in structure that would have been obvious to a PHOSITA (see the following prior art rejections for discussions of what is known in the prior art and considered to be obvious).
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) 1-3, 9-13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Czarnecki et al. (US 2019/0062978; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Czarnecki discloses an agitator configured to be removably mounted to an impeller mount as a clothes mover, the agitator comprising: a post having a first end and an opposing second end (1032); a connector disposed at the first end of the post, the connector being configured to removably attach to a corresponding connector of the impeller mount (1120); and a lock controllable at the opposing second end of the post, wherein the lock is configured to be adjusted between a locked position in which the agitator is secured to the impeller mount and an unlocked position allowing movement of the agitator with respect to the impeller mount (1142; controllable by manual manipulation of 1032 and/or any portion above element 1142 that can be grasped; see paragraphs 85-90).
Regarding claim 11, Czarnecki discloses a removable agitator system for a customizable laundry treating appliance, comprising: a base of the appliance having a first connector (1030); and an agitator comprising a post having a first end and an opposing second end, the agitator being configured to act as a clothes mover when coupled to the base, the agitator including a second connector configured to form a coupling with the first connector (1032, 1120); and a lock, at least partially integrated with the agitator and controllable at the second end of the post, having a first state providing for capture and release of the first and second connectors, and a second state preventing removal of the second connector of the agitator from the first connector of the base (1142; controllable by manual manipulation of 1032 and/or any portion above element 1142 that can be grasped; see paragraphs 85-90).
Regarding claims 2-3, 12, and 13, Czarnecki discloses wherein the lock defines at least one locking pin at the first end of the post (1142) and a handle provided at the second end of the post (any portion that can be grasped), such that when in the locked position, the at least one locking pin protrudes downward from a lower end of the lock to inhibit movement of the agitator within the impeller mount, and when in the unlocked position, the at least one locking pin is raised to allow for movement of the agitator within the impeller mount (paragraphs 85-90; Figures 8-10; see 1142 and any portion of 1032 above 1142 that can be grasped); wherein the agitator is configured to mount to the impeller mount using a bayonet mount connection (paragraph 86; 1140, 1142).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 19, and 20, Czarnecki discloses an actuator spring configured to bias the lock into the locked position (1136; paragraphs 86, 88); wherein the impeller mount is configured to operate as a low-profile clothes mover independent of attachment of the agitator (paragraph 90).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711