DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 6/23/2026.
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0396906 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0145789 A1).
Re claim 1, Lee discloses discloses a basket assembly (¶ [0006], see fig. 2) for a washing machine appliance (ref. 10) comprising a tub (¶ [0032]), the basket assembly comprising:
a wash basket (ref. 40 see fig. 2) rotatably mounted within the tub, the wash basket defining a wash chamber for receiving clothing articles, the wash basket comprising an annular side wall (ref. 41), the annular side wall comprising an upper circumferential edge and a lower circumferential edge (see fig. 2 upper edge and lower edge of cylinder 41),
an upper annular balance ring (ref. 43) attached directly to the upper circumferential edge, the upper annular balance ring defining a first annular fluid compartment therewithin (¶ [0073]-[0074] fluid balancers….liquid),
a lower annular balance ring (ref. 44) attached indirectly to the lower circumferential edge, the lower annular balance ring defining a second annular fluid compartment therewithin (¶ [0073]-[0074]), and
a basket bottom (ref. 42) attached directly to the lower annular balance ring, the basket bottom defining a bottom surface of the wash basket (see fig. 3).
Lee does not disclose the lower annular balance ring attached directly to the lower circumferential edge, wherein the upper annular balance ring and the lower annular balance ring are of identical construction.
Kim teaches it is known in the washing machine art (abstract) to provide a lower annular balance ring (ref. 70) attached directly to the lower circumferential edge (see fig. 4 bottom of ref. 31) of a wash basket (ref. 30) and an upper annular balance ring (ref. 60), wherein the upper annular balance ring and the lower annular balance ring are of identical construction (see fig. 2 labeled with “60(70)”; ¶ [0045] “The upper balancer 60 and the lower balancer 70, as shown in FIG. 2” (emphasis added). That is, the upper and lower balancer of identical construction having the same figure and description). Moreover, the mere duplication of parts is prima facie obvious, for the purpose of simplifying component sourcing. There being no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lower annular balance ring of Lee to further be directly attached to the lower circumferential edge of the wash basket and to have the upper and lower balancer of identical construction, as suggested by Kim, in order to provide solid transfer of vibrations and uneven forces and simplify component sourcing.
Re claim 2, Lee further discloses wherein the lower annular balance ring comprises a screw boss (ref. 442b) disposed at a top side of the lower annular balance ring, wherein the screw boss defines a first fastener hole (ref. 442bh), wherein the basket bottom defines a second fastener hole (ref. 421bh) therethrough, wherein the second fastener hole is aligned with the first fastener hole, wherein the basket assembly further comprises a mechanical fastener (ref. R) disposed within the first fastener hole and the second fastener hole, and wherein the basket bottom is attached to the lower annular balance ring via the mechanical fastener (see fig. 4-5; see also fig. 9).
Re claim 3, Lee further discloses wherein the basket assembly further comprises a bottom plate (ref. 45) and a bolt (ref. R), wherein the lower annular balance ring comprises a top side and a bottom side (see fig. 4), wherein the bottom plate is engaged with the bottom side of the lower annular balance ring, wherein the bottom plate defines a first fastener hole (ref. 453h) therethrough (see fig. 4), wherein the basket bottom is disposed at the top side of the lower annular balance ring (see figs. 3-4), wherein the basket bottom defines a second fastener hole therethrough, wherein the second fastener hole is aligned with the first fastener hole (see fig. 4), wherein the bolt is disposed within the first fastener hole and the second fastener hole, and wherein the basket bottom and the bottom plate are attached to the lower annular balance ring via the bolt (see fig. 5; see also fig. 9).
Re claims 4-5, Lee further discloses wherein the washing machine appliance further comprises a motor assembly (¶ [0039] motor) for driving rotation of the wash basket, wherein the basket bottom comprises a spline (ref. 451) positioned at a center thereof, and wherein the spline is mated to the motor assembly. wherein the washing machine appliance further comprises an agitation element (ref. 50, see fig. 2) positioned within the wash basket, and wherein the agitation element is in mechanical communication with the motor assembly (¶ [0039]).
Re claims 6-7, Kim further discloses wherein the lower annular balance ring comprises a first annular member and a second annular member (see fig. 4 ref. 71U, 71L), wherein the first annular member comprises a top side and a bottom side, wherein the second annular member comprises a top side and a bottom side, and wherein the top side of the first annular member and the bottom side of the second annular member are permanently coupled together (see fig. 4, Re “permanently coupled” see ¶ [0048] welding, etc….resins…). wherein the top side of the first annular member defines a first annular slot therewithin, wherein the bottom side of the second annular member defines a second annular slot therewithin, and wherein the first annular slot and the second annular slot are aligned to form the second annular fluid compartment (see fig. 4).
Re claim 8, Lee and/or Kim further discloses wherein the upper annular balance ring defines an inner diameter, wherein the lower annular balance ring defines an inner diameter, wherein the inner diameter of the upper annular balance ring is equivalent to the inner diameter of the lower annular balance ring (Lee see fig. 2 inner and outer diameters of ref. 43 and 44 appear equivalent; Kim see fig. 1 inner and outer diameters of ref. 60, 70 appear equivalent). It further being just a simple change in size, for manufacturing and/or ease of assembly. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Re claim 9, Regarding “wherein the second annular fluid compartment defines a second volume, wherein a balancing fluid disposed within the second annular fluid compartment fills approximately fifty percent of the second volume”, Lee further discloses balancing fluid (¶ [0018], [0073]-[0074]) and regarding the volume, the selection of approximately fifty percent is simply routine optimization of a result effective variable, where it is generally known that the volume, mass and ease of movement of fluid balancers effect the ability to reduce vibrations and noise. See MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization.
Re claims 10-18, Independent claim 10 defines over claim 1 rejected above only in the recitation of a washing machine appliance, a tub and a basket. Lee further discloses the washing machine 10, the tub (¶ [0032] outer tub), and the basket (¶ [0032] ref. 40). Re claims 11-18, Dependent claims 11-18 recite identical limitations to those rejected above and are therefore satisfied by the combination Lee/Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Here, Kim teaches that the lower balancer 60 and the upper balancer 70 are of the same construction (see Fig. 2 depicting one balancer with annotation “60(70)”. That is, the same figure is identical for both balancer 60 and 70.) Moreover, the mere duplication of parts is prima facie obvious, for the purpose of simplifying component sourcing. There being no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights