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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should not include legal phraseology such as “configured to” or “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102as1 as being anticipated by Vallejo et al (WO 2021160905 A1, cited by the applicant).
With regards to claim 1, Vallejo et al disclose an automated appliance (Abstract, Fig. 1) with water recycling comprising: at least one housing (the external casing; para. [0040]); at least one appliance (washing machine 1) disposed inside of said housing; and at least one recycling system (auxiliary tank 15, inlet pipe 17, level control 18, solenoid valve A6; para. [0043]) disposed in said housing, wherein said at least one recycling system is configured to recycle water used by the appliance (the used water is driven from the auxiliary tank 15 to the detergent drawer 7 thru the recycled water inlet pipe 17 and by the solenoid valve A 6 enters the drum 8 initiating a wash that produces dirty water to be poured thru the drain pipe 13; Fig. 2, para. [0042] and [0043]) so that the water used by the appliance can be re-used in further cycles by the appliance.
With regards to claim 2, Vallejo et al disclose the appliance of claim 1 further comprising: at least one grey water tank (15) disposed in said at least one housing, said at least one grey water tank configured to collect water used by the appliance(water from drum 8 goes to tank 15); and at least one filter (9) configured to filter particulates from the grey water tank (15).
With regards to claim 9, Vallejo et al disclose the appliance of claim 1 further comprising at least one clean water tank (clean water enters the drum 8) disposed in said housing.
With regards to claim 12, Vallejo et al disclose the appliance of claim 1 wherein the appliance is a washing machine (abstract) configured to wash clothes.
With regards to claim 17, Vallejo et al disclose the appliance of claim 1, further comprising at least one microcontroller (washing program controller of the abstract), said at least one microcontroller configured to control components in said at least one appliance to control a wash cycle, a dry cycle and a recycling cycle (the washing program controller being connected to a recycling option selector and to a level sensor located in the auxiliary reservoir; [0042] & [0043]).
With regards to claim 18, Vallejo et al disclose the appliance of claim 17, further comprising at least one solenoid (6,12) and at least one pump (410), wherein said at least one microcontroller (452) is configured to control said at least one pump and said at least one solenoid to control said at least one wash cycle, said at least one dry cycle and said at least one recycling cycle (abstract, [0042] & [0043]).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallejo et al.
With regards to claim 8, as set forth above Vallejo et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 including a filter 9 configured to filter out particles of different size [0042] but does not disclose that the filter is specifically configured to filter out particles which are greater than 0.001 microns.
However, at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to size the filter passages to remove particulate having sizes such as 0.001 microns or greater in order to create a desired level of cleanliness, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, i.e., the filtering passage size. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallejo et al in view of JP 2009226208 (cited by the applicant, hereafter JP ‘208).
With regards to claim 3, Vallejo et al substantially discloses the invention of claim 2 but does not disclose at least one ozone generator configured to further clean the grey water once the water is filtered through said at least one filter.
JP ‘208 discloses at least one ozone generator (20) configured to further clean the grey water once the water is filtered through said at least one filter.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the filter openings to achieve the desired particulate removal for a particular application.
With regards to claim 5, Vallejo et al substantially discloses the invention of claim 2 but does not disclose wherein said at least one filter comprises a reverse osmosis filter. However, JP ‘208 discloses wherein said at least one filter comprises a reverse osmosis filter ( the reverse osmosis membrane pump for removing waste in [0010] & [0016]).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reverse osmosis filter as taught by JP ‘208 in order to provide a cleaner water prior to recycling as taught by JP ‘208.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallejo et al in view of Raney et al (USPAP 2002/162177).
With regards to claim 4, as set forth above Vallejo et al disclose the invention of claim 2 substantially as claimed but does not disclose wherein said at least one filter comprises an ultra-filter.
However, Raney et al discloses wherein said at least one filter comprises an ultra-voilet filter (see paragraph [0068]).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an ultra filter as taught by Raney et al in order to remove particulates and insoluables.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 10, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallejo et al in view of Haier Group Corp. (USPAP 2020/200329, cited by applicant, hereafter Hair)).
With regards to claim 6, as set forth above Vallejo et al disclose the invention of claim 1 including an upper housing (containing the drum) and a lower housing (the portion supporting the assembly being seated on the floor) substantially as claimed but does not disclose a removable purge tank, wherein said removable purge tank is removable from said lower housing.
Haier discloses a removable purge tank (218), wherein said removable purge tank is removable from said lower housing (para. [0048]).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a purge tank removable from the lower housing based on the teachings of Haier for ease of accessibility and maintenance.
With regards to claim 7, as set forth above Vallejo et al disclose the invention of claim 1 including a purge tank (see the waste pipe 13) substantially as claimed but does not disclose the housing comprising a back housing, wherein said purge tank is a removable purge tank disposed in said back housing. Haier discloses the housing comprises a back housing wherein the tank is disposed in the back housing (removable tank 218 being removable from enclosure 204, see Fig. 6).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the tank removeable from a back housing as taught by Haier for ease of accessibility and maintenance.
With regards to claim 10, as set forth above Vallejo et al disclose the invention of claim 9 including a purge tank (see the waste pipe 13) substantially as claimed but does not disclose the purge tank being removeable. Haier teaches a removeable tank (218).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the tank removeable as taught by Haier for ease of accessibility and maintenance.
With regards to claim 11, as set forth above Vallejo et al disclose the invention of claim 11, but does not disclose a lint module disposed adjacent to said at least one removable purge tank. Haier discloses lint module (46) disposed adjacent to (adjacent to the door 202 of the container 218) said at least one removable purge tank (218).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the lint module adjacent to purge tank in order to provide additional filtering and to arrange the parts as desired for a particular application, as taught by Haier. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art; see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that the instant applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
With regards to claim 16, as set forth above Vallejo et al disclose the invention of claim 2 including a water replenishment tank (claim 8; Fig. 1) configured to feed water into the grey water tank auxiliary tank 15, see para. [0042]). Vallejo et al do not teach of the replenishment tank being removeable. However, Haier teaches of a removeable tank (218, see para. [0048]).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the replenishment tank of Vallejo et al removeable. as taught by Haier, for ease of accessibility and maintenance.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallejo et al in view of Lew (WO 2020/198619, cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 13, Vallejo et al discloses the invention of claim 2, but fails to disclose at least one dehumidifier configured to draw fluids from ambient air and to then input the fluids into the grey water tank. Lew discloses an appliance (i.e, a laundry system, see title) including a dehumidifier configured to draw fluids from ambient air and to then input the fluids into the grey water tank (the ambient air can be directed through the dehumidifier 44 prior to being directed into the ozone generator 38 if the ambient air humidity exceeds the predetermined humidity threshold, see [0054]).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a dehumidifier configured to draw fluid from the ambient air and to then input said fluids into the at least one grey water tank based upon the teaching of Lew to remove humidity from the air prior to ozone generation, as taught by Lew.
With regards to claim 14, Vallejo et al in view of Lew discloses the appliance as claimed in claim 13, however, Vallejo et al fail to disclose wherein said at least one dehumidifier is in said housing. Lew teaches the dehumidifier (44) being placed within the housing (30). At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to place the dehumidifier within a housing, as taught by Lew, in order to protect the dehumidifier from damage and make transportation as a unit simpler.
With regards to claim 15, Vallejo et al in view of Lew discloses the appliance as claimed in claim 13, however, Vallejo et al fail to disclose wherein said at least one dehumidifier is disposed external to said housing.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the locate the dehumidifier external to the housing in order to arrange the parts as desired for a particular application in order to make access to the dehumidifier easier for maintenance purposes. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art; see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that the instant applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallejo et al in view of Sudir et al (CN115012173, cited by the applicant).
With regards to claim 19, Vallejo et al disclose the appliance of claim 17 but fails to disclose at least one indicator light is configured to indicate when the appliance is in at least one wash cycle, said at least one dry cycle and in said at least one recycling cycle.
Sudir et al disclose at least one indicator light is configured to indicate when the appliance is in at least one wash cycle, said at least one dry cycle and in said at least one recycling cycle (para. [0064] indicates that the user interface 26 may include lights to communicate various wash cycles and conditions to the user).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include indicator lights configured to provide information regarding the wash cycle and the recycling cycle based on the teaching of Sudir et al so that the user may be notified of the appliance status and the washing or recycling condition/states, as taught by Sudir et al.
With regards to claim 20, Vallejo et al in view of Sudir et al discloses the appliance as set forth in claim 19 as set forth above. Further, Sudir et al disclose that the appliance comprises at least one touchscreen wherein said at least one touchscreen has an indicator that is configured to indicate when said at least one recycling cycle has been completed (the user interface 26 may include a touch screen (see para. [0064) mentions the use of a touchscreen which as noted above is capable of indicating when said at least one recycling cycle has been completed).
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include indicator lights configured to provide information regarding the wash cycle and the recycling cycle based on the teaching of Sudir et al so that the user may be notified of the appliance status and the washing or recycling condition/states and for ease of user selectability, as taught by Sudir et al.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Butterworth and Eckman disclose washing appliances with water recycling systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
September 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights