1DETAILED 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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0208340 to Bixby et al. (“Bixby”) in view of US 5,546,771 to Bonar and CN 111607934 A to Fan et al. (“Fan”; cited by Applicant; machine translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, Bixby (in Figs. 7-8 and associated text) discloses a top-load washing machine appliance (10) comprising:
a wash tub (not numbered, see Fig. 7) positioned within a cabinet (14), the wash tub defining an axial direction, a radial direction, and a circumferential direction;
a wash basket (26) rotatably mounted within the wash tub and defining a wash chamber configured for receiving a load of clothes;
an agitation element (42) extending along the axial direction into the wash basket; and
a footwear cleaning basket (30) positioned within the wash basket (note basket 30 is fully capable of the intended use of cleaning footwear), the footwear cleaning basket in selective engagement with the agitation element, the footwear cleaning basket comprising:
a top wall (146) and an outer wall (34/38) extending downward from the top wall along the axial direction, the outer wall comprising a bottom rim at a bottom thereof, the footwear cleaning basket and the wash basket defining a footwear cleaning space therebetween (see Fig. 7); and
Bixby discloses the claimed invention with the exception of:
the agitation element comprising a threaded portion at a top of the agitation element, the footwear cleaning basket in selective threaded engagement with the threaded portion of the agitation element; and
a cleaning brush attached to the bottom rim of the footwear cleaning basket, the cleaning brush extending downward from the bottom rim along the axial direction into the footwear cleaning space.
Regarding (I), Bonar (in Fig. 2 and associated text) teaches an art-related washing machine having a basket (14) selectively and threadably engaged to agitator spindle (22) for mounting/unmounting the basket within a washing machine drum (10).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the washing machine basket and agitator of Bonar with threadably engaging connection in order to yield the predictable results of mounting and unmounting a basket to a washing machine agitator and drum configuration.
Regarding (II), Fan (in Figs. 4-6 and associated text) teaches an art-related washing machine with removable brushes (10) for shoe washing (see abstract and text of Figs. 4-6).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the washing machine basket of Bonar with cleaning brushes, such as those taught in Fan, in order to yield the predictable results of providing increased scrubbing/cleaning action of brushes for washing shoes/footwear.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to rearrange the top wall of Bixby and complimentary threated portion of the basket in Bonar to achieve the claimed configuration and yielding the same and predictable results of threadably mounting the basket to the agitator, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Bonar further discloses wherein the agitation element comprises a stem (22) and a cap (16), wherein the cap is engaged the stem at a top thereof, and wherein the cap comprises the threaded portion of the agitation element (see Fig. 2 of Bonar).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Fan discloses use of an annular cleaning brush but does not expressly disclose wherein the cleaning brush comprises an annular brush attached to the bottom rim of the footwear cleaning basket. However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to rearrange the cleaning brush in the combination of Bixby and Fan in such manner to yield the same and predictable results of footwear cleaning in a washing machine, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Fan discloses circumferentially spaced cleaning brushes (see Figs. 5-6), and the combination of the brushes of Fan on the basket of Bixby would readily result in the claimed brush configuration.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Bixby further discloses wherein the outer wall defines a plurality of wash holes therethrough (see Figs. 7-8 of Bixby showing plural holes in basket 34/38).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Bixby discloses the cleaning basket having an outer wall but does not expressly disclose wherein the outer wall comprises defines a frustoconical shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the basket shape as desired to achieve a basket suitable for washing items, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) regarding Obviousness and Changes in Shape.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Fan discloses plural outer cleaning brushes (see above and Figs. 5-6 of Fan), and their rearrangement would have been well within the general knowledge and skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the basket of Bixby (see Figs. 7-8) results in a cleaning space at the bottom of the rotatable drum (between the drum and basket) which is below a bottom fifty percent of the vertical height of the basket.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of the basket of Bixby and cleaning brushes of Fan would readily result in the cleaning brushes located at the bottom of the basket in Bixby proximate to the bottom impeller of the washing drum below the basket (see Fig 7 of Bixby).
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