DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 11/25/2025.
Claims 1-28 are pending, Claims 27-28 have been withdrawn, and Claims 1-26 have been examined.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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 last line recites “wherein at least of a portion” should read “wherein at least a portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (WO2020111817A1) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached in prior action) in view of Flora et al. (US 3,060,593 A).
Re claim 1, Bae discloses a laundry treating apparatus (abstract) comprising: a drum (ref. 20) having a laundry inlet and configured to accommodate laundry through the laundry inlet;
a hot air supplier (“air supply area for supplying air”, see fig. 7 ref. 24, 26, 170) disposed outside the drum and configured to supply hot air into the drum;
a motor (stator 280 rotor 260) configured to rotate the drum; a decelerator (ref 230 speed reducer) connecting the motor to the drum and configured to change a rotational speed and torque of the motor; and
a rear case (ref. 130,170, 250, see figs. 3-7) disposed between the drum and the motor, wherein the decelerator is coupled to the rear case and fixed to the rear case (see figs. 1-2 and 4);
wherein the motor is coupled to the decelerator (see fig. 4 motor comprising refs. 270, 280 or stator 280 alone is indirectly coupled to the decelerator via couplers 250 or 296, see fig. 2 showing reducer 230 coupled securely within stator 280 and laterally to rotor 270. Examiner highlights Applicant has not claimed any direct coupling or corresponding matched structures to define over Bae.); and’
wherein the decelerator is configured to, based on the decelerator being coupled to the rear case and the motor, transfer a load and a vibration of the motor to the rear case (p. 4 “The housing of the speed reducer may be provided to be fixed to the outside of the rear case. The reducer housing can be fixed directly to the rear case.” (emphasis added); see also p. 12 “The speed reducer 230 may be mounted to directly contact the rear surface of the rear case” and it thus being inherent or expected that direct contact will yield transfer of at least some load and vibration to the rear case).
Bae does not disclose wherein the rear case comprises a mounting portion recessed into the drum, and wherein at least a portion of the motor is accommodated at the mounting portion. However, Flora discloses it is very old and well-known in the laundry treating apparatus art (title) to provide the rear case (ref. 80, 100, 12) with a mounting portion (ref. 80) recessed into the drum (ref. 22) (see figs. 1-3), wherein at least a portion of the motor (ref. 70) is accommodated at the mounting portion (see figs. 1-3).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rear case and drum of Bae, to further include a mounting portion recessed into the drum, as suggested by Flora, in order to provide a reduction in size and compact construction.
Re claims 2-4, Bae further discloses wherein the rear case is disposed between the drum and the decelerator; wherein the rear case is spaced apart from the drum; wherein the decelerator includes a drum rotation shaft that passes through the rear case and is configured to rotate the drum or transfer a load of the drum to the rear case (see fig. 3-4 and 7 refs. 130, 170 between drum and decelerator, has spacing by ref. 50 or if ref. 170 is the rear case then spaced by ref. 130; drive shaft 210).
Re claims 5-7, Bae further discloses wherein the rear case is disposed between the drum and the motor, and wherein the decelerator is disposed between the drum and the motor, the decelerator being supported at the rear case; wherein the decelerator includes a fastening protrusion coupled to the motor and configured to transfer a load of the motor to the rear case; wherein the rear case is spaced apart from the motor (see figs. 3-4 refs. 130, 170, 250 between drum and motor, decelerator 230 supported at rear case, and refs. 130 and 170 spaced from motor part 280).
Re claims 8-10, Bae further discloses wherein the drum is disposed at a first side of the rear case and spaced apart from the rear case, wherein the motor is disposed at a second side of the rear case and spaced apart from the rear case, the second side being opposite to the first side of the rear case, and wherein the decelerator extends from the second side of the rear case, passes through the rear case, and is coupled to the rear case, the decelerator connecting the motor to the drum (see figs. 3-4 the drum 20, decelerator 230, motor part 280). a cabinet configured to accommodate the drum therein and defining an appearance of the laundry treating apparatus, wherein the rear case includes: a rear plate supported at a bottom surface of the cabinet and disposed between the drum and the motor, and a mounting portion defining a through-hole at the rear plate, wherein the decelerator is coupled to the mounting portion (see figs. 1-2 ref. 130 is a rear plate connected at bottom surface of cabinet with figs. 2-3 decelerator 230 therein a through hole of ref. 136, 172). wherein the mounting portion is recessed from the rear plate (see figs. 3-4).
Re claims 11-14, Bae further discloses a bracket that couples the decelerator to the rear case (ref. 250); a cabinet configured to accommodate the drum therein and defining an appearance of the laundry treating apparatus, wherein the rear case includes: a rear plate supported at a bottom surface of the cabinet and disposed between the drum and the motor; and a mounting portion defining a through-hole at the rear plate that supports the decelerator (see rejection to claims 8-10 above), wherein the bracket includes a main bracket coupled to a first surface of the mounting portion, the main bracket configured to reinforce rigidity of the mounting portion or to fix the decelerator (connector 250 fixes the decelerator 230 and would be expected as structurally attached to also reinforce the rigidity with additional material). wherein the bracket further includes an auxiliary bracket coupled to the main bracket or a second surface of the mounting portion, the auxiliary bracket configured to reinforce rigidity of the main bracket or to fix the decelerator, the second surface being opposite to the first surface of the mounting portion (see fig. 3-4 ref. 250a surface could constitute one bracket and the portion surrounding 236 and 220 could be considered an auxiliary bracket); wherein the main bracket is coupled to a front surface of the mounting portion, wherein the auxiliary bracket is coupled to a rear surface of the mounting portion and coupled to the main bracket, wherein the decelerator includes a coupling protrusion fixed at a location between the main bracket and the auxiliary bracket (see fig. 3, the front and back correspondingly of ref. 250)
Re claim 19, Bae further discloses front case disposed in front of the drum (see figs. 1-2 ref. 150, 120), wherein the front case defines an opening being in fluid communication with the laundry inlet. Regarding “the rear case is made of a material different from a material of the front case”, the mere change/selection of material is prima facie obvious, e.g. stainless steel for durability and resistance and plastic for a front for cost effective. See MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Use.
Re claims 21-22, Bae further discloses a rear stopper that supports the drum or restricts the drum from pressurizing the rear case. wherein the rear stopper is spaced apart from a rear surface of the drum by a reference distance (see fig. 4 ref. 293 or 50, 293 being spaced by 50).
Re claim 23, Regarding “wherein the rear stopper is disposed between the drum and the rear case, wherein the drum and the rear case are spaced apart from each other by a distance equal to or greater than the reference distance”, the mere change is size or shape of the distances in intermediate components is prima facie obvious engineering expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art, depending on the available space and desired rigidity of the component. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) or (B) Changes in Size/Shape.
Re claim 24, Bae further discloses wherein the rear stopper is spaced apart from a lower portion of the drum (see fig. 4).
Re claim 25-26, Bae further discloses further comprising a front stopper disposed in front of the drum and rotatably supporting the drum. wherein the front stopper is spaced apart from a front-upper end of the drum (front supporter 160, see fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach wherein the main bracket includes: a main body seated at a front portion of the mounting portion; and at least one installation rib extending from an inner circumferential surface of the main body and coupled to the coupling protrusion of the decelerator.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the main bracket includes: a main body supported at a surface of the mounting portion; and at least one fixing protrusion protruding along a circumference of the main body, wherein the mounting portion of the rear case includes a fastening portion that accommodates the at least one fixing protrusion therein and restricts a change in a position of the main bracket.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered and persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection is made as shown above in view of Flora et al. (US 3,060,593 A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711