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 Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical error in line 1: “..the sump connector comprise connection parts..”. The suggested change is: “..the sump connector comprises connection parts..” Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-23, 26, 28, 29, 33-35 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 term “easy installation and modification” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy installation and modification” is 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. It is unclear what structural features and associated degree of difficulty would result in installation and modification that is easy.
Claim 21 recites the limitation: "…both faces.." in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation: “an existing wash machine” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not this is in reference to the wash machine of claim 17 on which claim 22 depends. For examination purposes it has been determined that the limitation of claim 22 refers to the corresponding limitation of claim 17.
Claim 23 recites the limitation: “a new wash machine” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether or not this is in reference to the wash machine of claim 17 on which claim 23 depends. For examination purposes it has been determined that the limitation of claim 23 refers to the corresponding limitation of claim 17.
Claim 26 recites the limitation: "the textiles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation: “the pump has the ability to function in the presence of lint without becoming plugged internally” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what structural features are being claimed that allow the pump to have the ability to function in the presence of line without internal plugging.
The term “effectively recirculate and spray” in claim 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effectively recirculate and spray” is 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. It is unclear what degree of recirculation and spray is being claimed as effective.
The term “smooth inner walls” in claim 33 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth inner walls” is 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. It is unclear what degree of roughness of the inner walls is being claimed as smooth.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the sump" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the drain assembly" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 22 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because claim 17, on which claim 22 depends, already requires that the replacement window of the kit be “affixed to a door of a wash machine”, which “modifies an existing wash machine” as per claim 22. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claims 17-18, 20, 22-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima (JPH11156080A).
Regarding claims 17, 20, 22-25, 27, 30, 34-36, Morishima teaches a kit for water recirculation (see abstract) that modifies an existing wash machine (reads on claim 22) and is provided as part of the wash machine (reads on claim 23) (see abstract, figure 1), the kit comprising: a window 2; a nozzle system 4 comprising a nozzle 4 and a nozzle connector 17/15 (also see portion of nozzle 4 that connects to the window 2, as shown in figure 1) (reads on claim 25), whereby the nozzle 4 may have rounded edges (see figure 2, page 3 of the translation, see rounded edges of 18 as shown in figure 2) (reads on claim 27); a pump 5 provided with the wash machine (see figure 1, page 3 of the translation) (reads on claim 30); tubing 7/8; and a sump connector 9, 10 comprising connection parts 9, 10 to connect the pump 5 and the tubing 7/8 to the sump (see bottom portion of tank 3) (reads on claim 34) thereby connecting to the drain assembly of the wash machine (reads on claim 35); wherein the window 2 is affixed to a door (see hinged frame surrounding window 2 as shown in figure 1) of a wash machine and the window 2 has a hole (see figure 1, abstract, pages 2-3 of the translation, see hole in which nozzle 4 is attached); the nozzle system 4 is secured in the window 2 and is in fluid communication with the wash machine and pump 5 (see figure 1, pages 3-4 of the translation) (reads on claim 24); a valve 11 capable of controlling flow through the nozzle system 4 (see figure 1, page 3 of the translation) (reads on claim 36). Morishima does not explicitly teach that the window is a replacement window. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the window may be a replacement window based on the servicing/maintenance needs of the washing system (reads on claim 20 since the replacement window would also be made of the same transparent material as the original window, which is a suitable material, that would be capable of being installed in place of the original window and being modified).
Regarding claim 18, Morishima teaches the limitations of claim 17. Morishima teaches in pages 3-4 of the translation that the nozzle system 4 is connected to the hole of the window so as to provide wash water onto the items to be cleaned in the interior of the wash chamber. Morishima does not teach that the hole is at or above the center of the replacement window. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the location of the hole may be chosen based on the location of the items to be cleaned in the wash chamber as well as based on the desired direction of wash fluid flow into the chamber and onto the items to be cleaned. Furthermore, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 26, Morishima teaches the limitations of claim 25. Morishima teaches in figure 1 that the nozzle 4 is attached to the window 2 at a height position near a central portion of the drum 13 where the items to be washed are disposed, the nozzle 4 being configured to spray water towards the interior of the drum 13, and being capable of spraying water on top of textiles disposed therein (see figure 1, page 3 of the translation, see e.g. spraying onto textiles located inside the drum 13 and below the nozzle 4). Morishima does not explicitly teach that the one or more nozzles are configured to spray water at an angle such that it sprays on top of the textiles. However, whether or not the spray water is sprayed on top of the textiles depends on the particular location of the textiles, and it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claims 28, 29, 31, Morishima teaches the limitations of claim 17. Morishima teaches in the abstract, figure 1 and page 4 of the translation that the pump 5 is capable of effectively recirculating and spraying a detergent composition onto items to be cleaned (reads on claim 29), the pump 5 is also capable of being used solely to move water through the nozzle system 4 (reads on claim 31), and the pump 5 is also capable of pumping in the presence of dirt without becoming plugged internally. Therefore, it is readily apparent that the pump 5 would also be capable of operating in the presence of lint without becoming plugged internally. While Morishima does not explicitly teach that linens are sprayed by the pump, or that the pump is used solely to move water through the nozzle system, all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught and the particular choices of item to clean or fluid to circulate are matters of intended use, whereby it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 32, Morishima teaches the limitations of claim 17. Morishima also teaches in the abstract and page 2 of the translation that the amount of wash fluid used in the wash process is a process parameter that determines the cleaning effect. Morishima does not explicitly teach that the pump pumps at a rate of from about 2 gpm to about 10 gpm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pump rate of wash fluids may be chosen to be between 2-10gpm so as to optimize the cleaning effect for the particular application. Furthermore, it has been determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 33, Morishima teaches the limitations of claim 25. Morishima also teaches in figure 1 and pages 3-4 of the translation that the tubing 7/8 and connectors 17, 15 have smooth inner walls and are configured around and in the wash machine to have gradual turns (see e.g. rounded cylindrical shape of inner and outer walls of 7, 8, 17, 15, which reads on gradual turns).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima (JPH11156080A) as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Lee et al. (CN101225595B).
Regarding claim 21, Morishima teaches the limitations of claim 17. Morishima does not teach that the replacement window is made out of polycarbonate with a polyethylene cover on both faces of the window. Lee et al. teaches a washing machine (see abstract) and that the window 185a may be made out of polycarbonate with a polyethylene cover on front and rear faces (see layers 182 and 185b) of the window 185a, thereby allowing for an improved user viewing experience (see figures 3, 5, abstract, page 4 of the translation). Since both Morishima and Lee et al. teach washing machines with light-transmitting doors it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the window in the system by Morishima may be constructed or polycarbonate with a polyethylene cover on front and rear faces so as to allow for an improved user viewing experience, as shown to be known and conventional by Lee et al. Furthermore, it has been determined that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 is 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 closest prior art of record is Morishima (JPH11156080A). Morishima fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claim 19. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711