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 Status
Rejected Claims: 1-20
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
In Paragraph 0039, the tub labeled 107.
In Paragraph 0057, the generally U-shaped or semi-circular hinge channel 338.
In Paragraph 0074, the snaps 372.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Fig. 8D, 354.
In Fig. 11, 199.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 0043, “the drum 106 and may defines” in lines 3-4 should read “the drum 106 and may define”.
In Paragraph 0054, “Returning to FIG. 4” should read “Returning to FIG. 3” because the filter element is not pictured in FIG. 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The invention of independent claim 1 is directed to a filter element; therefore, all limitations wholly directed to the lifter cover have no patentable weight. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will assume Applicant intended to positively recite the limitations pertaining to the lifter cover as components or elements of the claimed inventive device.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 19, “the particulate capture chambers” twice in lines 2 and 3 of the claim should read “the particulate capture chamber”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (Korean Patent No. KR 20060122256 A) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a filter (i.e., a filter element; Fig. 9, #60) for filtering foreign material installed in the lifter body of a drum washing machine (i.e., for a removable filter apparatus of a laundry treating appliance comprising; Page 6, Lines 1-6, Machine Translation)
including a rectangular frame (i.e., a rectangular base; Fig. 9, #62)
and a filter (i.e., a filtration surface; Fig. 9, #64) installed on both sides and the bottom of the filter frame (i.e., integral to the rectangular base) where foreign substances are filtered downward and captured by the filter which can be seen to be centered along the midpoint of the base and the bottom is open as it is only covered by the filter material (i.e., defining a particulate capture chamber extending upwards from the rectangular base, the particulate capture chamber being centered along a midpoint of the rectangular base along the length of the filter element, the particulate capture chamber having an open bottom through the rectangular base; Fig. 9; Page 13, Lines 1-10, Machine Translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (Korean Patent No. KR 20060122256 A) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee anticipates the filter element of claim 1. Lee further teaches the filter (Fig. 9, #64) installed on both sides and the bottom of the filter frame where foreign substances are filtered downward and captured by the filter which can be seen to be centered along the midpoint of the base and the bottom is open as it is only covered by the filter material (i.e., the particulate capture chamber being open from below through the open bottom of the rectangular base; Fig. 9; Page 13, Lines 1-10, Machine Translation) with a rectangular shaped profile for a longitudinal wall along the length of the base (Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the particulate capture chamber defines a longitudinal wall having a teardrop shaped profile along the length of the rectangular base, the teardrop shaped profile defining a semicircular top tapering inwards to connect to the rectangular base of the filter element. However, according to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) in the case In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Therefore, the shape of the profile of the particulate capture chamber is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular shape was significant and would yield unexpected results.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al (Chinese Patent No. CN 109402952 A) hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee anticipates the filter element of claim 1. Lee further teaches the filter (Fig. 9, #64) installed on both sides and the bottom of the filter frame where foreign substances are filtered downward and captured by the filter which can be seen to be centered along the midpoint of the base and the bottom is open as it is only covered by the filter material (i.e., the particulate capture chamber defines a chamber extending upwards from the midpoint of the rectangular base, the particulate capture chamber being open from below through the bottom of the rectangular base; Fig. 9; Page 13, Lines 1-10, Machine Translation).
Lee does not teach that the particulate capture chamber defines a generally trapezoidal and hollow prism shaped chamber.
However, Zhou teaches a filter cavity (Fig. 3, #19), where the cavity is seen to be generally trapezoidal in shape (i.e., a generally trapezoidal and hollow prism shaped chamber; Paragraph 0035, Machine Translation) for the purpose of ensuring the water flow rate entering the filter chamber (Paragraph 0016, Machine Translation).
Zhou is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a washing machine lifting rib and drum washing machine that improves the filtering effect of the washing machine lifting rib (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the lifting rib as taught by Lee with the shape as taught by Zhou because the shape would ensure water flow into the filter chamber.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Zhou makes obvious the filter element of claim 2. Zhou further teaches a filter cavity (Fig. 3, #19), where the cavity is seen to be generally trapezoidal in shape with trapezoidal walls and ends (i.e., wherein the filtration surface defines two generally trapezoidal longitudinal walls of a generally consistent thickness along the longitudinal direction of the filter element, and two end caps at either end of the filtration surface that connect between the longitudinal walls to collectively define the open bottom; Fig. 3; Paragraph 0035, Machine Translation).
PNG
media_image3.png
326
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Zhou makes obvious the filter element of claim 3. Zhou further teaches trapezoidal shaped ends shown in Fig. 3 below (i.e., wherein the end caps are of a generally trapezoidal shape).
PNG
media_image4.png
326
418
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Zhou makes obvious the filter element of claim 3. Lee further teaches in Fig. 9 that the filter frame has ribs (i.e., wherein the filtration surface defines one or more lateral ribs connecting between the longitudinal walls to increase rigidity of the filtration member).
PNG
media_image5.png
476
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Lee in view of Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the end caps are of a generally triangular shape. However, Lee in view of Zhou shows that it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the end covers to match the design of the lifter shape. According to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) in the case In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Therefore, the shape of the end caps is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular shape was significant and would yield unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee makes obvious the filter element of claim 8. Lee does not teach wherein the particulate capture chamber further defines two end caps at either end of the filtration surface that enclose the ends of the longitudinal wall to collectively define the particulate capture chamber.
However, Zhou further teaches a filter cavity (Fig. 3, #19), where the cavity is seen to be generally trapezoidal in shape with trapezoidal walls and ends (i.e., wherein the particulate capture chamber further defines two end caps at either end of the filtration surface that enclose the ends of the longitudinal wall to collectively define the particulate capture chamber; Fig. 3; Paragraph 0035, Machine Translation) for the purpose of continuously lifting the clothes in the inner drum upward to more thoroughly wash the clothes (Paragraph 0036, Machine Translation).
PNG
media_image3.png
326
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter frame as taught by Lee to have end caps as taught by Zhou because the end caps would help the structure continuously lift clothes and wash them more thoroughly.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zhou as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Choi et al (US Patent Application No. 20130081432 A1) hereinafter Choi.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Zhou makes obvious the filter element of claim 3. Lee further teaches rectangular shaped ends shown in Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image6.png
362
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhou further teaches trapezoidal shaped ends shown in Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
326
418
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee in view of Zhou does not teach wherein the end caps are of a generally triangular shape.
However, Choi teaches in Fig. 3b that the ends of the lifters is in a triangular shape (i.e., wherein the end caps are of a generally triangular shape).
PNG
media_image7.png
312
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Choi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to lifters mounted on a drum of a washing machine (Abstract). According to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) in the case In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Therefore, the shape of the end caps is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular shape was significant and would yield unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Zhou makes obvious the filter element of claim 3. Lee in view of Zhou does not teach wherein the end caps slope inwards towards an apex of the filtration surface, such that the length at the apex is less than the length of the rectangular base.
However, Choi teaches in Fig. 3b that the ends of the lifters is in a triangular shape and slopes towards the top of the lifter (i.e., wherein the end caps slope inwards towards an apex of the filtration surface, such that the length at the apex is less than the length of the rectangular base).
PNG
media_image7.png
312
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
According to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) in the case In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Therefore, the shape of the end caps is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular shape was significant and would yield unexpected results.
Claims 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monacchi et al (US Patent Application No. 20130213095 A1) hereinafter Monacchi.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee anticipates the filter element of claim 1. Lee further teaches the filter (Fig. 9, #64) installed on both sides and the bottom of the filter frame where foreign substances are filtered downward and captured by the filter which can be seen to be centered along the midpoint of the base and the bottom is open as it is only covered by the filter material (Fig. 9; Page 13, Lines 1-10, Machine Translation).
Lee does not teach wherein at least a portion of the rectangular base and the filtration surface are formed of an overmolded mesh to provide filtration surfaces within the rectangular base and/or the filtration surface.
However, Monacchi teaches that it is known to form filter elements by molding for the purpose of embedding materials within them (i.e., wherein at least a portion of the rectangular base and the filtration surface are formed of an overmolded mesh to provide filtration surfaces within the rectangular base and/or the filtration surface; Paragraph 0010).
Monacchi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a washing machine with a filter element (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art to modify the filter as taught by Lee with the molding method as taught by Monacchi because the molding process would allow materials to be embedded within the filter element.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee anticipates the filter element of claim 1. Lee does not teach wherein the filter element further defines a pull formed into the rectangular base of the filter element.
However, Monacchi teaches a filter (Fig. 2, #16) with a grip (i.e., a pull; Fig. 2, #24) that is provided as part of the base of the filter (i.e., wherein the filter element further defines a pull formed into the rectangular base of the filter element) for the purpose of convenient handling (Paragraph 0035).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter frame as taught by Lee with the grip as taught by Monacchi because the grip would provide more convenient handling of the filter frame.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee in view of Monacchi makes obvious the filter element of claim 1. Monacchi further teaches that the grip is in the shape of a half circle (i.e., wherein the pull is formed as a hemispherical finger relief into the rectangular base of the filter element; Fig. 2, #24; Paragraph 0035).
PNG
media_image8.png
356
396
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung (US Patent Application No. 20220243384 A1) hereinafter Jung.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee anticipates the filter element of claim 1. Lee further teaches a first hook (Fig. 9, #66) and a second hook (Fig. 9, #68) that secure the filter in the cover (i.e., the filter element is attachable to a lift cover; Fig. 3, #40; Page 13, Machine Translation).
Lee does not teach wherein the filter element is hingedly attachable to a lift cover by a snap-on hinge assembly.
However, Jung teaches that a case (Fig. 5, #140) with a filter (i.e., the filter element; Fig. 5, #62) may be attached with hinges (i.e., is hingedly attachable; Fig. 5, #143) to a second body (Fig. 5, #170) with a cover (i.e., to a lift cover by a snap-on hinge assembly; Fig. 5, #150) for the purpose of allowing the case to be rotatably coupled with the body and cover (Paragraphs 0085-0086).
Jung is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a washing machine with a filter device located on the inner wall of the spin basket (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter as taught by Lee to be connected to the cover by hinges as taught by Jung because the hinges would allow a rotatable connection between the filter and the cover.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Jung makes obvious the filter element of claim 11. Jung further teaches in Fig. 5, shown below, that the hinge has a pin that is parallel to and spaced from the filter frame (i.e., wherein the snap-on hinge assembly includes a pivot pin defined by the filter element; the pivot pin being parallel to and spaced away from the rectangular base)
PNG
media_image9.png
602
506
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
112
114
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and in Fig. 7, shown below, that the body has a reciprocating hole (i.e., and a hinge snap defined by the lifter cover) that allows rotation (i.e., the hinge snap sized to be snapped to the pivot pin to allow the filter element to rotate freely about the pivot pin; Paragraph 0085).
PNG
media_image11.png
576
522
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
92
176
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Lee in view of Jung makes obvious the filter element of claim 12. Lee further teaches unlabeled filter stops located between the inside of the top of the lifter cover and the top of the filter frame, seen below in Figs. 4 and 7 (i.e., wherein the lifter cover defines a series of stops onto which the filter element rests inside the lifter cover in a closed position, wherein the stops collectively serve to limit the movement of the filter element into the lifter cover).
Furthermore, the claimed invention is directed to a filter element; Claim 13 is wholly directed to a lifter cover and has no patentable weight.
PNG
media_image13.png
722
253
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
736
216
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Lee in view of Choi.
Regarding Claim 16, Zhou teaches a washing machine lifting rib for a drum washing machine to improve the filtration effect of the washing machine lifting rib (i.e., a removable filter apparatus for a laundry treating appliance, comprising; Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation) comprising a lifting rib body (i.e., a lifter cover; Fig. 3, #11) shown to be in a trapezoidal prism shape (i.e., defining a generally trapezoidal prism shape; Fig. 3; Paragraph 0035, Machine Translation) with a water hole (Fig. 5, #15) located on the bottom, shown to be rectangular in shape (i.e., with an open rectangular bottom; Fig. 5; Paragraph 0039, Machine Translation) and snap-fit to a base (i.e., the lifter cover being attachable along the open rectangular bottom to a lifter base; Fig. 7, #21) shown to be located on the inner surface of a washing machine drum (i.e., of an inner circumferential surface of a drum of the laundry treating appliance; Fig. 10; Paragraph 0052, Machine Translation) with water inlet holes (i.e., through openings; Fig. 4, #12 & 13) located on the outside working surfaces of the lifting rib body (i.e., the lifter cover defining through openings to allow for free flow of water; Paragraph 0035, Machine Translation)
Where blocking members (Fig. 9, #16, 17 & 18) form a filter structure and filter cavity (Fig. 3, #19) within the lifting rib body (i.e., defining a particulate capture chamber extending upwards from the rectangular base; the particulate capture chamber having an open bottom through the rectangular base; Paragraphs 0035 and 0040, Machine Translation) that filters out lint and debris in the water (Paragraph 0037, Machine Translation).
Zhou does not teach (1) a filter element, selectively attachable to the lifter cover, the filter element sized to fit within the lifter cover to allow the filter element to capture particulate within the water flow, (2) the filter element defining a rectangular base, (3) a filtration surface, integral to the rectangular base, and (4) the particulate capture chamber being centered along the midpoint of the rectangular base along the length of the filter element.
However, Lee teaches (1) a filter (i.e., a filter element; Fig. 9, #60), with a first hook (Fig. 9, #66) and a second hook (Fig. 9, #68) that secure the filter in the cover (i.e., selectively attachable to the lifter cover; Fig. 3, #40; Page 13, Machine Translation), for filtering foreign material installed in the lifter body of a drum washing machine (i.e., the filter element sized to fit within the lifter cover to allow the filter element to capture particulate within the water flow; Page 6, Lines 1-6, Machine Translation)
(2) including a rectangular frame (i.e., the filter element defining a rectangular base; Fig. 9, #62)
(3) and a filter (i.e., a filtration surface; Fig. 9, #64) installed on both sides and the bottom of the filter frame (i.e., integral to the rectangular base)
(4) where foreign substances are filtered downward and captured by the filter which can be seen to be centered along the midpoint of the base (i.e., the particulate capture chamber being centered along the midpoint of the rectangular base along the length of the filter element; Fig. 9; Page 13, Lines 1-10, Machine Translation) for the purpose of enabling easy cleaning of the strainer in which foreign substances have accumulated (Page 8, Lines 9-17, Machine Translation).
Lee is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a lifter for a drum washing machine and a filter installed in the lifter (Page 6, Lines 1-6, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Zhou with the removable filter as taught by Lee because the removable filter would make it easier to clean the strainer of foreign substances that have accumulated.
Zhou in view of Lee do not teach that the lifter cover is slidingly attachable.
However, Choi teaches a style of attachment of lifters (Fig. 2b, #40a) to the internal surface of a washing machine drum (Fig. 2b, #31) involving slidingly attachable hooks and guide holes (i.e., the lifter cover is slidingly attachable; Figs. 2b & 3a) for the purpose of firmly mounting the lifters without requiring separate fasteners (Paragraphs 0081-0093).
Choi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to lifters mounted on a drum of a washing machine (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lifting rib made obvious by Zhou in view of Lee with the sliding attachment as taught by Choi because the sliding attachment would not require separate fasteners for firm mounting of the lifters.
Regarding Claim 17, Zhou in view of Lee in view of Choi makes obvious the removable filter apparatus of claim 16. Zhou further teaches that the lifting rib body (Fig. 3, #11) is in a trapezoidal prism shape with a filter cavity (Fig. 3, #19), where the cavity is also seen to be a generally trapezoidal prism shape with trapezoidal walls and ends (i.e., wherein the particulate capture chamber defines a hollow generally trapezoidal prism shaped chamber extending upwards; Fig. 3; Paragraph 0035, Machine Translation) and a water hole (Fig. 5, #15) located on the bottom, shown to be rectangular in shape (i.e., the particulate capture chamber being open from below through the open bottom of the rectangular base; Fig. 5; Paragraph 0039, Machine Translation).
Lee further teaches where foreign substances are filtered downward and captured by the filter which can be seen to be centered along the midpoint of the base (i.e., from the midpoint of the rectangular base; Fig. 9; Page 13, Lines 1-10, Machine Translation) for the purpose of enabling easy cleaning of the strainer in which foreign substances have accumulated (Page 8, Lines 9-17, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhou in view of Lee in view of Choi makes obvious the removable filter apparatus of claim 17. Zhou further teaches that the lifting rib body (Fig. 3, #11) is in a trapezoidal prism shape with a filter cavity (Fig. 3, #19), where the cavity is also seen to be a generally trapezoidal prism shape with trapezoidal walls and ends (i.e., two generally trapezoidal longitudinal walls of a generally consistent thickness along the longitudinal direction of the filter element, and two end caps at either end of the filtration surface that connect between the longitudinal walls to collectively define the open bottom; Fig. 3; Paragraph 0035, Machine Translation).
Lee further teaches that the filter (i.e., a filter element; Fig. 9, #60) is located in the cover (i.e., the filtration surface defines two longitudinal walls; Fig. 3, #40; Page 13, Machine Translation) and includes a rectangular frame (i.e., the filter element defining a rectangular base and walls; Fig. 9, #62).
Zhou in view of Lee in view of Choi does not teach that the filtration surface defines two generally trapezoidal longitudinal walls. However, according to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) in the case In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Therefore, the shape of the filtration surface wall is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular shape was significant and would yield unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 19, Zhou in view of Lee in view of Choi makes obvious the removable filter apparatus of claim 18. Zhou further teaches a locking block (i.e., a latch; Fig. 5, #41) with a portion that is narrowed compared to the width of the rectangular base, shown in Fig. 5 below (i.e., wherein the longitudinal walls of the particulate capture chamber define a narrowed portion with reduced width along the length of the particulate capture chamber to provide clearance for a latch defined by the lifter cover; Paragraph 0056, Machine Translation).
PNG
media_image15.png
283
369
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Zhou in view of Lee in view of Choi makes obvious the removable filter apparatus of claim 16. Zhou further teaches that the lifting rib body (Fig. 3, #11) is in a trapezoidal prism shape with a filter cavity (Fig. 3, #19), where the cavity is also seen to be a generally trapezoidal prism shape with trapezoidal walls and ends (i.e., wherein the particulate capture chamber defines walls; Fig. 3; Paragraph 0035, Machine Translation) and a water hole (Fig. 5, #15) located on the bottom, shown to be rectangular in shape (i.e., the particulate capture chamber being open from below through the open bottom of the rectangular base; Fig. 5; Paragraph 0039, Machine Translation).
Lee further teaches that the filter (i.e., a filter element; Fig. 9, #60) is located in the cover (i.e., the filtration surface defines a longitudinal wall; Fig. 3, #40; Page 13, Machine Translation) and includes a rectangular frame (i.e., the filter element defining a rectangular base and walls; Fig. 9, #62).
Zhou in view of Lee in view of Choi does not teach defining a longitudinal wall having a teardrop shaped profile along the length of the rectangular base, the teardrop shaped profile defining a semicircular top tapering inwards to connect to the rectangular base of the filter element. However, according to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) in the case In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Therefore, the shape of the filtration surface wall is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular shape was significant and would yield unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772