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 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the § 112 and § 102 rejections, Applicant’s amendment has overcome these rejections.
Regarding the § 103 rejections (specifically, claim 6), Applicant argues that amended independent claim 6 now recites the ozone washing machine “with a towel, an abrasive, and a garment loaded together therein, the towel and the abrasive coated with a same amount of catalyst, humectant, and water” is not taught or suggested by the cited prior art of Severns and Sunshine. However, as previously noted in prior rejections, such features are not structural features of the claimed apparatus and amount to intended use and not afforded patentable weight with respect to the claimed apparatus (specifically, the claimed structural configuration of the claimed ozone washing machine is not further limited by usable fluids and articles to be worked upon). 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 that “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) It is further noted that MPEP 2115 and caselaw is replete with teachings disclosing that expressions relating an apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding independent claim 1, the similar added additional language is intended use and not afforded patentable weight with the exception of “an ozone washing machine.” However, such feature is known in Sunshine as indicated in the rejection of claim 6.
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) 1-2, 5-6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1290259 Severns et al. (“Severns”) in view of US 2002/0017117 to Sunshine et al. (“Sunshine”).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-6, Severns (in Figs. 1-3 and associated text) discloses a garment manufacturing system comprising:
a washing machine (70);
a spray nozzle (26) positioned within the washing machine; and
a high pressure pump (24, see ¶ [0034]) coupled to the spray nozzle (see nozzle as atomizer in ¶ [0041];
further comprising: a variator configured to lower a speed of a basket within the washing machine (note speed reduction in ¶ [0069] and drive motor 54 being “variable speed”, which reads on a variator capable of lowering basket speed),
wherein the spray nozzle is configured to atomize within the washing machine: enzymes and the water; caustic soda, B-Tec-A, B-Tec-P, and carbonate; acetic acid and the water; or carbonate and the water (intended use of usable fluids; the atomizing spray nozzle of Severns is fully capable of atomizing usable fluids such as those recited).
Regarding claims 1 and 6 Severns, supra, discloses the claimed invention including a washing machine capable of washing functions, dryer functions (see ¶ [0054] and [0063]), and ozone treatment functions (see ¶ [0056]). Severns does not expressly disclose separate machines for washing, drying, and ozone washing. Sunshine teaches that it is known to provide a garment treating system with plural machines for such functions, such as a separate washing machine (26), dryer (28), and ozone machine (24; see ¶ [0083]) for the purpose of providing an integrated laundry system with functionally interralted laundry and fabric care modules according to a consumer’s needs (see ¶ [0120]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the washing machine of Severns with a separate dryer and ozone treatment machine, such as that taught in Sunshine, to yield the same and predictable results.
Alternatively, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to separate the washing, drying, and ozone functions of Severns into separate machines to yield the same washing, drying, and ozone treating results, since it has been held that making integral structures separate or removable for their intended purpose involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C) regarding Obviousness and Making Separable.
Furthermore, it is noted that the cited usable fluids, abrasive, and article worked upon, combined with the ozone washing machine, are intended use and not afforded patentable weight in apparatus claims, the ozone washing machine of Sunshine being fully capable of receiving the usable fluids and articles to be treated. Simply stated, they are not a part of the claimed ozone washing machine and do not further limit the structure thereof.
Regarding claim 10, the washing machine of Severns is configured to tumble and is fully capable of the intended use of applying ozone to a garment, and to a towel or an abrasive.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severns in view of US 2002/0017117 to Sunshine et al. (“Sunshine”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0323163 to Dunn et al. (“Dunn”).
Severns, supra, discloses the claimed invention including a washing machine capable of washing functions, dryer functions (see ¶ [0054] and [0063]), and ozone treatment functions. Severns further discloses a door on the washing machine but does not expressly disclose an insulator positioned on a door of the washing machine and peripheral to the spray nozzle, the insulator configured to prevent condensation from forming based on a temperature difference inside and outside the washing machine. However, insulating doors for preventing condensation is old and known. For instance, Dunn (at ¶ [0039]) teaches an art-related laundry treating appliance door with insulation (152) “to keep the temperature of the door outer surface 136 below acceptable temperatures and to minimize condensation within frame 130.”
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the laundry treating appliance door of Severns with insulation, such as that taught in Dunn, to yield the same and predictable results of preventing/minimizing condensation on the door.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severns in view of US 2002/0017117 to Sunshine et al. (“Sunshine”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0179690 to Cheon et al. (“Cheon”).
Severns, supra, discloses the claimed invention including a washing machine with a door. Severns does not expressly disclose a hatch within a door of the washing machine, the hatch providing access for monitoring and chemical inputs into the washing machine during operation. Cheon teaches an art-related washing machine having a hatch (at second door 80) within a door (60) for allowing monitoring (due to transparent material) or chemical inputs therethrough (see Cheon at ¶ [0070]-[0072]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the door of Severns with a hatch within the door, such as that taught in Cheon, to yield the same and predictable results of monitoring and chemical inputs of the washing machine.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severns in view of US 2002/0017117 to Sunshine et al. (“Sunshine”), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2008/0302139 to Zorn.
Regarding claims 7-8 Severns in view of Sunshine, supra, discloses the claimed invention including washing functions, dryer functions (see ¶ [0054] and [0063]), and ozone treatment functions (see ¶ [0056]). Neither disclose ozone supplying details, such as oxygen concentrator tanks or a reaction chamber to provide a corona treatment to create ozone as recited in claims 7-8. However, such ozone production is old and known in the art. Zorn teaches an ozone laundry system in which an ozone generator (118) creates ozone using a corona discharge cell using oxygen from oxygen concentrator tanks (116) to produce oxygen for ozone laundry treatment (see Zorn at [0024]-[0026]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the ozone systems of Severns in view of Sunshine above with oxygen concentrator tanks and a reaction chamber, such as that provided by Zorn, to yield the same and predictable results of producing ozone for laundry treatments.
Regarding claim 9, Severns, Sunshine, and Zorn disclose controllers which are common knowledge to include electronics cards that receive programmed controller functions. Zorn clearly discloses using such controller to monitor ozone concentrations (see ¶ [0044]), none of the cited references expressly disclose producing the claimed concentrations of 300g/Nm3 of ozone. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to optimize the ozone concentration to a desired treatment level, 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 Routine Optimization for differences in concentration.
Conclusion
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