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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 06/22/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk (U.S. Pub. 20220404033) in view of Bird (U.S. Pat. 3185255).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12, Funk teaches a domestic appliance 100 comprising: a cabinet 110,120 defining a receiving space 200.
With regards to claims 1 and 11-12, Funk teaches a lower bracket 710 for securing a counterweight (see discussion in para. [0037], lines 18-21) to the cabinet 110,120 (see Fig. 6). However, Funk fails to teach the structure of the counterweight as claimed. Bird teaches a counterweight (as seen in Fig. 1), the counterweight comprising: a body 32 including a front face 20 and a rear face 18 spaced from the front face 20, the body 32 further including a first side 22 and a second side 24 spaced from each other and each extending from the front face 20 to the rear face 18; and a groove 30 extending from one of the first side 22 or the second side 24 and through the rear face 18, the groove 30 configured to receive a fastener 12; where the body 32 is secured via the fastener 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ballast element of Bird as a counterweight to Funk’s appliance, in order to provide a ballast element comprised of concrete material that will not easily be broken, or if broken, will still remain intact, as taught to be desirable by Bird (see discussion in col. 1, lines 28-30).
Regarding the limitation that the groove goes through both the front face 20 and the rear face 18, the Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to extend the groove through both the front and rear faces, because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2141, III. (D)). The Examiner notes that providing a groove that extends through both the front face and the rear face, would allow the ballast to be further secured, by additional bolts 12, preventing unwanted movement of the ballast.
Regarding claim 2, Funk teaches the domestic appliance 100, where the cabinet 110,120 includes a rear panel 170 defining a slot (as seen in Fig. 6 below) extending therethrough, the counterweight being arranged proximate to the slot. The Examiner notes that Funk teaches that his counterweights are positioned within the slot of the lower bracket 710 (see discussion in para. [0037], lines 18-21).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Bird teaches the domestic appliance, where the front face 20 includes a protrusion extending therefrom (as seen in Fig. 2 below), the protrusion extending through the slot.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Funk teaches he domestic appliance 100, where the protrusion is configured to contact at least one edge of the slot. The Examiner notes that the body of the counterweight 32 taught by Bird is capable of being seated within the slot of the bracket 710.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Funk teaches the domestic appliance 100, where the rear panel 170 includes at least one tab 730 extending therefrom, the at least one tab 730 being arranged proximate to the slot (as shown in Fig. 6 below).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Bird teaches the domestic appliance, where the other of the first side 22 or the second side 24 is configured to contact the tab 730.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Bird teaches the domestic appliance, where the body 32 defines a uniform profile from the front face 20 to the rear face 18.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Bird teaches the domestic appliance, where the body 32 is formed via dry casting (see discussion in col. 1, lines 11-14).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Bird teaches the domestic appliance, where the body 32 is formed of a concrete material (as discussed in col. 1, lines 11-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
862
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
360
299
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose or teach the domestic appliance of claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-12, and 15-16, where the other of the first side or the second side includes a recess configured to receive the tab.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Bird fails to teach where the groove 30 goes through both the front face 20 and the rear face 18 of his ballast, the Examiner submits the following. It is well known in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, as discussed in MPEP 2141, III. (D). Further, the Examiner notes that providing a groove that extends through both the front face and the rear face, would allow the ballast to be further secured, by additional bolts 12, preventing unwanted movement of the ballast. Therefore, it is submitted that the limitation of teaching a groove that extends through the front face and rear face of a ballast is obvious in view of Bird and KSR Rationale D.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 1-Sep-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights