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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 04/27/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 19-29 are currently pending. Claims 21-29 are newly added.
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 1-5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 19-22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 203683955 (Gai hereinafter) in view of CN 104420136 (Zhao hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Gai teaches a laundry machine that discloses a drum configured to (i) receive clothing articles (Figure 1 shows a washing machine with the drum being at 2 for holding clothing) and (ii) rotate at less than or equal to a maximum operating frequency (The washing machine of Gai is fully capable of this operating range); and a cabinet (i) housing the drum (Housing 1) and (ii) having exterior panels (Exterior panels 11 in Figures 1 and 3), wherein (a) at least one of the exterior panels includes an array of embossments (Figure 3, embossments 1111/1112/1121/1122/1123), (b) depths of the embossments vary between embossments within the array (Figure 4 shows the relative depths of the embossments), and (c) the depths of the embossments increase along the array in first and second opposing directions that extend away from a central region of the array such that a natural frequency of the at least one of the exterior panels is greater than the maximum operating frequency (Figure 4 per ¶ 38: h1 is 5.4 mm, h2 is 4.1 mm, h3 is 4.2 mm, h4 is 5.4 mm, h5 is 7.2 mm; ¶ 2 and 37 detail the increase in natural frequency). Gai in Figures 3 and 4 does show a plurality of embossments that are shallowest in the central embossments and increase in depth as they extend outward towards a top/bottom of the laundry cabinet/housing.
Gai is silent with respect to a first and a second of the embossments positioned along the central region have a first depth, a third and a fourth of the embossments positioned along opposing sides of the central region have a second depth that is greater than the first depth, and a fifth and a sixth of the embossments positioned adjacent to opposing ends of the at least one of the exterior panels have a third depth that is greater than the first and second depths.
However, Zhao teaches a laundry machine with embossments on the cabinet (Figures 1-2) that disclose a first and a second of the embossments positioned along the central region that have a first depth (Figure 1 where the upper arc and the lower arc of 2 serve as the first and second embossments), a third and a fourth of the embossments positioned along opposing sides of the central region that have a second depth (Embossments 11 in Figure 1 which are located outside of the described embossments of 2), and a fifth and a sixth of the embossments positioned adjacent to opposing ends of the at least one of the exterior panels have a third depth (Embossments formed by 12 in Figures 1 and 2). The resultant combination would maintain Gai’s depth progression in that the first and second embossments would be shallower than the third and fourth embossments which would then be shallower than the third embossments (Per Gai Figure 4 and as explained above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the layout of the embossments of Gai with the teachings of Zhao to increase rigidity of the cabinet walls while keeping Gai’s attention to frequency levels.
Regarding claim 2, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Gai further discloses that the embossments are stacked in a vertically extending column (Figure 3 of Gai and Figure 1 of Zhao).
Regarding claim 3, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where Gai further discloses that the depths of the embossments increase along the array in directions extending upward and downward from the first and second embossments (Evident from the combination of Gai and Zhao as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above and Gai’s ¶ 38 with h1 is 5.4 mm, h2 is 4.1 mm, h3 is 4.2 mm, h4 is 5.4 mm, h5 is 7.2 mm).
Regarding claim 4, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Gai further discloses that each embossment extends inward from an exterior surface of the at least one of the exterior panels to a corresponding depth (Evident from Figure 4 of Gai).
Regarding claim 5, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 4 where Gai further discloses that each embossment includes a chamfer extending from the exterior surface of the at least one of the exterior panels to the corresponding depth (Chamfered transition seen in Figure 4 of Gai from the plane of 11 to the depth of each embossment).
Regarding claim 8, Gai teaches a laundry machine (Figures 1-3) that discloses a rear panel (Rear panel between the two embossed side panels in Figure 3); and a side panel extending from the rear panel (Side panel[s] 11 in Figure 3), wherein (i) the side panel includes a plurality of embossments (Embossments 1111/1112/1121/1122/1123 in Figures 3 and 4), (ii) the embossments are aligned in an array (Figure 3), and (iii) depths of the embossments increase along the array in opposing directions that extend outward from a central region of the side panel (Figure 4 per ¶ 38: h1 is 5.4 mm, h2 is 4.1 mm, h3 is 4.2 mm, h4 is 5.4 mm, h5 is 7.2 mm). Gai in Figures 3 and 4 does show a plurality of embossments that are shallowest in the central embossments and increase in depth as they extend outward towards a top/bottom of the laundry cabinet/housing.
