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 .
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/582,202 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180242814 to Welch further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,088,305 to Ohmann. Both sets of claims, claim a washing machine appliance comprising: a wash tub; a wash basket; a pump assembly; a recirculation conduit; a pump; a drain conduit; wherein the pump is bi-directional and direct current; a dispensing assembly with dispenser housing defining an inlet port; along with configuration therewith. The ‘202 Patent Application does not claim the limitations with respect to the filter. However, Welch discloses a filter coupled to the recirculation conduit (Welch, paragraph 16; Fig. 2, generally) wherein one of ordinary skill realizes that the filter is of a cage, screen mesh, and removable type filter thereof all in order to remove soils from the washing liquid thereof (see Fig. 4, parts 240, 242, and 250; paragraph 38). Finally, the ‘202 Patent Application in view of Welch does not disclose or make obvious that the filter is positioned within the dispensing assembly extending at a non-zero angle, however, Ohmann clearly teaches a filter within the dispensing assembly extending at a non-zero angle so that a need for separate components is obviated (see Ohmann, col. 1, ll. 50-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the ‘202 Patent Application with the filter teachings of Welch and Ohmann all in order to achieve the predictable result of removing soils from the washing liquid in unified dispenser/filter apparatus thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1688529 to Krische in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,088,305 to Ohmann.
Regarding claims 1, 3-8, 12, and 14-18, Krische discloses a washing machine appliance (Fig. 2, part 1) comprising: a wash tub (Fig. 2, part 6) positioned within a cabinet (Fig. 2, see part 1) and defining a wash chamber (Fig. 2, see part 6); a wash basket (Fig. 2, part 5) rotatably mounted within the wash tub for receiving a load of clothes; and a pump assembly (Fig. 2, at parts 7 and 13) in fluid communication with a sump of the wash tub (Fig. 2, see part 6 between parts 7 and 13), the pump assembly comprising: a recirculation conduit fluidly coupled to the sump (Fig. 2, parts 8 and 9); a pump for selectively urging a flow of wash fluid from the sump and through the recirculation conduit (Fig. 2, part 7); and a filter positioned operably coupled to the recirculation conduit for filtering the flow of wash fluid (paragraph 24).
Krische discloses a dispensing assembly (Fig. 2, part 3) mounted within the cabinet for selectively adding wash fluid into the wash tub, wherein the recirculation conduit is fluidly coupled to the dispensing assembly (Fig. 2, parts 8 and 9). Krische further discloses wherein the dispensing assembly (Fig. 2, part 3) comprises: a dispenser housing defining an inlet port (Fig. 2, at parts 3 and 9), wherein the recirculation conduit is fluidly coupled to the inlet port (Fig. 2, at part 9; paragraph 21); wherein the inlet port is defined on a back wall of the dispenser housing (Fig. 2, at parts 3 and 9); and wherein the dispenser housing defines a discharge aperture for discharging the flow of wash fluid into the wash tub after the filter has removed collected particulates (paragraph 24).
Krische does not disclose or make obvious wherein the filter extends at a non-zero angle relative to a horizontal plane; wherein the filter is positioned within the dispensing assembly, wherein the dispensing assembly comprises: a filter cage positioned within the dispenser housing for receiving the filter and wherein the filter cage is removable to facilitate cleaning of the filter and removal of collected particulates.
Ohmann discloses a washing machine (Fig. 1, generally) wherein a filter extends at a non-zero angle relative to a horizontal plane and is positioned within the dispensing assembly (Figs. 1 and 2, generally and part 56), wherein the dispensing assembly comprises: a filter cage positioned within the dispenser housing for receiving the filter and wherein the filter cage is removable to facilitate cleaning of the filter and removal of collected particulates (col. 1, ll. 44-58; Figs. 1 and 2, generally and part 56) all in order to consolidate/reduce components thereof and allow a user convenient service thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have modified the filter of Krische with the configuration of the single component dispenser filter of Ohmann all in order to consolidate/reduce components thereof.
Claims 2, 11, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1688529 to Krische in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,088,305 to Ohmann further in view of U.S. Patent 4,467,627 to Platt et al. (Platt).
Regarding claims 2, 11, 13, and 20, Krische in view of Ohmann is relied upon as above in claims 1 and 12. Krische discloses a drain conduit fluidly coupled to an external drain (Fig. 2, at part 13 and paragraph 32). Krische in view of Ohmann does not disclose or make obvious wherein the pump is a direct-current bi-directional pump for selectively urging a flow of wash fluid through the drain conduit or the recirculation conduit.
Platt discloses a pump for a washing machine wherein the pump may flow in a bi-directional manner to fill a dispenser or to drain liquid thereof and one of ordinary skill understands that the motor associated therewith is a direct current (DC) type thereof (col. 6, ll. 62-68 and col. 7, ll. 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to have substituted the pump of Krische in view of Ohmann for the direct-current bi-directional pump of Platt all in order to use a single pump to fill and drain liquid in a washing machine thereof.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1688529 to Krische in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,088,305 to Ohmann further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170159223 to Alexander et al. (Alexander).
Regarding claim 9, Krische in view of Ohmann is relied upon as above in claim 8. Krische does not disclose or make obvious wherein the inlet port defines a fan-shaped geometry to spread the flow of wash fluid.
Alexander discloses a washing machine with a dispenser system wherein a nozzle has a fanned distribution pattern to increase the surface area in which the fluid is dispensed (paragraphs 72-74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try to have modified the inlet port of Krische in view of Ohmann with the fan-shaped teaching of Alexander all in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing the surface area in which the fluid is dispensed to the dispenser thereby better mixing the fluid and chemicals thereof.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1688529 to Krische in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,088,305 to Ohmann further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180242814 to Welch.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Krische in view of Ohmann is relied upon as above in claims 1 and 12, respectively. Krische in view of Ohmann does not disclose wherein the filter is a screen mesh filter that lines a perimeter of a filter cage.
Welch discloses a washing machine (Fig. 4, generally) comprising a filter coupled to a recirculation conduit (Welch, paragraph 16; Fig. 2, generally) wherein one of ordinary skill realizes that the filter is of a cage, screen mesh type filter thereof all in order to remove soils from the washing liquid thereof (see Fig. 4, parts 240, 242, and 250; paragraph 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the filter of Krische in view of Ohmann with the cage, screen mesh type filter of Welch all in order to achieve the predictable result of removing soils from the washing liquid thereof.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has thoroughly considered and reviewed Applicant’s amendments and arguments in support of patentability, however, Examiner remains unconvinced.
Applicant’s primary argument is that the prior art to Krische does not disclose or make obvious the newly added claim limitation wherein the filter extends at a non-zero angle relative to a horizontal plane.
Examiner agrees with Applicant. However, upon further search and consideration, Examiner has applied the prior art reference to Ohmann, wherein all claims stand rejected.
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 BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (571)270-7379. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/BENJAMIN L OSTERHOUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights