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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drainage chamber and water stirring rib as claimed in claim 3 and the insertion socket in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8 “according to any one of claims 1” should be “according to claim 1”.
In claim 9 “claims 1” should be “claim 1”.
In claim 10, “claims 1” should be “claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “driving mechanism” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “small” and “large” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “small” and “large” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, how small and how large would the tubs be before they are not considered small or large? Similar issue is taken with the same terms in the dependent claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "multiple drainage channels" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if such drainage channels include the drainage channel in claim 1 or exclude such channel. For examination purposes, the limitations will be understood as though claim 1 recites “at least one drainage channel” and claim 5 recites “wherein the at least one drainage channel is multiple drainage channels” as it is believed that is what applicant intended.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "two drainage channels" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if such drainage channels include the drainage channel in claim 1 or exclude such channel. For examination purposes, the limitations will be understood as though claim 1 recites “at least one drainage channel” and claim 6 recites “wherein the at least one drainage channel is two drainage channels” as it is believed that is what applicant intended.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
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 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryosuke (JP2019084328A).
As to claim 1 Ryosuke discloses a washing assembly (Figs.1 & 10-16), comprising a large tub (ref 102), a small tub (ref 300), and a first pulsator (ref 205), the first pulsator being arranged inside the large tub and located at the bottom of the large tub, and the small tub being located inside the large tub (see Figs.2 & 10-16); wherein the small tub is arranged on the first pulsator (see Figs.1-2 & 10-16), a drainage channel (from ref 370 to ref 206 and including ref 950) is provided on a side wall of the small tub in its length direction, and a water inlet of the drainage channel (ref 370) is located at the top of the wall of the small tub; the bottom of the first pulsator is provided with a drainage hole (ref 206 or 250, see [0069 & 0096]), and the drainage channel is communicated with the drainage hole (see Figs.10-16); and when the small tub rotates, water inside the small tub flows into the drainage channel and is discharged to the bottom of the first pulsator through the drainage hole. Further, the last limitation is merely intended use, and met as Ryosuke comprises the structure to perform such a function.
As to claim 2, Ryosuke teaches the washing assembly according to claim 1, wherein the drainage hole is located below the drainage channel (see Figs.10-16).
As to claim 4, Ryosuke teaches the washing assembly according to claim 1, wherein the small tub is a conical cylinder, and an inner diameter of a top end of the small tub is larger than an inner diameter of a bottom end of the small tub (see Figs.10-16).
As to claim 7, Ryosuke teaches the washing assembly according to claim 1, wherein an insertion socket is provided on the first pulsator, and the drainage channel is inserted into the insertion socket (see portion where ref 950 connects to pulsator in view of [0027 & 0048] indicating other locking mechanisms such as bayonet type mechanisms).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryosuke (JP2019084328A) in view of Terai (JP2002346270A).
As to claim 3, Ryosuke teaches the washing assembly according to claim 1, wherein the drainage hole is provided at the bottom wall of the pulsator (see ref 250). Ryosuke does not disclose a water stirring rib is provided on the first pulsator, and a drainage chamber provided inside the water stirring rib; and the drainage channel is in communication with the drainage chamber; the water in the drainage channel can flow through the drainage chamber to the drainage hole, and can be further discharged to the bottom of the first pulsator. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of the teachings of Terai. Further, the last limitation of claim 3 is intended use and met so long as the structure is capable of performing the function.
Terai discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein a water stirring rib is provided on a pulsator (see Fig.5). The stirring rib has a water drainage chamber (see Fig.6 interior of ref 28) and allows for suctioning of water during rotation of the pulsator [0026-0030]. Allow passage of water through the stirring ribs, movement of water can be provided without hindering rotation, and thereby improve the cleaning effect [0032-0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ryosuke to incorporate the stirring rib with the water drainage chamber, and allow for water to be conducted through the ribs in order to improve cleaning effect without hindering rotation (Terai [0032-0034]). Such a modification would allow for passage of water through the ribs and to a drain hole of the pulsator located below the bottom rib wall when conducting a drainage function.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryosuke (JP2019084328A) in view of Yang (US20210087739A1).
As to claims 5-6, Ryosuke teaches the washing assembly according to claim 1, but does not disclose multiple drainage channels arranged at intervals on the side wall of the small tub in a circumferential direction or two drainage channels symmetrically arranged on the side wall of the small tub in a circumferential direction. However, such a feature is known in the art, as a manner of providing drainage channels to a tub as seen by Yang.
Yang discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is shown that multiple drainage channels (Fig.5 ref 220) may be provided circumferentially on a sidewall of a tank in a symmetrical manner to guide water to be drained (abstract). Accordingly, Yang indicates another known alternative structure for a draining channel of a water tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ryosuke to implement the multiple drainage channels, as seen by Yang, as such is known in the art. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known drainage structure in place of, or in addition to, another with a reasonable expectation of success. In this case, the modification would provide two symmetric and distinct drainage channels which lead to the legs (see ref 950 of Ryosuke) on the sidewall.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryosuke (JP2019084328A) in view of Zhou (WO2020108244A1).
As to claims 8-10, Ryosuke teaches the washing assembly of claim 1, wherein the small tub is detachably fitted with the first pulsator [0064-0065]. Although Ryosuke does not explicitly disclose the fitment being a snap fit, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Zhou. Ryosuke also does not disclose a second pulsator arranged inside the small tub and located at the bottom of the small tub; a driving mechanism arranged at the bottom of the washing assembly, configured to drive the large tub, the first pulsator, and the second pulsator of the washing assembly to rotate. However, such features are also known from Zhou.
Zhou discloses an art related washing machine assembly (abstract), wherein an inner tub is provided within a larger outer tub (see Figs.1-3 & 8-11), and further discloses that the fitment of the inner tub can be via a snap-fit [0025]. It is also seen that a second pulsator (ref 140) can be provided such that it is fitted above a first pulsator (ref 120) and located within the inner tub. A drive mechanism allows for operation of the first pulsator, second pulsator and the larger tub [0018, 0023, & 0030]. The second pulsator allows for improved washing action within the smaller of the two tubs [0042-0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ryosuke to utilize snap-fitting as a manner for connection of the inner tub as such a is a known manner in the art (Zhou [0025]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner of fitting in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to incorporate a second pulsator and drive mechanism to rotate the first pulsator, second pulsator, and larger tub in order to provide improved washing action (Zhou [0042-0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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 at (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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights