DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-8, & 10-16 are pending on the application, of which claims 1 & 6-7 are amended, claims 13-16 are newly added, and claims 2 & 9 are cancelled.
In view of the amendments to the claims the previous rejection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the new ground of rejection provided below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the Kim reference is moot, as the reference is no longer utilized in the current rejection. The suggestion of supplying hot air to a garment after supplying cold air and liquid is obtained from the Trumpler reference, which indicates rationale for providing a hot airflow after a cold airflow with liquid (Trumper [0048-0051]).
Applicant argues that the references utilized in the rejection do not teach or suggest the exertion of a tension on the garment with the air stream, however the tensioning of the garment via an airstream is provided via the air streams produced by Rochford. Specifically, [0049-0050] of Rochford indicates that symmetric airflow will be provided on both the front and rear of the garment. Since the garment is hung on a hanger/support (see Rochford Fig.2), the pressure exerted by the airstreams onto the garment would provide at least some amount of tension, even if only a miniscule amount, on the garment. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive.
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, 3-8, & 10-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “the tension on the garment” in the last line. It is unclear as to how the warmer air stream applies the tension associated with the colder air stream and liquid stream. Specifically, the recitation of “the tension” refers back to a tension exerted by the air stream utilizing the cold air stream and liquid stream, whereas “the tension on the garment” is believed to refer to tension exerted by the warmer air stream being applied to the garment. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as through the limitation states “a tension on the garment”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously recited claim.
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) 1, 5-6, 8, 10, & 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford (US20200040504A1) in view of Trumpler (DE202018004839U1).
As to claim 1, Rochford discloses a clothing treatment apparatus (abstract) which performs a method for removing wrinkles by spraying a compressed air stream and a liquid steam [0060] stream simultaneously onto a garment [0056, 0091, 0158-0159] via vertical movement of spray nozzles along the garment (e.g., see refs31a/31b/32a/32b, and [0042 & 0045]). Rochford does not disclose the air stream being at room temperature or below room temperature and the use of a warmer air stream after the cold air stream and liquid, however such a feature is known in the art as seen Trumpler.
Trumpler discloses an art related clothing treatment device (abstract), wherein a blower can provide cold and hot air functions [0034] and further discloses that utilizing cold air may allow for energy savings [0048]. Trumpler further indicates that a manner for ironing a shirt (e.g., removing wrinkles from said article) includes provided cold air and sprayed liquid toward an article to moisten the article [0050]. Then, after the moistening with cold air and liquid, heated air is supplied in order to dry and smooth the shirt [0051]. The provision of hot or cold air is based on operation of a heater from an air supply source [0049-0049]. By providing a moistening step with cold air and liquid prior to the hot air improved ironing (e.g., wrinkle removal is obtained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rochford to utilize the compressed air sprayers to provide room temperature (or cold air) with the liquid spraying, as it would allow for energy savings and improved wrinkle removal (Trumpler [0048 & 0051]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to modify Rochford to utilize a hot air stream after the cold air stream and liquid in order to dry the garment and remove wrinkles (Trumper [0051]). Further, since the air supplying component of Modified Rochford is vertically moveable, both the hot air stream and cold air stream being supplied would also be vertically moveable. As the air is supplied on both sides of the garment [0049-0050] while the garment is disposed on a support/hanging portion (e.g., see Rochford Fig.2), such air flow would also result in at least some tension exerted on the garment during the movement of the air streams along the garment.
As to claims 5-6, Modified Rochford teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a first and second air stream is supplied to either side, and directed at, the garment (Rochford [0049]). Rochford also discloses that the same pressure is supplied at the same position in order to flatten and remove wrinkles from the garment (Rochford [0049-0050]). Thus, it is understood that the air streams are symmetric in order to exert the same pressure at the same position on the garment. Such air flow would also result in at least some tension that is parallel to a surface of the garment. The claim does not stipulate to which surface of the garment the tension needs to be parallel, rather the tension merely needs to be parallel to a surface of the garment. Since the garment is provided on the hanger/support (Rochford see Fig.2), there exists some surface which is parallel to the direction of the tension exerted by the air stream.
As to claim 8, Modified Rochford discloses the method of claim 1and further discloses a cabinet (see Rochford Fig.1) and a controller for controlling the operation of the air nozzle and liquid spray nozzle (Rochford [0052 & 0096]), where the liquid and air nozzle (see Rochford refs 31a/31b/32a/32b) are carried by a carrier (e.g., see Rochford Fig.2 ref 40) that moves along the garment. As the controller control the movement of the liquid and air nozzles it is understood to perform the method of claim 1.
As to claim 10, Modified Rochford teaches the cabinet of claim 8, wherein the at least one air nozzle includes first and second air nozzles symmetrically arranged on either side of the garment (see Rochford Figs.2-4 refs 31a & 31b).
As to claim 13, Modified Rochford teaches the method of claim 1, wherein air streams are provided to the back and front of the garment simultaneously (Rochford [0049-0050]). Since the purpose of supplying hot air is to both dry and remove wrinkles from the garment (Rochford [0101] & Trumpler [0049-0051]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the warm air to both sides of the garment to dry and remove wrinkles from both sides thereof. It is understood that the air streams are symmetric in order to exert the same pressure at the same position on the garment (Rochford [0049-0050]). Such air flow would also result in at least some tension that is parallel to a surface of the garment. The claim does not stipulate to which surface of the garment the tension needs to be parallel, rather the tension merely needs to be parallel to a surface of the garment. Since the garment is provided on the hanger/support (Rochford see Fig.2), there exists some surface which is parallel to the direction of the tension exerted by the air stream.
As to claim 14, Modified Rochford teaches the method of claim 1, wherein air streams are provided to the back and front of the garment simultaneously (Rochford [0049-0050]) via an air stream generator (e.g., see Rochford Fig.2 ref 60 and Trumpler [0048-0051]). The air stream outlets is provided by elongated slits (Rochford Fig.7 ref 3111a), which thereby provide air blades (e.g., see Rochford Fig.7). Since the purpose of supplying hot air is to both dry and remove wrinkles from the garment (Rochford [0101] & Trumpler [0049-0051]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the warm air to both sides of the garment to dry and remove wrinkles from both sides thereof.
As to claims 15-16, Modified Rochford teaches the method of claim 1, wherein air streams are provided to the back and front of the garment simultaneously (Rochford [0049-0050]). As the purpose of supplying the cold air and liquid is to moisten the garment for better wrinkle removal (Trumpler [0051]), and the purpose of supplying hot air is to both dry and remove wrinkles from the garment (Rochford [0101] & Trumpler [0049-0051]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the cold air and warm air to both sides of the garment to moisten the garment and dry and remove wrinkles from both sides thereof. It is understood that the air streams are symmetric in order to exert the same pressure at the same position on the garment (Rochford [0049-0050]). Such air flow would also result in at least some tension that is parallel to a surface of the garment. The claim does not stipulate to which surface of the garment the tension needs to be parallel, rather the tension merely needs to be parallel to a surface of the garment. Since the garment is provided on the hanger/support (Rochford see Fig.2), there exists some surface which is parallel to the direction of the tension exerted by the air stream.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford (US20200040504A1) in view of Trumpler (DE202018004839U1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klecker (US20050223502A1).
As to claim 3 Modified Rochford teaches the method of claim 1, wherein air steam can be adjusted to different angles, such as downward or upwardly inclined (Rochford [0119]). Modified Rochford does not explicitly disclose the streams having the claimed angle; however, such a feature would be obvious in view of Klecker.
Klecker discloses an art related clothes treating device and system (abstract), wherein it is known that when supplying air downwardly towards a garment a known angle is between 40-60 degrees in order to prevent twisting and tangling [0048]. Accordingly, such an angle would be between 20-70 degrees relative a normal surface of the garment (see Fig.1 ref 26 & Fig. 3C showcasing garment orientation with respect to nozzle outlets)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rochford to utilize the downward angle air flow of Klecker in order to prevent twisting and tangling of the garment (Klecker [0048]). Further, it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known angle for downward air flow when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford (US20200040504A1) in view of Trumpler (DE202018004839U1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (US20180010289A1).
As to claim 4, Modified Rochford teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose the air flow velocity between 1 and 35 km/h. However, such a range is known in the art, as seen by Zhao.
