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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Turning to the rejection(s) of the claims, it is noted that the terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable interpretation (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and limitations from a pending application's specification will not be read into the claims (Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices. Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or the recognition of properties that are inherently possessed by the prior art reference. Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject matter of a claim when that reference discloses each and every element set forth in the claim (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); however, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what Applicant is claiming, but only that the claims "read on” something disclosed in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984) (and overruled in part on another issue), SRI Intel v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. Of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118, 227 USPQ 577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach or suggest the newly introduced limitatnoi wherein the coating adheres microplastics “upon the humidity level within the receptacle exceeding 60%.” This is not persuasive because creating a humidity level during use in intended use of the apparatus. Applicant is reminded that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)) and “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (emphasis in original)
Applicant further argues that neither Collias nor Liao teach a pressure-sensitive coating on a lifter. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner maintains that the combination of Collias and Liao as recited in the rejection is proper.
Collias is cited for the general teaching of use of pressure sensitive adhesives in a washing machine or dryer for the purpose of removing micro and nanoplastic particles (see ¶ [0022]-[0025]). Collias expressly discloses the use of pressure sensitive adhesives on an article, such as a bar or impeller, which are commonly referred to lifter structures of washing machines and dryers (see ¶ [0023]). Examiner notes that cylindrical drums and clothes movers, particularly bar-shaped lifters or impellers, are standard and conventional components of a washing machine and dryer alike. Thus, the teaching of a standard washing machine and dryer in Collias would also teach inherent features such as the cylindrical drum and clothes movers/lifters. Collias discloses the claimed invention including zirconium beads, but Collias does not expressly discloses transition metal zirconium materials. Liao teaches that it is known to provide yttrium-zirconium beads and preparation using cesium for providing heat-insulation properties (see Liao at ¶ [0037]). Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to substitute one zirconium bead composition (such as those in Collias) with another (such as those in Liao) to yield the predictable results of desired properties, such as heat-insulation and friction resistance.
Applicant further argues that the beads of Liao are used for a different purpose. This is not persuasive because Liao is relied upon for teaching pressure sensitive coatings on a lifter (the primary reference Collias is relied upon for this, which teaches the known adhesive material of poly(2-ethylhexyl acrylate) as indicated in the rejection). While Collias expressly discloses use of zirconium beads for the base of the adhesive poly(2-ethylhexyl acrylate), Collias does not expressly disclose the ceramic coating including a bead combination of two or more transition metal or lanthanide-stabilized zirconium materials as claimed. However, such equivalent transition metal beads are known as taught by Liao (who teaches that it is known to provide yttrium-zirconium beads and preparation using cesium for providing heat-insulation properties (see Liao at ¶ [0037])). Thus, substituting one known grinding bead composition for another as a substitution of equivalent materials is considered prima facie obvious. Simply stated, it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to substitute one zirconium bead composition (such as those in Collias) with another (such as those in Liao) to yield the predictable results of desired properties, such as heat-insulation and friction resistance.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case (and contrary to Applicant’s assertion), Liao is NOT being cited for the pressure sensitive adhesive in a washer or dryer (this is taught in Collias), but for the equivalency of known materials of the base chemical component of the beads used in Collias and those claimed.
It is noted that Applicant is silent with respect to any patentability arguments or secondary considerations, such as unexpected results. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0234028 to Collias et al. (Collias”) in view of US 2018/0056637 to Liao et al. (“Liao”).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-16, Collias discloses a laundry appliance (see washing machine or clothes dryer in ¶ [0025]) comprising:
a cylindrical drum rotatable about a horizontal axis of rotation (inherent/implicit to a washing machine or clothes dryer), the cylindrical drum including a drum wall defining a receptacle for receiving laundry items and water therein, the drum wall including a curved portion and a rear wall portion having an inner surface (conventional configuration of standard washing machine or clothes dryer), the receptacle having humidity level within the cylindrical drum (inherent as any atmosphere within the cylindrical drum in Collias manifestly has a humidity level ranging from about 0-100%);
at least one lifter/mover on the inner surface and extending into the receptacle, the lifter defining a surface in contact with the laundry items and the water (inherent/implicit to a washing machine or clothes dryer; also note article may be various shaped configurations including an impeller or rectangular slide, which reads on the claimed lifter); and
a pressure-sensitive coating applied to the surface of the lifter/mover (see ¶ [0022]), the pressure-sensitive coating including a bead combination of zirconium materials coated with poly(2-ethylhexyl acrylate), wherein upon the humidity level within the receptacle exceeding 60%, the pressure-sensitive coating adheres microplastics from the laundry items and water during a laundry cycle (see zirconium beads of Example 5 and ¶ [0188] et seq.; see also poly(2-ethylhexyl acrylate) in Example 1 and as functional group in ¶ [0069]; also note the recitation of the coating adhering microplastics at an exceeded humidity of 60% is intended use and a property of the coating rather than a structural limitation of the appliance).
Collias discloses the claimed invention including zirconium beads, but Collias does not expressly discloses transition metal zirconium materials. Liao teaches that it is known to provide yttrium-zirconium beads and preparation using cesium for providing heat-insulation properties (see Liao at ¶ [0037]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to substitute one zirconium bead composition (such as those in Collias) with another (such as those in Liao) to yield the predictable results of desired properties, such as heat-insulation and friction resistance.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Collias discloses use of zirconium silicate beads (see Example 5) but does not expressly disclose zirconium oxide beads. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that such zirconium oxide beads are old and known, and the selection and substitution of old and known materials would have been well within the general knowledge and skill of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 19-20, since the materials configuration in the combination above is met, the position is taken that the pressure-sensitive materials in the combination of Collias and Liao would have the same properties of humidity adhesiveness as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Collias does not expressly disclose the thickness of the coating, and more specifically the claimed thickness range. However, absent an adequate showing of unexpected results, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to optimize the desired thickness of the coating in such manner to achieve the desired effectiveness of the pressure-sensitive coating, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II) regarding Obviousness and Routine Optimization.
Regarding claims 6-7 and making the lifter removable or the coating integrated into the lifter, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to either make the lifter separable and/or making the coating and lifter integral, since it has been held that making integral structures separate or removable, or making separate structures “integral” for their intended purpose involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C) regarding Obviousness and Making Separable, and MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B) regarding Obviousness and Making Integral.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711