DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the application filed 1/9/2025.
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 § 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 1-6 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1129920 B (“DE’920”) (machine translation attached) in view of EP2816149A1 (“EP’149”) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 1, DE’920 teaches a washing machine appliance (¶ [0001]) comprising:
a wash tub (ref. 15, see fig. 1) defining a wash chamber;
a dispensing assembly (ref. 14) mounted for selectively adding wash fluid into the wash tub, the dispensing assembly defining a plurality of dispenser inlets (refs. 13 and inlets leading to ref. 23, 26, 27, 19, see fig. 1); and
a diverter assembly (ref. 9, 32) for selectively directing the wash fluid through one or more of the plurality of dispenser inlets, the diverter assembly comprising:
a diverter manifold (ref. 32) defining a diverter inlet (ref. 10) and a plurality of diverter outlets (refs. 25, 24, 18, 12);
a diverter mechanism (ref. 9) mounted to the diverter manifold, the diverter mechanism being movable to selectively couple the diverter inlet to one or more of the plurality of diverter outlets (see fig. 1); and
a hydraulically actuated indexing mechanism (ref. 4, 31, 7, 8 ) mechanically coupled to the diverter mechanism for selectively moving the diverter mechanism.
DE’920 does not explicitly disclose a cabinet; and a wash basket rotatably mounted within the wash tub for receiving a load of clothes. However, EP’149 discloses it is very old and well-known in the washing machine appliance to include a cabinet (ref. 100) and a wash basket (ref. 110).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a cabinet and a wash basket, as suggested by EP’149, in order to provide a housing for protection and rotational cleaning.
Re claims 2-3, EP’149 further discloses wherein the diverter manifold (refs. 240, 230) comprises: a bottom manifold portion (ref. 240); and a top manifold portion (ref. 230) joined to the bottom manifold portion to define a plurality of fluid flow paths connected to the plurality of diverter outlets (see fig. 2b and 2c). Here, the splitting of manifold into parts is prima facie obvious for ease of manufacturing and assembly. Re claim 3, Regarding “wherein the diverter inlet is defined on a sidewall of the top manifold portion and the plurality of diverter outlets are defined on a sidewall of the bottom manifold portion”, the mere rearrangement of the diverter inlet and outlets to different positions along the diverter manifold would have been an obvious engineering expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art, depending on the available space and directional run of the inlet and outlets (here, the outlets being on a bottom being prima facie obvious given the gravitational feeding of water to the dispensing assembly and then below to the basket/tub).
Re claims 4, DE’920 further discloses wherein the plurality of diverter outlets comprises at least six diverter outlets (see fig. 1, paths at ref. 12, 17, unlabeled right, 28, 24, 29, 34).
Re claim 5, Regarding “further comprising: a hot water supply conduit, wherein the hot water supply conduit is fluidly connected to the diverter inlet”, DE’920 further discloses a water supply conduit (ref. 1). Regarding “hot”, this is a statement of intended use depending on the line hookups to the washing machine. See MPEP 2114.
Re claim 6, DE’920 further discloses wherein the hydraulically actuated indexing mechanism comprises: a plunger (ref. 4) mounted within the plunger housing and being movable between a retracted position and an extended position; and a biasing element (ref. 4) mechanically coupled to the plunger for urging the plunger toward the retracted position. EP’149 discloses a plunger (ref .272) and a plunger housing (ref. 280).
Re claims 15-16, Regarding “a limit switch for detecting a position of the diverter mechanism”, EP’149 further discloses a contactless magnetic coupling (¶ [0018]). Here, the use of magnetic coupling for determining a position of the diverter mechanism would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Re claim 16, Regarding “wherein a protrusion on the diverter mechanism engages the limit switch at a home position”, the substitution of physical limit switch for a magnetic switch would have been an obvious engineering expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, the use of physical switches and corresponding contact components are known in the art.
Re claims 17-19, Independent claim 17 reads as a subcombination of Claim 1 rejected above. As such, the claim is met by the combination DE’920/EP’149. Re claims 18-19, Claims 18-19 recite limitations rejected above.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 1129920 B (“DE’920”) (machine translation attached) in view of EP2816149A1 (“EP’149”) (machine translation attached), as applied above, and further in view of Hofmann et al. (US 2017/0071444 A1).
Re claims 7-9, DE’920/EP’149 discloses as shown above, DE’920 further discloses including a bellows/plunger 4 that simultaneously acts as a spring, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the biasing element is a mechanical spring positioned around the plunger between a plunger head of the plunger and a distal end of the plunger housing. However, Hofmann discloses it is well-known in the hydraulic operated valve art (abstract) to provide a biasing element (ref. 308, see figs. 10-12) as a mechanical spring (ref. 308) positioned around the plunger (ref. 302, 304) between a plunger head (ref. 310) of the plunger and a distal end of the plunger housing (see fig. 10). EP’149 further discloses wherein the plunger housing defines an inlet and an outlet, wherein the plunger blocks the outlet when in the retracted position (see fig. 10). Regarding “a cold water supply conduit fluidly coupled to the inlet of the plunger housing”, DE’920 further discloses a water supply conduit (ref. 1). Regarding “cold”, this is a statement of intended use depending on the line hookups to the washing machine. See MPEP 2114.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to replace the bellows of DE’920/EP’149 with a spring and plunger, as suggested by Hofmann, in order to provide a mechanical and easy to replace biasing element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate wherein the diverter mechanism is a diverter disk that is rotatably mounted within the diverter manifold, and wherein the diverter disk defines a track and the hydraulically actuated indexing mechanism defines an actuating feature operably engaged within the track such that moving the plunger between the retracted position and the extended position causes the actuating feature to slide in the track and rotate the diverter disk, in the context of claims 10 and 20.
Conclusion
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