Zhao discloses an art related garment treating apparatus and method (abstract), wherein it is known to circulate air between 0.01 and 1 m/s in order to dry a garment, where higher velocities can dry the garment quicker [0072]. Such a flow velocity is between 1 and 35 km/h.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rochford to supply at least the warm air stream at the flow velocity disclosed by Zhao in order to dry the garment (Zhao [0072]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford (US20200040504A1) in view of Trumpler (DE202018004839U1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roselle (US20100282785A1).
As to claim 7, Modified Rochford teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the garment is positioned on a hanger which places the garment under tension (e.g., see Rochford Fig.3 ref 20). Rochford also states that the hanger can have any shape so long as it supports a garment [0026]. Rochford does not explicitly disclose the hanger having an elastically deformable piece to place the garment under tension beyond the hanger, however such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Roselle.
Roselle discloses an art related fabric treating system (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize fabric tensioning means in order to aid in the treatment of laundry [0040], including resilient members (e.g., understood to be elastically deformable) or the like [0042] among others (Figs.1-9 & 14-18). Roselle also showcases a hanger, wherein an elastically deformable piece is provided (Figs.15-18 ref 224) in order to place the garment under tension [0095-0096]. Tensioning the garment allows for proper positioning of the garment and a crisp feel after treatment [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rochford to provide a hanger with an elastically deformable piece to allow for proper positioning of the garment and a crisp feel after treatment (Roselle [0040]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford (US20200040504A1) in view Trumpler (DE202018004839U1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Klecker (US20050223502A1).
As to claim 11 Modified Rochford teaches the method of claim 8, wherein air steam can be adjusted to different angles, such as downward or upwardly inclined (Rochford [0119]). Modified Rochford does not explicitly disclose the nozzles having the claimed angle; however, such a feature would be obvious in view of Klecker.
Klecker discloses an art related clothes treating device and system (abstract), wherein it is known that when supplying air downwardly towards a garment a known angle is between 40-60 degrees in order to prevent twisting and tangling [0048]. Accordingly, such an angle would be between 20-70 degrees relative a normal surface (i.e., horizontal plane) of the garment (see Fig.1 ref 26 & Fig. 3C showcasing garment orientation with respect to nozzle outlets)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rochford to utilize the downward angle air flow of Klecker in order to prevent twisting and tangling of the garment (Klecker [0048]). Further, it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known angle for downward air flow when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford (US20200040504A1) in view of Trumpler (DE202018004839U1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Song (US20120317729A1).
As to claim 12, Modified Rochford teaches the cabinet of claim 8, further comprising a first liquid spray bar and a second liquid spray bar (see Rochford Figs.2-4 refs 32a & 32b) on either side of the garment. Rochford further discloses that the moving units can be variously modified such that the movement pattern is changeable [0077]. Thus, although Rochford does not explicitly disclose the bars being offset, a skilled artisan would find such a variation to be a mere rearrangement of part (see MPEP 2144.04) envisaged by the variability of the spray bar moving mechanisms. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success from such a various without any unexpected results. Further, such a movement that results in offset spraying elements is known in the art, as seen by Song.
Song discloses an art related laundry treatment apparatus (abstract), wherein it is shown that a spray bar configuration allows for a spray bar to be on either side of the garment (Fig.1 ref 5) while travelling vertically (see guide Fig.1 ref 51 also [0053-0054]). Song further showcases that the spray bars can also rotate with a predefined angle such that the spray bars are offset to one another (Fig.3 & [0059-0065]). The configuration of Song also allows for a contamination detection part to be present on the spray bars [0074-0075] which allows for contamination detection while reciprocating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rochford to utilize the movement mechanism of Song, to thereby allow for contamination detection to also be conducted while the spray bars move. Such a modification is within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, as Rochford clearly envisages other forms of movement for the spray bars.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bullock (US3869815A) warm air is utilized after the smoothing of creases for drying of the garments (Col.1 lines 23-28).
Shin (US20210032797A1) cool air can be utilized for the treatment of garments, especially concerning wrinkle removal (abstract [0058 & 0063]).
Park (US20120240427A1) indicates that even though cooler air is supplied at first for the purposes of preheating [0055].
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 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711