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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, 21-25, 31-32, 41-42, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 21, both in line 6, it is unclear what is meant by the term “it”. Which of the previously cited elements is being referred to by the term “it”? Clarification and correction are required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a recovery device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “recovery device” element is already recited in independent claim 1. Thus, it is unclear if such recitation is meant to be the same or another recovery device. Clarification and correction are required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a suction device" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “suction device” element is already recited in independent claim 1. Thus, it is unclear if such recitation is meant to be the same or another suction device. Clarification and correction are required.
Claim 71 recites the limitation "the sewage temporary storage device" in line 2 and “the internal cavity in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. While such terminology is recited in some of the claims, the terminology is not recited in claims 6, 2, or 1 (from which claim 71 ultimately depends).
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(s) 1-2 and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3832001 to Eiselt et al. (“Eiselt”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Eiselt discloses a washing machine (11), comprising:
a water container (“drum receptacle” of drum 14);
a filtering device (26; see Fig. 1), being configured to communicate with the water container and to receive water from the water container for filtering (see drum outlet line 24), and has a sewage outlet (filtrate line 44) for discharging sewage to outside;
wherein, it comprises
a suction device (pump 31), being configured to perform a suction action to drive the sewage in the filtering device to be discharged through the sewage outlet under an action of pressure difference (see pump operation at p. 8 of translation, last ¶ to p. 9, ¶ 3); and
a recovery device (filtrate receptacle 60 or filtrate container 63), being configured (via line 44) to collect the sewage discharged from the filtering device.
Regarding claim 2, Eiselt further discloses wherein the suction device is connected to the sewage outlet of the filtering device and the recovery device through a suction pipeline, and performs the suction action according to an instruction (see p. 9, ¶ 3 disclosing pump control to cause suction through line 44 to flush filter of sewage into the recovery device).
Regarding claims 41-42, Eiselt further discloses the washing machine comprising:
wherein it comprises:
a suction device (pump 31), being configured to perform a suction action to pump out the sewage in the filtering device through the sewage outlet (see pump operation of Fig. 1);
a recovery device (60/63), being configured to collect and filter the sewage pumped out by the suction device, and filtered water is passed into the water container,
wherein the washing machine also includes a detergent dispensing device (50/53) connected to the water container and used for dispensing detergent into the water container; the recovery device is connected to the detergent dispensing device, and the filtered water in the recovery device is passed into the water container through the detergent dispensing device (see Fig. 2, as well as related embodiments in Figs. 3-4 showing similar recovery devices and dispensing devices as claimed).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7, 11-13, 31, and 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiselt.
Regarding claim 6 Eiselt, supra, discloses the claimed invention including a filtering device and suction pipeline, as well as multiple valves to control flow therethrough. Eiselt also discloses providing a pump to cause suction between the sewage outlet of the filtering device and a suction inlet of the suction pipeline (see Fig. 1 and associated text), but does not expressly disclose wherein an openable/closable sewage valve is provided between the sewage outlet of the filtering device and a suction inlet end of the suction pipeline. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange control valves as desired in order to achieve the same and predictable result of controlling sewage flow from the filtering device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 214404(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 7 Eiselt, supra, discloses the claimed invention including a housing (20/120/220) with a recovery chamber having first (60/160/260) and second chambers (50/150/250). Eiselt further discloses fluidly connecting the two chambers (see Figs. 2-4) and use of an additional filter (62). Eiselt does not expressly disclose the configuration wherein a filter component is disposed in the recovery chamber and divides the recovery chamber into a first chamber and a second chamber; the sewage carrying filtered impurities enters the first chamber, and enters the second chamber after being filtered by the filter component, the filtered impurities are collected in the first chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the filter as desired in order to achieve the same and predictable result of providing additional filtration to the recovery device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 214404(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claims 11-12 and similar to claim 6 above, Eiselt teaches use of valves (including one-way valves) for flow control and 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 rearrange control valves as desired in order to achieve the same and predictable result of controlling sewage flow from the filtering device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 214404(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Further regarding claim 13, Eiselt discloses various inlets, outlets and valves including the sewage inlet extending a certain length from an inner wall of the recovery device to the inside of the recovery device (see Figs. 2-4) but Eiselt does not expressly disclose the claimed configuration of claim 13 with the base body. However, as previously discussed Eiselt teaches numerous valves to control fluid flow therethrough, and the position is taken that the rearrangement above would readily result in the claimed valve arrangement in order to open/close the flow into the recovery device using a valve.
Regarding claim 31 Eiselt, supra, discloses the claimed invention including the use of valves, which function to isolate flow through the fluid pathway. Eiselt does not expressly disclose the claimed configuration of the claimed isolation mechanism between the sewage outlet and suction device in order to disconnection a connection between the suction and sewage outlet. However, rearranging the valves disclosed above would readily result in such configuration, as a one-way valve reads on the claimed “isolation mechanism”.
Regarding claim 71, Eiselt discloses the sewage outlet of the filtering device connected to plural chambers (50/60) in drawer (20) which read on the general recitation of a sewage temporary storage device and recovery device as broadly claimed. Regarding the sewage valve and configuration, see teaching above of such valves and their prima facie Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiselt in view of WO 2020/052508 to Huang et al. (“Huang”; US Nat. Stage publication US 2021/0254259 cited as unofficial translation).
Regarding claim 32 Eiselt, supra, discloses the claimed invention including use of one-way valves for fluid control. Eiselt does not expressly disclose use of a floating member and air vent for blocking the air vent when water rises. However, such float valves are old and known. Huang teaches that it is known in the washing machine art to provide a one way valve in the form of a floating ball (34) to block fluid flow based on fluid rising in a fluid chamber (2).
Thus, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the fluid flow path in the filtering device of Eiselt with a floating one-way valve, such as that taught in Eiselt, in order to block flow based on rising fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, and 21-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to EP 3832001 to Eiselt fails to teach or reasonably suggest the configuration of claim 3 (and claims dependent thereon) which includes, inter alia, a sewage temporary storage device connected to the recovery device in the claimed configuration. As described in p. 23, last ¶ of Applicant’s specification for such configuration, “[t]his avoids the situation where the sewage flows out of the filtering device 600 quickly and enters the air pump 810 along the suction pipeline 811 due to the large suction force of the air pump 810, thereby protecting the air pump 810 and preventing the working performance of the air pump 810 from being affected.”
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