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 Amendment
Claims 1, 3-7, & 9-17 are pending on the application, of which claims 1 & 3-6 are amended, claims 7 & 9-12 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 13-17 are newly added.
All previous rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, and a new ground of rejection is presented below.
The amendments to specification are entered hereto, as they do not include new matter and merely correct typographical errors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new references utilized to meet the new limitations.
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 17 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "a first hose", "a second hose", and "a third hose". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same hoses recited in claim 1 or different hoses. For examination purposes, they will be understood as the same hoses recited in claim 1.
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 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohwinkel (DE102020116132A1) in view of Bolduan (US20020178764A1).
As to claim 1, Mohwinkel discloses a washing machine (Fig.1) comprising a washing tub (ref 3) and a front door (ref 31); a water supply unit (portion from housing to ref 8) connectable to an external water supply source; a front water supply port (ref 94) for cleaning the front door; a first hose (e.g., 91) connecting the water supply unit to the tub through the dispenser; a first valve (ref 8) connecting the water supply unit to the washing tub the water supply unit and the front water supply port; a second valve (ref 82) a second hose that connects the first valve to the second valve (see portion branched from ref 9 to ref 82); a third hose that connects the second valve to the water supply port (see ref 91); a controller (ref 18) which controls the valves [0017] such that the first valve controls a first flow of water along a first water supply path (e.g., see ref 9) from the water supply unit to the tub and a second flow of water along a second supply path from the water supply unit to the front water supply port.. Mohwinkel does not explicitly disclose the controller detecting a malfunction associated with a continuously supply of water along the second water flow bath and due to a failure of the first water valve and closing the second valve to block said water flow from reaching the front water supply port. However, the feature of turning off a second valve in line with a first valve when the first valve has failed is known in the art, as seen by Bolduan.
Bolduan discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known to use a controller to close one valve when another fails to prevent an overflow situation when the failure of valve is detected via dynamic and static pressure of liquid flow [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Mohwinkel to allow the controller to close the second valve when the controller detects a failure of the first valve in order to prevent an overflow situation (Bolduan [0020]).
As to claim 5, Modified Mohwinkel teaches the machine of claim 1, wherein the first valve can adjust an amount of water supplied to the washing tub along the first or second water supply paths, and the second valve can adjust an amount of water supplied to the front water supply port through the second water flow path.
Claim(s) 3 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohwinkel (DE102020116132A1) in view of Bolduan (US20020178764A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo (US20120024021A1).
As to claim 3, Modified Mohwinkel teaches the machine of claim 1, but does not disclose a third valve connected to the first and second valve. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Seo.
Seo discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein a fluid line provided to a nozzle (ref 11a) can also have a portion provided to a detergent box (ref 100). Thus, Seo indicates that a singular branched line can be utilized to feed a nozzle located at a front of the machine, and also a detergent box for feeding water into the tub. Seo further showcases that a backflow prevention device (i.e., a check valve see Fig.1 ref 200 & Figs.5-7b) is provided on a line which feeds to the nozzle and the detergent box (see Fig.4A) after a first valve. The backflow prevention device is configured to be positioned in an open position based on the pressure being above a certain value [0026 & 0124].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Mohwinkel to implement the backflow prevention device of Seo in order to prevent any backflow occurring from the detergent box to the nozzle supply line (Seo [0026 & 0124]). Accordingly, such a modification provides a third valve (Seo ref 200) and a third supply path (either outlet side of backflow prevention valve or line after backflow prevention valve leading to detergent box) which will eventually supply water to the tub from the water supply unit. The flow of water in the third water supply path is at least somewhat controlled by the backflow prevention valve.
As to claim 17, Modified Mohwinkel teaches the machine of claim 3 having a first, second, and third hose (see rejection to claim 1 above), and a fourth hose (see Seo Fig.4A portion from ref 200 leading to ref 100) connecting the third valve to the washing tub through the detergent dispenser. Furthermore, Seo indicates that additional lines may also be provided (see Figs.3A & 4) to allow for fluid to be dispensed to the tub and allowing the dosing of different additives [0072]. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate any number of separate and/or branched fluid lines (e.g., synonymous to hose) in order to allow for the supplying of various additives to the tub (Seo [0072]), thus providing various different first hoses to connect the water supply unit to the tub.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohwinkel (DE102020116132A1) in view of Bolduan (US20020178764A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pyo (KR20020008454)
As to claim 6, Modified Mohwinkel teaches the machine of claim 1, but does not disclose identifying if a door is open and closing a valve when said door is open. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Pyo.
Pyo discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a controller, which controls an opening and closing state of a water supply valve (see page 2/4), to determine if a door is open and stop a water supply if the door is open (see page 2/4). The controller also generates and alarm to inform a user that the door is open (see page 2/4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lee to provide a controller which detects if a door is open and if so, closes all water supply valves and generates an alarm in order to allow a user to be aware of the situation (Pyo page 2/4).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohwinkel (DE102020116132A1) in view of Bolduan (US20020178764A1) and Seo (US20120024021A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tincher (US20190079543A1) and Gallagher (US20170037559A1).
As to claim 15, Modified Mohwinkel teaches the machine of claim 3, but does not disclose the third valve being a ball and spring check valve. However, such a construction for check valves is well known in the art as seen by Tincher and Gallagher.
Tincher discloses an art related dispensing system (abstract) for use in a washing machine [0003], wherein a known construction for a check valve is utilizing a ball and spring which biases the ball into a closed position [0124] and fluid pressure biases the valve into an open position.
Gallagher discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein a known construction for a check valve is utilizing a ball and spring which biases the ball into a closed position and fluid pressure biases the valve into an open position [0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Mohwinkel to utilize a ball and spring check valve, as such is a known alternative check valve configuration that would provide reasonable success. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known check valve configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 16, Modified Mohwinkel teaches the machine of claim 15, but does not disclose the ball of the check valve being located at such an intersection. However, such a configuration would merely amount to a slight rearrangement of the parts that a skilled artisan would reasonably believe not produce unexpected results. So long as the check valve ball is provided in such a manner that flow can be divided (see Seo [0091]) a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the check valve at any position capable of doing so, including a configuration where the ball is located in an intersection of the second and third water supply paths (see MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 & 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
With respect to claim 4, the rejection applied above to claim 3 does teach the third valve controlling the flow of water along the third flow path. However, the opening is based on the pressure of the first water supply path being greater than the second/third flow paths in order to prevent backflow. Any attempt to further modify Mohwinkel, as applied to claim 3, to perform such a feature would render the invention unsuitable for performing its intended task. Accordingly, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the invention of claim 4. Thus, claim 4 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
With respect to claim 13, the rejection as applied to claim 3 above does not teach the feature of bypassing the second valve, rather both Seo and Mohwinkel appear to desire a degree of fluid branching in order to divide the fluid as desired (e.g., see Seo [0091]). No art of record appears to teach or suggest such a feature, thus claim 13 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
With respect to claim 14, the rejection applied above to claim 3 does teach the third valve being a check valve which controls the flow of water and prevents backflow to the first valve. However, the direction of the backflow prevention teach or suggest the prevention of backflow to the second valve. Rather, Seo appears to showcase a desired to allow such backflow as an exit through the second valve (see Fig.4A). Any attempt to further modify Mohwinkel, as applied to claim 3, to perform such a feature would render the invention unsuitable for performing its intended task. Accordingly, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the invention of claim 14. Thus, claim 14 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
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 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
Prosecution Insights