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 (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.
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.
Claim 1-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,353,473 to Park in view of US Patent Publication 2016/0244122 to Kondo.
In Reference to Claims 1-6
Park discloses a laundry treatment apparatus comprising: a drying chamber configured to receive laundry therein; a supply unit (Fig. 11, 51) configured to supply at least one of air or moisture to the drying chamber; a hanger support comprising: a support body (Fig. 13, 91) disposed in the drying chamber and configured to hang a hanger thereon, a first connecting body (Fig. 13, 93) that connects a first side of the support body to an upper surface of the drying chamber, and a second connecting body (Fig. 13, 93) that connects a second side of the support body to the upper surface of the drying chamber; a rotating shaft (Fig. 13, 977) that extends through the upper surface of the drying chamber toward the support body, the rotating shaft having an inner end disposed inside the drying chamber and an outer end disposed outside the drying chamber; a rotating arm (Fig. 13, 99) coupled to the inner end of the rotating shaft and configured to rotate within the drying chamber based on rotation of the rotating shaft; a converter (Fig. 13, 913) disposed at the support body and configured to convert a rotational movement of the rotating arm into a linear reciprocating movement of the support body along a first direction; a disc (Fig. 13, 973) coupled to the outer end of the rotating shaft; a driver (Fig. 13, 95) configured to rotate the disc;
Park does not teach a counterweight.
Kondo teaches a counterweight (Fig. 1, 2) coupled to the disc (Fig. 1, 22) and configured to rotate with the disc, the counterweight (Fig. 1, 2) being configured to be positioned in a direction opposite (As showed in Fig. 6, the weights 2 are in opposite direction of the shaft 6 to an extension direction of the rotating arm with respect to the rotating shaft based on the extension direction of the rotating arm (Fig. 1, 6) corresponding to the first direction during rotation of the rotating arm.
a diametrical line passing through a rotational axis of the disc defines a first region and a second region and wherein the counterweight is configured to be located in the second region while the rotating arm is located in the first region (As showed the Fig. 3, the Office considers that the right side where the counterweight is positioned in the first region and the left side is the second region)
the counterweight includes a mass body (Fig. 3, 2) disposed at a first region of the disc opposite to the rotating arm with respect to the rotating shaft such that the first region of the disc is heavier than a second region of the disc corresponding to a position of the rotating arm. (Obviously, the side with balance weight is heavier)
wherein the mass body (Fig. 3, 2) has a shape (As showed in Fig. 3) corresponding to a sector of a circular shape, the mass body being coupled to one of an upper surface of the disc or a lower surface of the disc.
the mass body has a semicircular shape (As showed in Fig. 3, the balance weights 2 as a whole are in a curved shape).
wherein the mass body is coupled to a circumferential surface of the disc. (As showed in Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kondo in the design of Park. Doing so, would result in counter balance weight being position on the disc as being taught by Kondo. Both inventions of Park and Kondo having a rotating disc mechanism, Kondo teaches a method of balancing the rotational kinetic energy (Paragraph 11)
In Reference to Claim 7
Park discloses wherein the converter comprises: a slot member (Fig. 13, 913) coupled to the support body (Fig. 13, 911) and located below the rotating arm (Fig. 13, 99), the slot member defining a slot that extends in a direction orthogonal (Fig. 13 as showed) to an extension direction of the support body; and an engaging member (Fig. 13, 995) having a first end coupled to the rotating arm and a second end inserted into the slot.
In Reference to Claim 8
Park discloses wherein the slot member includes a circular plate (As showed in Fig. 13, the slot member 913 has a circular plate) that is coupled to the support body and defines the slot.
In Reference to Claim 9
Park discloses the engaging member includes a rod (Fig. 13, 995) that protrudes from the rotating arm (Fig. 13, 991) and is inserted into the slot (Fig. 13, 913).
In Reference to Claim 10
Park discloses wherein a length of the slot (Fig. 13, 913) is greater than or equal to a diameter of a rotational trajectory of the second end of the engaging member (As showed in Fig. 13)
In Reference to Claim 11
Park discloses wherein the second end of the engaging member (Fig. 13, 995) is configured to move along the slot (Fig. 13, 913) and push the slot member based on rotation of the rotating arm (Fig. 13, 99)
In Reference to Claim 15
Park discloses wherein the driver comprises a motor (Fig. 13, 95) and a driver pully (Fig. 13, 971) configured to be rotated by the motor, and wherein the disc comprises a driven pulley (Fig. 13, 973) connected to the drive pulley via a belt (Fig. 13, 975)
In Reference to Claims 16-17
Park discloses the drive and driven pulleys and transmission belt.
Park does not teach the weight.
Kondo teaches the balance weight (Fig. 3, 2) attached to the upper side of the disc.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kondo into the design of Park. Doing so, would result in the balancing weight design of Kondo being added to the disc of Park. Both inventions of Park and Kondo having a rotating disc mechanism, Kondo teaches a method of balancing the rotational kinetic energy (Paragraph 11).
The combination of Park and Kondo as applied to Claim 13 does not teach the relative position of the rotating arm and the balance weight. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to find the best position of the balance weight in order to achieve the dynamic balance weight, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routing skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 18
Park discloses wherein the converter (Fig. 13, 99) is coupled to the support body (Fig. 13, 911) and configured to move the support body along a horizontal plane based on rotation of the rotating arm.
In Reference to Claim 19
Park disclose wherein the drive comprises a motor (Fig, 13, 95) disposed at the upper surface of the drying chamber.
In Reference to Claim 20
Park discloses the drying chamber (Fig. 1, 110) a first chamber (Fig. 1, 120) that is located below the drying chamber and accommodates the supply unit and a second chamber (Fig. 1, 111) that is located above the drying chamber and receives the driver, the disc, and the counterweight, the rotating shaft extending from the second chamber to the drying chamber.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Park and Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 2010/0180645 to Kim.
In Reference to Claim 12
Park discloses wherein the driver comprises a motor (Fig. 13, 95) and a pulley (Fig. 13, 971) configured to rotated by the motor, and wherein the disc comprises a driven pulley (Fig. 13, 973) configured to be rotated by the drive pulley via belt.
The combination of Park and Kondo as applied to Claim 12 does not teach the gearing transmission.
Kim teaches the pulley transmission can be replace by the drive/driven gear transmission (Paragraph 34)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kim into the combination of Park and Kondo as applied to Claim 12. Doing so, would result in a gear transmission being used to replace the pulley transmission. Both inventions of Park and Kim are in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the gear transmission design is merely a design variation of the belt transmission. And the gear transmission provides a predictable result of success.
In Reference to Claim 13 and 14
Park discloses the drive and driven pulleys.
Park does not teach the weight.
Kondo teaches the balance weight (Fig, 3, 2) attached to the rotating disc.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kondo into the design of Park. Doing so, would result in the balancing weight design of Kondo being added to the disc of Park. Both inventions of Park and Kondo having a rotating disc mechanism, Kondo teaches a method of balancing the rotational kinetic energy (Paragraph 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument is based on the amended claims. The argument is moot in terms of the new ground of rejection.
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 DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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 Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 2/4/26