DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the application filed 11/11/2024.
Claims 1-12 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 § 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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 200435303 Y1 (machine translation attached) (“KR’303).
Re claim 1, KR’303 discloses a shoelace cleaning device for cleaning a shoelace having at least one end with an aglet (RE “shoelace”, this is a statement of intended use which does not patentably distinguish over KR’303 since the prior art meets all the structural elements of the claim(s) and is capable of cleaning a shoelace or any other launderable object, if so desired. See MPEP 2114), the shoelace cleaning device comprising:
at least one containment shell (ref. 10, 20); and
a central hub (ref. 30) component detachably secured (at ref. 22, see fig. 1) to the at least one containment shell to define a closed enclosure, the central hub component comprising one or more aglet receivers (holes 32 or edges of plate 30) for removably securing the aglet therein (RE “securing the aglet” is a statement of intended use. Here, the holes or edges of the plate 30 are capable of securing the aglet of a shoelace, if so desired, e.g. tying or wrapping. See MPEP 2114.).
Re claims 6-7, Regarding “wherein the one or more aglet receivers are configured to secure the aglet by friction fit”, this is a statement of intended use. Here, the holes of plate 30 appear include some oblong shapes and are capable of frictionally securing an aglet, if so desired, it being a matter of the size of the aglet and manner of mounting, rather than a structural feature of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114. wherein central hub comprises a plurality of aglet receivers comprising a plurality of different diameters (see fig. 1 holes having different diameters).
Re claim 8, wherein the at least one containment shell comprises one or more perforations (see figs. 1-4, refs. 10 and 20 having perforations).
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 2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200435303 Y1 (machine translation attached) (“KR’303”).
Re claim 2, KR’303 discloses as shown above including a central hub (ref. 30) and further discloses wherein the containment shell comprises an interlocking protrusion (see fig. 1 bar of ref. 1 connecting to ref. 22 in a hinged manner) and the central hub comprises an interlocking groove (groove located on ref. 22) for cooperatively engaging the interlocking protrusion. Here, the mere reversal of fastening/connecting components is prima facie to one of obvious skill in the art. There being no patentable subject matter in placing the interlocking groove on the containment shell and the interlocking protrusion on the central hub, for the same purpose of connecting. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) Reversal of Parts.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to reverse the interlocking protrusion and the interlocking groove of KR’303, for the same purpose of connecting the central hub with the containment shell and reasonable expectations of success.
Re claims 10-11, Regarding “wherein the at least one perforated containment shell comprises an axial length between 4.5 and 5 inches and/or 2 and 2.5 inches. The mere change in size of the containment shell would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, depending on the size of laundry to be washed. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200435303 Y1 (machine translation attached) (“KR’303”), as applied above, in view of Radtke et al. (US 2007/0056997 A1).
Re claim 3, KR’303 further discloses as shown above but does not disclose at least one coupling component for hanging the shoelace cleaning device from an elevated position. However, Radtke teaches it is well-known in the washing machine laundry holding art (abstract) to provide at least one coupling component (see fig. 10 ref. 22m, 24m) for hanging the shoelace cleaning device from an elevated position (see fig. 10).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include at least one coupling component for hanging, as suggested by Radtke, in order to enable hanging of the device to facilitate drying and storage.
Re claims 4-5, Regarding “the at least one coupling component is a loop”, Radtke further discloses a hook (¶ [0025] hook portion) and the mere change in shape to comprise a loop is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable hanging from different components, e.g. reversal of hook hanging on loop to loop hanging on hook. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape; Radtke further discloses wherein the at least one coupling component is a hook (¶ [0025] hook portion 22m, 24m).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200435303 Y1 (machine translation attached) (“KR’303”), as applied above, in view of Phan et al. (US 2010/0219213 A1).
Re claim 9, KR’303 discloses as shown above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one containment shell is wedge-shaped with one or more sloped flat faces. However, Phan discloses it is known in the washing machine laundry holding art (abstract) to provide a containment shell (ref. 102) that is wedge-shaped (see fig. 4) with one or more sloped flat faces (see fig. 4 right face is flat and sloped towards a central region).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the containment shell to further be wedge-shaped with one or more sloped flat faces, as suggested by Phan, in order to provide better grip or resting on a flat surface. Moreover, it being an obvious change in shape to one of ordinary skill in the art, for purposes of aesthetics or grip. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200435303 Y1 (machine translation attached) (“KR’303”), as applied above, in view of CN 1789542 A (machine translation attached) (“CN’542”).
Re claim 12, KR’303 discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein the at least one containment shell comprises a bumper along its exterior, the bumper comprising a resilient material. However, CN’542 discloses it is very well-known in the washing machine laundry holder art (abstract) to provide the at least one containment shell (ref. 1) with a bumper (ref. 14) along its exterior, the bumper comprising a resilient material (“each of the four edges is provided with a buffering material 14”…” as the cushioning material 14, it also can make the thermoplastic elastomer with the basin-shaped member 11, 12 of the periphery edge of the integrated and laminated.”; see also “buffer material functions to prevent the washing groove damage and effect of suppressing impact noise. raw material of the buffer material preferably has elasticity and can buffer material impact, such as foamed polyethylene, EVA resin, ABS resin, thermoplastic elastomer and the like.”).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the containment shell of KR’303 to further include a bumper, as suggested by CN’542, in order to prevent damage and suppress noise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20170215616-A1 note laundry holder with loop for hanging.
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