DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 5/20/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search burden is not increased given the overlap in claim scope between each invention. This is not found persuasive because the groups are drawn to materially different inventions based on divergent subject matter, such divergent subject matter requiring unique searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/20/26.
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.
Claims 1-17 are 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.
Claims 1 and 10 refer to a “wash tank,” and claims 1-3 refer to a “wash machine tank.” It is unclear if these are the same or separate components. The terms “a wash tank” in line 3 and “the wash machine tank” in line 3 both lack proper antecedent basis, which suggests that the terms may be intended to refer to the same component. For purposes of examination the terms are assumed to refer to the same component of the laundry wash machine.
Claims 8 and 9 recite the limitation "the use solution". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 6 are in claim 1; thus, claim 6 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120137447 by Aykroyd et al.
As to claim 1, Aykroyd discloses a method of reusing water from a wash tank of a laundry wash machine, comprising introducing a supply of water to the wash tank wherein the wash tank contains soiled articles (fig. 2, 102/108); washing the articles (para. 24) that comprise laundry textiles (para. 25); rinsing the articles in the wash tank (paras. 26, 28); delivering the supply of water to a drain water pump 58 and a reservoir tank 70 (fig. 1; para. 18; fig. 2, 114); providing the water to a transfer pump 74 (para. 18); and delivering the water back to the wash tank (para. 18).
As to claim 2, Aykroyd discloses a step of adding a cleaning composition to the wash tank (para. 14).
As to claim 3, Aykroyd discloses that the cleaning composition is added to the wash tank through a dispenser 30 in fluid communication with the wash tank (fig. 1).
As to claim 4, Aykroyd discloses that the cleaning composition is provided as a concentrate which is diluted (paras. 14-15).
As to claim 6, Aykroyd discloses that the articles comprise laundry textiles (para. 25).
As to claim 10, Aykroyd discloses delivering the water back to the wash tank comprises pumping the supply of water (para. 18).
As to claim 12, Aykroyd discloses dumping the reservoir tank (para. 18).
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.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120137447 by Aykroyd et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170209016 by Leuchten et al.
As to claim 5, Aykroyd does not teach particulars of a cleaning composition, and thus does not teach a composition that comprises the claimed components. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a cleaning composition as claimed. As to claim 23, Leuchten teaches that a source of alkalinity provides optimized reduction in germs count (paras. 85-86), surfactants are known and used to improve cleaning capabilities (para. 41), anti-redeposition agents prevent loosened soil from redepositing onto cleaned fabrics (para. 92), and chelants assist in cleaning and detergency (para. 109). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use the aforementioned components in a cleaning composition for their known benefits and expected results.
As to claim 11, Aykroyd is silent as to a temperature. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to conduct the method of Aykroyd at a temperature of between about 40C to 70C. Leuchten teaches a method of washing and rinsing soiled laundry articles, the washing carried out at a comparably low temperature within the claimed range that can sufficiently clean textiles with lower costs (para. 14). Based on the teachings of Leuchten one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to perform the method at a temperature within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success based on the evidence presented by Leuchten.
As to claim 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the method of Aykroyd to provide for the removal of at least one of the claimed soils since the soils are very common on textiles and washing machines and cleaning compositions are intended to remove such soils. Additionally, Leuchten explicitly teaches that enzymes in a cleaning composition provide for the removal of at least proteinaceous soils (para. 147).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120137447 by Aykroyd et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180298546 by Kim et al.
As to claim 7, Aykroyd does not teach delivering the supply of water to at least one filter. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to deliver wash water to a filter. Kim teaches that delivering a supply of wash water to a filter in a laundry washing machine lint will be filtered, which prevents lint from sticking to laundry again during rinsing and dehydration (para. 153). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a step of delivering water to a filter in order to remove lint, as taught by Kim.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120137447 by Aykroyd et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180298546 by Kim et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20070044819 by Chan et al.
As to claim 8, Aykroyd is silent as to a particular dosing method to achieve a desired concentration. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to add a use solution for a predetermined amount of time in order to achieve a desired concentration. Chan teaches that dosing a chemical to achieve a desired concentration may be performed by adding the chemical for a predetermined amount of time, based its concentration, to achieve a desired concentration in wash water (para. 39). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a use solution as claimed in order to provide the appropriate concentration for different chemicals.
As to claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious, in particular based on common knowledge in the art and the teachings of Chan, to add a use solution to a predetermined volume to create a desired concentration. Dilution of a concentrated use solution in wash water to achieve a desired concentration is based on a ratio of solution volume to wash water volume. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that adding a use solution a predetermined volume would be required to achieve a desired concentration in the wash water.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120137447 by Aykroyd et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180116483 by Glass.
As to claim 13, Aykroyd does not teach dumping the reservoir tank if the temperature of the tank falls below a predetermined level. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to dump the tank in the claimed situation. Glass teaches that recovered wash water in a reservoir used to provide heat recovery is dumped once its useful heat has been recovered, for example at a predetermined temperature (para. 38). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide for heat recovery in the laundry machine taught by Aykroyd in order to conserve energy, as taught by Glass, and to further dump the water in the reservoir tank when its temperature falls below a threshold in which recoverable heat has been transferred, as further taught by Glass.
As to claim 16, Glass teaches dumping the reservoir tank by a programmable controller (para. 38).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120137447 by Aykroyd et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220034019 by Daniels.
As to claim 14, Aykroyd does not teach dumping the reservoir tank if the tank is idle for longer than a predetermined time. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to dump the tank in the claimed situation. Daniels teaches that recovered wash water should be dumped at regular intervals in order to prevent hardening or solidification of treating compositions in the event the machine is not operated for a prolonged period of time (para. 52). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to dump the reservoir tank after a predetermined time in order to avoid hardening or solidification of treating compositions in the wash water.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120137447 by Aykroyd et al. in view of U.S. Patent 10000880 granted to Borchard et al.
As to claim 15, Aykroyd does not teach dumping the reservoir tank manually. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to do so. Borchard teaches that a tank may be manually dumped for maintenance and/or removing solids from the tank bottom (col. 17, ll. 17-22). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus had motivation to activate dumping manually, for example to perform maintenance or remove solids, as taught by Borchard.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights