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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Interview of 25 February 2026, Examiner indicated that the proposed changes would appear to overcome the current rejection over Mora. Examiner further indicated that proper patentability arguments should be included to clarify precisely how and why the proposed changes patentably distinguish the claims over the prior art. However, Applicant’s reply is wholly silent regarding any patentability arguments to clarify how a simple change in shape of the aperture patentability to the invention as claimed.
Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues the shape of the aperture renders the claims patentable. However, Applicant is silent with respect to any explanation as to how or why mere shape change imparts patentability to the claim, or any secondary considerations, and no such patentability is readily apparent based on the current record (particularly in light of the secondary reference of Wittes teaches such shapes. Applicant should more clearly define the claims and provide corresponding patentability arguments, particularly in light of the new rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 over Mora and Wittes, which was necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0164147 to Mora et al. (“Mora”) in view of US 2023/0094803 to Wittes et al. (“Wittes”).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Mora discloses a laundry appliance (100) defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, the laundry appliance comprising:
a tub (124) positioned within a cabinet;
a basket (120) rotatably mounted within the tub and defining a chamber for receiving of a load of clothes; and
a door assembly (200) rotatably mounted to the cabinet to provide selective access to the chamber, the door assembly comprising:
an outer door frame (202) defining a frame pin that extends from an inner surface of the outer door frame (note pins used to fasten outer door frame to inner door frame in Fig. 4);
a reinforcement bracket (206) positioned on the inner surface of the door assembly, the reinforcement bracket defining a frame pin aperture and a handle pin aperture, wherein the frame pin aperture is elongated along the lateral direction and configured to receive the frame pin; and
a door handle (222) defining a handle pin configured for receipt within the handle pin aperture and a handle body aperture that is configured to receive the frame pin of the outer door frame, the door handle further comprising a contact surface that conceals the handle body aperture.
Mora discloses a reinforcement bracket and door handle as an integral structure but does not disclose the structures separately. However, 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 separate the structures to achieve the same and predictable reinforcement and door opening results, since it has been held that making integral structures separate or removable for their intended purpose involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C) regarding Obviousness and Making Separable.
Mora also discloses use of mechanical pin fasteners (270) and pin-shaped bosses (240) to fasten the outer door frame, reinforcement bracket, door handle, and inner door frame together, but Mora does not disclose the claimed frame pin arrangement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to rearrange the fastening pins as desired to yield the same door assembling results, 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 1-2/13-14 and 4/16, Mora discloses apertures but does not expressly disclose wherein the frame pin aperture is elongated along the lateral direction, being wider than it is tall, and being configured to receive the frame pin such that it is constrained along the vertical direction but not along the lateral direction (as recited in claims 1 and 13) or wherein the handle body aperture is elongated along the lateral direction and the frame pin engages the handle body aperture to prevent relative movement between the outer door frame and the door handle along the vertical direction or wherein the frame pin aperture is elongated along the lateral direction and the frame pin engages the frame pin aperture to prevent relative movement between the outer door frame and the reinforcement bracket along the vertical direction (as recited in claims 2/14 and 4/16). However, such changes to the aperture shape for purposes of adjustment are known in the art. Wittes teaches that it is known in the washing machine art to provide frame structures with elongated openings (O) for purposes of adjustment (Wittes at Fig. 3 and ¶ [0052]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to provide the fastener openings of Mora with an elongated shape in order to achieve the predictable results of adjustment upon assembly.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Mora discloses circular apertures (see above cited Figs.).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, see Rearrangement of Parts above.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Mora discloses plural pin apertures and pins (see above).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, see Rearrangement of Parts above.
Regarding claim 8, upon separation the location of the reinforcement bracket above could be readily rearranged in such configuration (see Obvious to Separate and Rearrangement of Parts above).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Mora discloses plural pin apertures and pins (see above) which could readily be rearranged in the manner claimed (see Rearrangement of Parts above).
Regarding claim 10, in light of the Separation of Parts above, the result of such separation would be a single, integral piece, which could readily be formed by an injection molding process (note injection molding is an intended use operation of the claimed apparatus).
Regarding claim 11, Mora further discloses wherein the door assembly further comprises: a window (136/212) mounted within a central opening of the outer door frame, the window being positioned between the outer door frame and the reinforcement bracket along the transverse direction.
Regarding claim 12, Mora further discloses wherein the laundry appliance is a front load washing machine appliance or a front load dryer appliance (see Figs. 1-2).
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 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
Prosecution Insights