DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach the subject matter of claim 21, in particular the functional limitations. However, Applicant is reminded that prior art subject matter must merely be capable of performing the claimed functions. The cited prior art is capable of performing the claimed functions of the driving portion and locking portion.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the objection to claims 21-23, 31-34, 36, and 39 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 21-28 and 30-39 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 41 and 42 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The claimed laundry treating apparatus can perform a materially different process such as the totality of cycles for treating laundry. The claimed method would require a significant search burden as it would require unique search strategies.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 41 and 42 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 21-28, 30-32, 34, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130312202 by Balinski et al. in view of U.S. Patent 6539753 granted to Ito et al.
As to claim 21, Balinski teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet 12 (fig. 1) having an opening in the front; a door 25 coupled to the cabinet to open and close the opening; a drum 18 inside the cabinet; a driving portion 30 to rotate the drum; and a control panel 70 including a power supply portion (power button, fig. 14) to receive a power supply command and an execution portion to receive an execution command for executing a course (fig. 14); wherein the drive portion is capable of rotating the drum based on a power supply command being input (para. 23, power must necessarily be on for the drum to rotate), wherein the drive portion would be capable of rotating the drum again after the door is locked, and wherein the drive portion is capable of rotating the drum at a larger angle when the door is locked than when the door is unlocked.
Balinski does not teach a locking portion to lock the door and that the drive portion is capable of rotating the drum less than one revolution in a state in which the door is unlocked. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a locking portion such that the drum is capable of rotating while the door is unlocked. Ito teaches a locking portion (device 28, col. 6, ln. 66 – col. 7, ln. 10) to facilitate the unlocking and locking of a door, a lock state being desirable for safety purposes during certain portions of a cycle (col. 10, ll. 54-67). It was also known from the teachings of Ito that a door may be unlocked during drum rotation for the purpose of putting additional laundry in the drum (fig. 8, period Tr; col. 10, ll. 17-20).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a locking portion in the laundry apparatus taught by Balinski for safety purposes, as taught by Ito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that a driving portion may be capable of rotating a drum when the door is unlocked to facilitate insertion of laundry, as demonstrated by Ito. Upon the obvious modification to have a locking portion, the locking portion would be capable of locking the door based on an execution command being input after the drum has rotated less than one revolution when the door is unlocked.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
As to claim 22, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating a drum less than an angle at which laundry is separated from an inner wall of the drum or a location of the laundry is changed when the door is unlocked, in particular since Balinski teaches a horizontal drum which is well-known to have this capability.
As to claim 23, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating a drum by less than 90 degrees when the door is unlocked.
As to claim 24, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating a drum within a range of 10-45 degrees and return it to its original state when the door is unlocked.
As to claim 25, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating a drum for 0.3 seconds to 1 second from when the door is unlocked.
As to claim 26, Balinski teaches display portion to display information on an outside of the control panel (fig. 1, para. 33) wherein the display portion is capable of displaying a weight of the laundry (fig. 16, para. 88) and an execution time of a course (fig. 16) after the drum starts to rotate.
As to claim 27, the display portion of Balinski is capable of displaying a weight or execution time before the drum stops.
As to claim 28, Balinski teaches that the execution portion is capable of allowing input of the execution command when the weight or execution time is displayed (para. 57).
As to claim 30, Balinski teaches a course selection portion (fig. 14) to receive a command for selecting a course, wherein the course selection portion is capable of allowing input of the selection command while the weight or execution time is displayed (para. 48).
As to claim 31, Ito teaches a sensing portion to detect whether the door is open or closed and its drive portion is capable of rotating the drum after the door opens and closes (col. 8, ll. 40-50).
As to claim 32, the drive portion of Balinski would be capable of rotating the drum again based on the door being opened and closed again after the drum has stopped.
As to claim 34, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating the drum longer when the door is locked than when the door is unlocked.
As to claim 36, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating the drum one rotation or more when the door is locked.
As to claim 37, Balinski teaches a display portion to display information on an outside of the control panel (fig. 1, para. 33) wherein the display portion is capable of displaying a weight of the laundry (fig. 16, para. 88) and an execution time of a course (fig. 16) when the door is unlocked and to display again a weight or execution time when the door is locked.
As to claim 38, the display portion of Balinski is capable of changing the execution time to a remaining time when the door is locked.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39 and 40 are 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 prior art of record does not teach the laundry treating apparatus of claim 39, in particular the claimed controller configuration. Nothing in the prior art of record teaches the configuration, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized as obvious to perform the first and second detections and controlling of the locking portion as claimed.
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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights