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.
Claim 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites structure of the insert in combination with a cross-brace which renders the scope of the claim unclear as to whether the claims are directed to the insert or to the combination of the insert and a cross-brace.
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 –
Claim(s) 1, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,238,069 to Morris, Jr (Morris).
Regarding claim 1, Morris discloses a tub insert (Fig 3) for a washing machine (intended use), the insert comprising a body shaped to engage a washing machine as recited, transition panels (26) operatively connected to a top edge of the tub insert body on opposite sides of the body and cross-brace support panels (28) operatively connected to a corresponding one of the transition panels at a support panel bottom edge, each of the cross-brace support panels (28) having a cross-brace opening (33) for receiving a cross-brace (intended use), wherein the support panels are capable of extending through a gap of a washing machine as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 15, Morris discloses a top insert (Fig 2) for a washing machine (intended use), the insert comprising a bottom wall (11) having a front wall edge, rear wall edge opposite front wall edge, oppositely disposed side wall edges extending between front wall edge and rear wall edge (Fig 3), front wall (13) extending upward from front wall edge and having oppositely disposed front wall side edges and front wall top edge opposite front wall edge, a rear wall (13) extending upward from rear wall edge and having oppositely disposed rear wall side edges and rear wall top edge opposite front wall edge, oppositely disposed side walls (12) each extending upward from one of the side wall edges, each side wall having a side wall front edge, side wall rear edge opposite the side wall front edge, side wall top edge opposite the side wall edge (Fig 3), wherein the bottom wall, front wall, rear wall and side walls form a tub insert body when each of front wall side edges is adjacent a corresponding one of the side wall front edges and each of the rear wall side edges is adjacent a corresponding one of the side wall rear edges and the tub insert body is shaped to engage a washing machine as recited since it has the structure as recited, a transition panel (26) operatively connected to each of the side walls at the corresponding side wall top edge, a cross-brace support panel (28) operatively connected to each of the transition panels at a support panel bottom edge, each of the cross-brace support panels having a cross-brace opening (32) for receiving a cross-brace (intended use), wherein the support panels capable of functioning with a washer machine as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 18, Morris further discloses cross-brace opening shaped to receive a cross-brace having a rectangular cross-section since it has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 3,899,121 to Herbetko.
Regarding claim 1, Herbetko discloses a tub insert (Fig 5) for a washing machine (intended use), the insert comprising a body shaped to engage a washing machine as recited, transition panels (between 29a, 29b) operatively connected to a top edge of the tub insert body on opposite sides of the body and cross-brace support panels (31) operatively connected to a corresponding one of the transition panels at a support panel bottom edge, each of the cross-brace support panels (31) having a cross-brace opening (at 31b) for receiving a cross-brace (intended use), wherein the support panels are capable of extending through a gap of a washing machine as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 2, Herbetko further discloses cross-brace opening (at 31b) of each cross-brace support panel (31) having an open end through which a cross-brace can be inserted since it has the structure as recited (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 3, Herbetko further discloses cross-brace opening of each support panel having a cross-brace detent (31d) extending into the cross-brace opening and capable of engaging a cross-brace to resist cross-brace exiting the opening through open end depending on the structure of the cross-brace.
Regarding claim 4, Herbetko further discloses cross-brace opening shaped to receive a cross-brace having a rectangular cross-section since it has the structure as recited.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbetko in view of US 2024/0327097 to Chavez Cortes et al. (Chavez).
Regarding claim 7, Herbetko discloses the tub insert of claim 1 but does not teach a cross-brace as part of a system with the insert. However, Chavez discloses a system (1) comprising an insert (12) and cross-brace (14) that is a distinct component of the tub insert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a cross-brace to Herbetko as suggested by Chavez in order to facilitate support of the insert. In particular, the modification would have resulted in the cross-brace capable of being inserted into the openings when used with a washing machine as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Chavez.
Regarding claim 20, Morris discloses the tub insert of claim 15 but does not teach a cross-brace as part of a system with the insert. However, Chavez discloses a system (1) comprising an insert (12) and cross-brace (14) that is a distinct component of the tub insert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a cross-brace to Morris as suggested by Chavez in order to facilitate support of the insert. In particular, the modification would have resulted in the cross-brace capable of being inserted into the openings when used with a washing machine as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that none of the prior art teach transition panels connected to tub insert body and cross-brace support panels connected to transition panels. This is not persuasive because Morris and Herbetko teach such transitions panels that are attached to the insert body with support panels having openings attached to the transition panels.
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735