Gai is silent with respect to a first and a second of the embossments positioned along the central region have a first depth, a third and a fourth of the embossments positioned along opposing sides of the central region have a second depth that is greater than the first depth, and a fifth and a sixth of the embossments positioned adjacent to opposing ends of the at least one of the exterior panels have a third depth that is greater than the first and second depths.
However, Zhao teaches a laundry machine with embossments on the cabinet (Figures 1-2) that disclose a first and a second of the embossments positioned along the central region that have a first depth (Figure 1 where the upper arc and the lower arc of 2 serve as the first and second embossments), a third and a fourth of the embossments positioned along opposing sides of the central region that have a second depth (Embossments 11 in Figure 1 which are located outside of the described embossments of 2), and a fifth and a sixth of the embossments positioned adjacent to opposing ends of the at least one of the exterior panels have a third depth (Embossments formed by 12 in Figures 1 and 2). The resultant combination would maintain Gai’s depth progression in that the first and second embossments would be shallower than the third and fourth embossments which would then be shallower than the third embossments (Per Gai Figure 4 and as explained above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the layout of the embossments of Gai with the teachings of Zhao to increase rigidity of the cabinet walls while keeping Gai’s attention to frequency levels.
Regarding claim 9, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where Gai further discloses that each embossment extends inward from an exterior surface of the side panel to a corresponding depth (Evident from Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 13, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 9 where Gai further discloses that the depths of the embossments increase in directions extending upward and downward from the first and second embossments (Evident from the combination of Gai and Zhao as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above and Gai’s ¶ 38 with Figure 4: h1 is 5.4 mm, h2 is 4.1 mm, h3 is 4.2 mm, h4 is 5.4 mm, h5 is 7.2 mm).
Regarding claim 14, Gai teaches a laundry machine (Figures 1-4) that discloses at least one panel (Figure 3, Panel 11), wherein (i) the at least one panel includes a plurality of embossments (Embossments 1111/1112/1121/1122/1123 in Figures 3 and 4), (ii) depths of the embossments vary (Evident from Figure 4 and ¶ 38), and (iii) the depths of the embossments increase opposing directions that extend away from a central region of the at least one panel such that a natural frequency of the at least one of the panel is greater than an operational frequency of the laundry machine (Figure 4 per ¶ 38: h1 is 5.4 mm, h2 is 4.1 mm, h3 is 4.2 mm, h4 is 5.4 mm, h5 is 7.2 mm; ¶ 2 and 37 detail the increase in natural frequency). Gai in Figures 3 and 4 does show a plurality of embossments that are shallowest in the central embossments and increase in depth as they extend outward towards a top/bottom of the laundry cabinet/housing.
Gai is silent with respect to a first and a second of the embossments positioned along the central region have a first depth, a third and a fourth of the embossments positioned along opposing sides of the central region have a second depth that is greater than the first depth, and a fifth and a sixth of the embossments positioned adjacent to opposing ends of the at least one of the exterior panels have a third depth that is greater than the first and second depths.
However, Zhao teaches a laundry machine with embossments on the cabinet (Figures 1-2) that disclose a first and a second of the embossments positioned along the central region that have a first depth (Figure 1 where the upper arc and the lower arc of 2 serve as the first and second embossments), a third and a fourth of the embossments positioned along opposing sides of the central region that have a second depth (Embossments 11 in Figure 1 which are located outside of the described embossments of 2), and a fifth and a sixth of the embossments positioned adjacent to opposing ends of the at least one of the exterior panels have a third depth (Embossments formed by 12 in Figures 1 and 2). The resultant combination would maintain Gai’s depth progression in that the first and second embossments would be shallower than the third and fourth embossments which would then be shallower than the third embossments (Per Gai Figure 4 and as explained above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the layout of the embossments of Gai with the teachings of Zhao to increase rigidity of the cabinet walls while keeping Gai’s attention to frequency levels.
Regarding claim 19, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where Gai further discloses that the embossments are stacked in a vertically extending column (Figure 3 of Gai and Figure 1 of Zhao).
Regarding claim 20, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 19 where Gai further discloses that the depths of the embossments increase in directions extending upward and downward from one or more centrally positioned embossments (Evident from the combination of Gai and Zhao as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above and Gai’s ¶ 38 with Figure 4: h1 is 5.4 mm, h2 is 4.1 mm, h3 is 4.2 mm, h4 is 5.4 mm, h5 is 7.2 mm).
Regarding claim 21, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Gai and Zhao would further disclose that the embossments are rectangular in shape having long sides extending between lateral edges of the at least one of the exterior panels and short sides extending between top and bottom edges of the at least one of the exterior panels (Figure 1 of Zhao shows what is being interpreted as rectangular shapes for the embossments).
Regarding claim 22, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 21 where the combination of Gai and Zhao would further disclose that the embossments are equidistantly spaced-apart between the top and bottom edges of the at least one of the exterior panels (Evident from Figure 1 of Zhao).
Regarding claim 24, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Gai and Zhao would further disclose that the embossments are rectangular in shape having long sides extending between lateral edges of the at least one of the exterior panels and short sides extending between top and bottom edges of the at least one of the exterior panels (Figure 1 of Zhao shows what is being interpreted as rectangular shapes for the embossments).
Regarding claim 25, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 24 where the combination of Gai and Zhao would further disclose that the embossments are equidistantly spaced-apart between the top and bottom edges of the at least one of the exterior panels (Evident from Figure 1 of Zhao).
Regarding claim 27, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Gai and Zhao would further disclose that the embossments are rectangular in shape having long sides extending between lateral edges of the at least one of the exterior panels and short sides extending between top and bottom edges of the at least one of the exterior panels (Figure 1 of Zhao shows what is being interpreted as rectangular shapes for the embossments).
Regarding claim 28, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 27 where the combination of Gai and Zhao would further disclose that the embossments are equidistantly spaced-apart between the top and bottom edges of the at least one of the exterior panels (Evident from Figure 1 of Zhao).
Claims 23, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 203683955 (Gai) in view of CN 104420136 (Zhao) and further in view of US 2011/0227462 (Bohm hereinafter).
Regarding claim 23, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 4 but are silent with respect that each embossment includes a fillet extending from the exterior surface of the at least one of the exterior panels to the corresponding depth.
However, Bohm teaches embossments on a laundry cabinet wall that discloses that each embossment includes a fillet extending from the exterior surface of the at least one of the exterior panels to the corresponding depth (Figure 3 shows fillets r1 and r2 relative to the equivalent depth formed by r3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transition from the cabinet wall to the embossment of Gai with the teachings of Bohm to increase the ease of manufacturing per ¶ 39 of Bohm.
Regarding claim 26, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 9 but are silent with respect that each embossment includes a fillet extending from the exterior surface of the at least one of the exterior panels to the corresponding depth
However, Bohm teaches embossments on a laundry cabinet wall that discloses that each embossment includes a fillet extending from the exterior surface of the at least one of the exterior panels to the corresponding depth (Figure 3 shows fillets r1 and r2 relative to the equivalent depth formed by r3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transition from the cabinet wall to the embossment of Gai with the teachings of Bohm to increase the ease of manufacturing per ¶ 39 of Bohm.
Regarding claim 29, Gai’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 but are silent with respect that each embossment includes a fillet extending from the exterior surface of the at least one of the exterior panels to the corresponding depth.
However, Bohm teaches embossments on a laundry cabinet wall that discloses that each embossment includes a fillet extending from the exterior surface of the at least one of the exterior panels to the corresponding depth (Figure 3 shows fillets r1 and r2 relative to the equivalent depth formed by r3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transition from the cabinet wall to the embossment of Gai with the teachings of Bohm to increase the ease of manufacturing per ¶ 39 of Bohm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 19-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights