DETAILED ACTION 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 § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 11,686,036) . The claims are reasonably and broadly construed in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Kim as teaching: a laundry treatment apparatus (see tile and abstract) comprising: a cabinet 3 ; a rotatable drum 5 located in the cabinet; a support panel 33 or 32 located at a front surface of the drum; and an infrared sensor 90 located at the support panel, the infrared sensor arranged to face an interior of the drum to measure a temperature inside the drum, the infrared sensor being centrally located at an upper end of the support panel (column 5 lines 19-44) , the infrared sensor including: a holder 140 configured to fix the infrared sensor to the support panel; a sensor unit 100 ; and a cover covering the sensor unit such that the cover is located between the sensor unit and the interior of the drum (column 7 lines 4-33). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 17 and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,686,036 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 11,686,036 anticipates claims 17 and 31 except for the current application claimed holder configuration and cover or PCB, LED, and sensing unit FILLIN "Explain why the instant claims are not patentably distinct over the claims of the U.S. Patent." . It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features since the claims of the common inventive entity would perform the invention as claimed regardless of that current claimed feature recitation. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this action may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper or reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, B, N, O, P, cited with this action are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, cited with this action, teach laundry treatment apparatus. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4875 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Craig Schneider can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272 3607 . 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. Wednesday, March 11, 2026 /STEPHEN M GRAVINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753