DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the application filed 10/30/2024.
Claims 1-20 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 § 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 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the attachment features" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from Claim 3, whereas claim 4 recites “attachment features”.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20020036379 A (“KR’379”) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 1, KR’379 discloses a laundry appliance (abstract), comprising:
a cabinet (ref. 10);
a door (ref. 40) operably coupled to the cabinet;
a drum (ref. 21) disposed within the cabinet proximate to the door;
a lifter (ref. 22) disposed within and operably coupled to the drum; and
a foreign substrate collector (ref. 30) disposed within the lifter, the foreign substrate collector including a mesh body (ref. 31) having a mesh wall (ref. 32) that extends perpendicularly from a mesh base (see fig. 3 bottom of ref. 31), and wherein the mesh wall and the mesh base cooperate to capture particulate matter within the mesh body (“foreign matter filtering device 30 for collecting and filtering foreign matter”).
Re claim 2, wherein the mesh wall and the mesh base are supported by a frame of the foreign substrate collector (see fig. 3, left right and top of ref. 31 supporting the base).
Re claims 3 and 6-7, wherein the frame includes a slide lock feature (see fig. 4, ref. 33b slides into engagement with ref. 22c, 22d) that secures the foreign substrate collector to a housing (ref. 22d) of the lifter (see fig. 4). wherein the slide lock feature of the frame engages the attachment features (ref. 22d) of the housing for the lifter. wherein the slide lock feature of the frame is incorporated into the mesh wall of the foreign substrate collector (see fig. 4, ref. 33 incorporated with ref. 32 as a combined structure).
Re claim 4, wherein the housing of the lifter includes attachment features (see fig. 3 ref. 22b) that selectively engage apertures of the drum (ref. 21b), wherein the attachment features selectively secure the lifter and the foreign substrate collector to the drum.
Re claim 12, wherein the door is attached to a front panel of the cabinet (see fig. 1) and the drum rotates about one of a horizontal axis and an angled axis (see fig. 1).
Re claims 18-19, Independent claim 18 defines over KR’379, as applied above, only in the recitation of wherein the mesh wall includes an elongated attachment portion having a groove that is adapted to engage a slide lock that selectively secures the foreign substrate collector to an interior of the lifter. KR’379 further discloses an elongated attachment portion (see fig. 4 extension of ref. 33 from frame 31) having a groove (either of groove left of ref. 33b or above ref. 33b) that is adapted to engage a slide lock (ref. 22c satisfies a slide lock in that the components “slide” into a locked position) that selectively secures the foreign substrate collector to an interior of the lifter. wherein the slide lock of the mesh wall is disposed along an edge of the mesh wall to engage an underside of a housing for the lifter (see fig. 4 underside of ref. 22d).
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 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20020036379 A (“KR’379”) (machine translation attached), as applied above, in view of WO2019199269A1 (“WO’269”).
Re claim 13, Independent claim 12 defines over KR’379, as applied above, only in the recitation of the lifter having a crescent shaped profile that extends outward from the drum; and the foreign substrate collector including a plurality of bristles that capture particulate matter within the lifter. Regarding “crescent shaped profile”, KR’379 further discloses a slot for inserting the foreign substrate collector (see fig. 3, ref. 22c), the mere change in shape of the upper surface of the lifter such to provide a tapering guide for the foreign substrate collector insertion is an obvious engineering expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the purposes of guiding removable and insertable components. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape.
Regarding the “bristles”, WO’269 discloses it is well-known in the laundry appliance art (abstract) to provide a foreign substrate collector including a plurality of bristles (¶ [060] bristles, see also fig. 4b and 5A-5C) that capture particulate matter on and adjacent a lifter (ref. 108, see fig. 1 showing 104 on a lifter).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the foreign substrate collector of KR’379 to further include bristles, as suggested by WO’269, in order to enhance capturing of foreign matter; and to further modify the surface shape of the lifter to include a crescent-shape, in order to provide a tapering guide path for insertion of a removable component.
Re claims 14-17, Regarding “wherein the lifter includes a slit defined within a housing that defines the crescent shaped profile”, KR’379 further discloses the slit (ref. 22c) and “wherein the foreign substrate collector having the plurality of bristles is selectively separable from the lifter via the slit”, KR’379 further discloses the foreign substrate collector being selectively separable (see fig. 3). wherein the foreign substrate collector includes a grasping portion (ref. 33a) that selectively engages the housing of the lifter proximate the slit of the housing. wherein the foreign substrate collector includes a body (ref. 31, 32) that extends from the grasping portion, and wherein the plurality of bristles extend outward from the body (expected in the combination with WO’269, the bristles should be oriented in direction of fluid flow). wherein at least a portion of the plurality of bristles are positioned to extend through slots defined within the housing (expected in the combination with WO’269, the bristles must extend into contact with the laundry for enhanced foreign substance removal, see e.g. fig. 1 showing lining the drum and the lifter surfaces).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20020036379 A (“KR’379”) (machine translation attached), as applied above, in view of KR 100751781 B1 (“KR’781”) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 5, KR’379 discloses as shown above including communication holes 22a to allow particulate matter to enter, but does not teach wherein the attachment features of the lifter are positioned to define openings such that a portion of the lifter proximate the attachment features is separated from the drum, wherein the openings allow the particulate matter to enter into an interior of the lifter to engage the foreign substrate collector. However, KR’781 discloses it is known in the laundry appliance art (abstract) to prove attachment features position such to define openings such that a portion of the lifter proximate the attachment features is separated from the drum (see figs. 3-5 refs. 54, 64 positioned such that there is an opening 42).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the holes of KR’379 to further be defined by the attachment features separated from the drum, as suggested by KR’781, in order to provide sufficient fluid flow for collecting foreign substrate.
Claims 8-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20020036379 A (“KR’379”) (machine translation attached), as applied above, in view of EP 2053157 B1 (“EP’157”).
Re claims 8 and 20, KR’379 discloses a shown above and further discloses a drain pump (ref. 16), but does not disclose a blower operably coupled to the cabinet and configured to direct airflow within the drum, wherein the blower is configured to direct a flow of process air through the lifter and through the mesh base and the mesh wall of the foreign substrate collector; and a fluid delivery pump that delivers a flow of wash fluid to the drum. However, EP’157 discloses it is known in the laundry appliance art (abstract) to provide a blower (ref. 19c) configured to direct a flow of process air through a filter (ref. 27) and a fluid delivery pump (ref. 9) that delivers a flow of wash fluid to the drum. Regarding “air through the lifter and through the mesh base and the mesh wall”, Examiner notes air circulating within the drum would be expected to pass through the lifters during rotation.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to modify the laundry appliance of KR’379 to further include a blower and a fluid delivery pump, as suggested by EP’157, in order to provide drying and solvent delivery (i.e. combination washer/dryer).
Re claim 9, Regarding “a controller configured to execute a particulate capturing cycle of said laundry appliance, wherein the particulate capturing cycle operates to direct at least one of the flow of the process air and the flow of the wash fluid into the drum”, KR’379 further discloses automated programming (“automatically washer, rinsed and dehydrated according to the entered program”) and the use of controllers for implementing automated programs is conventionally known in the art. Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller to execute the washing and drying cycles including capturing particulates of KR’379/EP’157.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20020036379 A (“KR’379”) (machine translation attached) in view of EP 2053157 B1 (“EP’157”), as applied above, and further in view of Ioku (US 2006/0156766 A1).
Re claim 10, KR’379/EP’157 discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein the particulate capturing cycle includes a pre-wash air cycle that directs the flow of the process air through the foreign substrate collector, wherein the pre-wash air cycle is defined by operation of the blower and rotation of the drum in advance of a wash cycle being initiated. However, Ioku discloses it is known in the laundry appliance art (abstract) to provide a controller (ref. 20) that executes a pre-wash air cycle (abstract, ¶ [0038]-[0040] preheating…before execution of the wash step…warm air is supplied into the drum and rotating the tub), wherein the pre-wash air cycle is defined by operation of the blower and the rotation of the drum in advance of a wash cycle being initiated. Regarding “[the] pre-wash air cycle…directs the flow of the process air through the foreign substrate collector”, here, as discussed above, it is expected the air passing the rotating drum will flow through the foreign substrate collector of KR’379/EP’157.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laundry appliance of KR’379/EP’157 to further include a pre-wash air cycle, as suggested by Ioku, in order to preheat the laundry to increase efficiency of washing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20020036379 A (“KR’379”) (machine translation attached) in view of EP 2053157 B1 (“EP’157”) (machine translation attached), as applied above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0060301 A1).
Re claim 11, KR’379/EP’157 discloses as shown above, but does not explicitly disclose water levels of the wash cycles wherein the fluid delivery pump delivers a first level of the wash fluid to the drum during a standard wash cycle, and wherein the fluid delivery pump delivers a second level of the wash fluid to the drum during the particulate capturing cycle, wherein the second level is higher than the first level, wherein the controller during the particulate capturing cycle is configured to direct the flow of the wash fluid through the foreign substrate collector. However, Kim discloses it is well-known in the laundry appliance art (abstract) to maximize discharge of foreign substances (¶ [0097] by supplying water higher than a reference water level (¶ [0098]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a water level for a particulate capturing cycle to be higher than a standard wash cycle, as suggested by Kim, in order to effectively float and remove foreign substances.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20090013520 A note air wash before water wash
JP2004089339A note U-shaped lifter surface for foreign substrate collector insertion.
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
Prosecution Insights