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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim 1, in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 2-3 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/02/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the funnel or guide structure must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “guide structure” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 claim 1, applicant states “but configurable to be of various shapes”, it is unclear if applicant is stating the housing is capable of transforming from one shape to another, or if applicant is attempting the indicate that the housing can be a shape different from a cylinder. It is believed that applicant is attempting to indicate that the housing can be different shapes, not that the housing transforms from one shape to another. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as such.
In claim 1, applicant states an “attachment mechanism” and indicates that it includes “a mechanical clutch”. Later in claim 1, applicant states “a drive mechanism” and indicates that it also includes “a mechanical clutch”. It is unclear if the mechanical clutch for each element is the same, in fact it is unclear if the attachment mechanism itself is different from the recited drive mechanism as the disclosure appears to indicate (see ref 9 also [0021 & 0036] of the published application) that such elements are the same. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as the same.
In claim 1 applicant states “manipulation of the housing in both horizontal and vertical positions”, which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean movement in both the vertical and horizontal direction. However, based on the disclosure, it appears that the clutch does not perform manipulation in horizontal or vertical directions, rather the clutch allows for rotational (see [0024 & 0036] of the published application) movement of the housing. Thus, it is unclear if applicant truly meant to state manipulation in vertical and horizontal directions. For examination purposes, the limitation of manipulation will be understood as rotation of the housing or its components therein.
In claim 1 applicant states “transmitting rotational force from the washing appliance to the canister”. It is unclear the structural differentiation between the canister and the housing as it pertains to the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as “transmitting rotational force from the washing appliance to the housing”.
In claim 1, applicant states “an access port”, however such a limitation is indented under “a drive mechanism” it is unclear if applicant is claiming the drive mechanism has an access port or such an indention is a typographical error. For examination purposes, the limitation an access port will be understood to not be indented under a drive mechanism as it is believed that access port was meant to be its own bullet and the two limitations following access port are believed to be attributed to the access port.
In claim 1, applicant states “an access port”, it is unclear if an access port is different from the “open top” of the housing or the same. For examination purposes, they will be understood to be the same.
Applicant states “the lock lid or clutch” when referring to a “closure mechanism”. However, the lock lid or clutch was previously recited to as a not positively recited element (see “adapted for closing or sealing with a lock lid and/or clutch”). Based on the phrasing of the limitation which recites such an element as not positively recited, it is unclear if the lock lid or clutch part of the modular washing drum or if it is a component distinct from the modular drum. Examiner is unsure as to whether such a limitation is part of the modular drum or rather part of the main appliance. Applicant’s remarks also appear to indicate that the closure mechanism may not be part of the modular drum (see page 2 of the response to election dated 02/02/2026). Clarification and correction are required. For examination purposes, the limitation of the lock lid will be understood to be present and refer to either a lid of the appliance or the lid of the drum.
Applicant states “incorporating a seal to prevent leakage of liquid during the washing process”. It is unclear as to how a seal can accomplish such a feature when the housing is provided “perforated holes and/or perforated lines enabling free flow of liquid or air in or out during agitation washing”. Is applicant states that the seal seals said holes during washing? The disclosure appears to contradict such a suggestion. Examiner’s best guess is that applicant is attempting to state that the seal prevent leakage from the closure mechanism during washing, and will be interpreted as such for examination purposes.
Applicant states “designed to create…” it is unclear if the fins are designed to perform such a function or actually perform such a function. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as though the fins do perform such a function.
Claim limitations “guide structure” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20150211163A1) in view of Kim (US20200024786A1, hereafter K1) and Lafrenz (US20040195844A1).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a removable drum (abstract, [0015, 0028, & 0035]) comprising: a housing (refs 80 or 180) with a generally cylindrical shape with an open top and a closed bottom (see Figs.3-4 or 7-8) and perforated holes (refs 80a or 180a) which allows flow of liquid or air; a drive mechanism which acts as an attachment mechanism including a mechanical connection (ref 80b or refs 187/182, i.e., reads on mechanical clutch) acting as a driveshaft connection point (see ref 70 attachment to refs 80b or ref 187) to engage with the washing appliance main body for manipulation of the housing (see [0054, 0069, & 0083-0087], in the case of the embodiment defined by Figs.6-8, the second pulsator is part of the housing and rotation of said second pulsator reads on manipulation of the housing); the open top of the housing defines an access port for receiving textiles or garments and the walls or rim of the housing defines a guide structure which facilitates loading of the textiles/garments (e.g., enable placement of garments/textile via the walls and prevent said textiles from entering the tub inadvertently); a closure mechanism defined by a lid (ref 16) to contain textiles within the housing; agitating fins (see grooved interior wall body of ref 80 in Figs.2-3 or ref 183) positioned inside the housing to enhance agitation of the textiles during a cycle and capable of creating at least some amount of turbulence. Kim does not disclose a sealing member or a locking mechanism. Assuming arguendo that lock lid is part of the drum and not the appliance main body, Kim does not disclose such a feature. However, a door for a drum with a sealing member is known in the art, as seen by K1. Further, the use of a locking mechanism for a home appliance is also known in the art as seen by Lafrenz.
K1 discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known that a drum (ref 23) may utilize a door (ref 100) to open and close the drum which is separate from a lid (ref 80) of the cabinet. The door closes the opening of the drum and prevents leakage [0082] via the use of door seals (ref 131 & 132).
Lafrenz discloses an art related home appliance lid (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a locking mechanism (e.g., refs 24/28) for the lid in order to prevent actuation of system elements except when the door is closed and locked for safety reasons [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to incorporate a door for the drum with door seals, as disclosed by K1, in order to prevent undesired leakage from the drum through the door (K1 [0082]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to implement a locking mechanism to secure the door during operation for safety reasons (Lafrenz [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711