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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the wall” in line 1 where the Examiner is unclear as to which wall previously introduced is being referred back to. A review of the specification and claim structure as lead the Examiner to believe that “the wall” should refer back to the introduced “one or more walls” in claim 1. For examination purposes, the term “the wall comprises” in line 1 of claim 12 will be treated as “the one or more walls comprise[[s]]”.
Claims 13-15 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0077962 (Elvin hereinafter) in view of US 4189850 (Dieterich hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Elvin teaches a removable bin for a dryer (¶ 1) that discloses a floor (Floor 54 in Figure 3); and one or more walls extending from the floor (Walls 50/20/18 seen in Figures 2, 4, and 5), the one or more walls comprising: a lower wall portion attached to the floor (Lower wall 50 in Figures 4 and 5); a middle wall portion extending from the lower wall portion (Middle wall 20 in Figure 2, equivalently shown by 44/42/40 in Figures 4 and 5), the middle wall portion comprising: a plurality of columns (Columns with openings 38), each of the columns comprising a plurality of slot openings extending through the one or more walls (Openings 38 per ¶ 65), wherein the slot openings in adjacent ones of the columns are arranged in a staggered arrangement (Evident from Figures 2-5); and an upper wall portion extending from the middle wall portion (Upper wall 18 in Figure 2), the upper wall portion comprising a plurality of handholds (Handholds 28 in Figure 2 per ¶ 52).
Elvin is silent with respect to the slot openings being elongated. Elvin in ¶ 65 discloses that the openings 38 can be any shape.
However, Dieterich teaches a centrifugal dryer that discloses the use of elongated slots to drain fluid (Figure 1 with slots 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the slots of Elvin with the teachings of Dieterich to allow for increased fluid outflow.
Regarding claim 2, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Elvin and Dieterich would further disclose that the floor is substantially circular (Figure 3 of Elvin), and wherein the one or more walls comprise one wall (Evident from Figures 2-5 of Elvin).
Regarding claim 3, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Elvin and Dieterich would further disclose that the upper wall portion comprises an outwardly extending lip (Lip 24 of Figures 2-5 of Elvin),wherein the lip defines, at least in part, an upper opening for the bin (Figures 2-5 of Elvin).
Regarding claim 18, Elvin teaches a removable bin for a dryer (¶ 1) that discloses a substantially circular floor (Floor 54 in Figure 3); and a wall extending from the floor (Walls 50/20/18 seen in Figures 2, 4, and 5), the wall comprising: first and second ends (First end 18/20 of Figure 2 and second end 50 in Figures 4 and 5), wherein the floor is connected to the wall proximate to the second end (Second end 50 in Figures 4 and 5); a plurality of columns, each of the columns comprising a plurality of slot openings extending through the one or more walls (Openings 38 per ¶ 65), wherein the slot openings in adjacent ones of the columns are arranged in a staggered arrangement (Evident from Figures 2-5); and a plurality of handholds proximate to the first end (Handholds 28 in Figure 2 per ¶ 52).
Elvin is silent with respect to the slot openings being elongated. Elvin in ¶ 65 discloses that the openings 38 can be any shape.
However, Dieterich teaches a centrifugal dryer that discloses the use of elongated slots to drain fluid (Figure 1 with slots 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the slots of Elvin with the teachings of Dieterich to allow for increased fluid outflow.
Claims 4-11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0077962 (Elvin) in view of US 4189850 (Dieterich) and further in view of US D477145 (Sofy hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 but are silent with respect to the plurality of handholds comprises four handholds, and wherein the four handholds are arranged approximately 90° apart. Elvin in ¶ 52 discloses that any number of handles maybe used.
However, Sofy teaches a basket that discloses the plurality of handholds comprising four handholds, and wherein the four handholds are arranged approximately 90° apart (Figure 1 shows the 4 handholds separated by 90°).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the two handholds of Elvin with the 4 handholds of Sofy to allow a user to more readily grab the basket.
Regarding claim 5, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 4 where the combination of Elvin, Dieterich, and Sofy would further disclose that each of the handholds comprises: a grip portion (Grip being the surrounding area of 36 in Figure 2 of Elvin), the grip portion forming a portion of the lip (Evident from Figure 2 of Elvin); two lateral supports extending from the grip portion (Lateral supports being the top and bottom forming the opening 30 of Elvin); a lower handhold wall extending between at least a portion of the two lateral supports (Lower wall being the bottom wall forming the opening 30 where one reference line from 32 is extending towards in Figure 2 of Elvin), the lower handhold wall comprising a handhold edge extending between the two lateral supports (Evident from Figure 2 of Elvin); and a handhold opening defined, at least in part, by the handhold edge, the grip portion, and the two lateral supports (Opening 30 of Elvin Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of Elvin, Dieterich, and Sofy would further disclose a first lip member (Very top surface 36 of handhold 28 along the lip 24 of Elvin), and wherein the grip portion comprises a portion of the first lip member (Evident form Figure 2 of Elvin).
Regarding claim 7, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Elvin, Dieterich, and Sofy would further disclose that the grip portion further comprises a second lip member spaced apart from the first lip member (Second lip being the part of 36 facing towards 30).
Regarding claim 8, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 where the combination of Elvin, Dieterich, and Sofy would further disclose that the grip portion further comprises one or more lip ribs extending between the first lip member and the second lip member (Ribs seen at 36 of Figures 2 of Elvin).
Regarding claim 9, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of Elvin, Dieterich, and Sofy would further disclose that each of the lateral supports comprises two lateral walls spaced apart from each other (In Figure 2 of Elvin the lateral supports are shown to each have an inner face and an outer face which are seen as two laterally spaced walls).
Regarding claim 10, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 9 where the combination of Elvin, Dieterich, and Sofy would further disclose that each of the lateral supports further comprises one or more connecting walls extending between the two lateral walls (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the exterior face of the lateral supports spanning between the disclosed two lateral walls reads on the connecting wall).
Regarding claim 11, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Elvin, Dieterich, and Sofy would further disclose that the handhold edge is curved (Evident from Figure 2 of Elvin).
Regarding claim 17, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of Elvin, Dieterich, and Sofy would further disclose that the bin is configured to nest within a second one of the bin in a nested configuration (Figures 12-16 of Elvin), and wherein in the nested configuration, the lateral supports of the bin are adapted to rest on the lip of the second one of the bin (Evident from Figures 12-16 of Elvin).
Regarding claim 20, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 but are silent with respect to the plurality of handholds comprises four handholds, and wherein the four handholds are arranged approximately 90° apart. Elvin in ¶ 52 discloses that any number of handles maybe used.
However, Sofy teaches a basket that discloses the plurality of handholds comprising four handholds, and wherein the four handholds are arranged approximately 90° apart (Figure 1 shows the 4 handholds separated by 90°).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the two handholds of Elvin with the 4 handholds of Sofy to allow a user to more readily grab the basket.
Claims 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0077962 (Elvin) in view of US 4189850 (Dieterich) and further in view of US 8256640 (Luburic hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 but are silent with respect that the wall comprises inner and outer surfaces extending across at least the middle wall portion, the inner surface comprising a repeating pattern of surfaces, each of the patterns extending for at least a portion of a height of the inner surface and comprising: an elongated middle section, wherein the slot openings are located along the middle section; an elongated first end section extending from one end of the middle section; and an elongated second end section extending from another end of the middle section; wherein the first and second end sections are angled with respect to the middle section. Elvin’s bin inherently has inner and outer surfaces extending across the middle wall portion (Evident of Figure 2 of Elvin).
However, Luburic teaches a container and internal strengthening structure that discloses a wall that comprises inner and outer surfaces extending across at least the middle wall portion (Figures 1 and 2 show in the internal and external surfaces of the equivalent wall), the inner surface comprising a repeating pattern of surfaces (Pattern 30 in Figures 2, 10, 13, and 30), each of the patterns extending for at least a portion of a height of the inner surface (Pattern 30 in Figures 2, 10, 13, and 30) and comprising: an elongated middle section (Gaps between the patterns of 30), wherein the slot openings are located along the middle section (Resultant combination would the pattern of Luburic onto Elvin such that the slots would be within the pattern gaps); an elongated first end section extending from one end of the middle section (Any portion of the pattern extending “leftward” from the gap in the pattern); and an elongated second end section extending from another end of the middle section (Any portion of the pattern extending “rightward” from the gap in the pattern); wherein the first and second end sections are angled with respect to the middle section (Evident from the pattern 30 being raised).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the interior of the surface of Elvin with the webbing pattern of Luburic to increase the strength of the bin of Elvin.
Regarding claim 13, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 but are silent with respect to an angle between the middle section and the first end section is between approximately 170° and 179°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the pattern of Luburic as applied to Elvin such that there is an angle between the middle section and the first end section is between approximately 170° and 179°, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 . A review of the specification has not shown any criticality for this range.
Regarding claim 14, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 but are silent with respect that the angle between the middle section and the first end section is between approximately 176° and 177°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the pattern of Luburic as applied to Elvin such that the angle between the middle section and the first end section is between approximately 176° and 177°, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 . A review of the specification has not shown any criticality for this range.
Regarding claim 15, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 but are silent with respect to an angle between the middle section and the second end section is between approximately 170° and 179°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the pattern of Luburic as applied to Elvin such that there is an angle between the middle section and the second end section is between approximately 170° and 179°, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 . A review of the specification has not shown any criticality for this range.
Regarding claim 16, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 but are silent with respect that the angle between the middle section and the second end section is between approximately 176° and 177°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the pattern of Luburic as applied to Elvin such that the angle between the middle section and the second end section is between approximately 176° and 177°, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 . A review of the specification has not shown any criticality for this range.
Regarding claim 19, Elvin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 but are silent with respect that the wall comprises an inner surface, the inner surface comprising a repeating pattern of surfaces, each of the patterns extending for at least a portion of a height of the inner surface and comprising: an elongated middle section, wherein the slot openings are located along the middle section; an elongated first end section extending from one end of the middle section; and an elongated second end section extending from another end of the middle section; wherein the first and second end sections are angled with respect to the middle section. Elvin’s bin inherently has an inner surface (Evident of Figure 2 of Elvin).
However, Luburic teaches a container and internal strengthening structure that discloses a wall that comprises an inner (Figures 1 and 2 show in the internal surface of the equivalent wall), the inner surface comprising a repeating pattern of surfaces (Pattern 30 in Figures 2, 10, 13, and 30), each of the patterns extending for at least a portion of a height of the inner surface (Pattern 30 in Figures 2, 10, 13, and 30) and comprising: an elongated middle section (Gaps between the patterns of 30), wherein the slot openings are located along the middle section (Resultant combination would the pattern of Luburic onto Elvin such that the slots would be within the pattern gaps); an elongated first end section extending from one end of the middle section (Any portion of the pattern extending “leftward” from the gap in the pattern); and an elongated second end section extending from another end of the middle section (Any portion of the pattern extending “rightward” from the gap in the pattern); wherein the first and second end sections are angled with respect to the middle section (Evident from the pattern 30 being raised).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the interior of the surface of Elvin with the webbing pattern of Luburic to increase the strength of the bin of Elvin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762