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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 7 -12 and 17-20 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. Re Claim 7, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim limitation “is located further toward one side…” is because further implies a comparison but what it is further than is not described. Claims 8-12 are rejected as they depend from Claim 7 without curing the deficiency. Re Claim 17, it is unclear whether a resin case is a case made of resin or a case that contains a resin. Claims 18-20 are rejected as they depend from Claim 17 without curing the deficiency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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(s) 1-4 ar e rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" WO 2013/045299 , hereinafter referred to as “’299” . Re Claim 1, ‘299 teaches a drum type washing machine comprising: a tub formed in a cylindrical shape (See Fig. 1 with circle implies a cylindrical tub) and including a rotating drum configured to receive laundry; a casing including a receiving region in which the tub is accommodated, an upper region above the receiving region, and four corner regions arranged around the tub (arbitrary but can define as the four corners of the front face); and a water softening device including: a hardness component remover (ion exchanger 6), and a regeneration agent container unit (salt container 9) spaced apart from the hardness component remover on opposite sides from a center of the tub (left and right) and configured to hold a regeneration agent (salt). Re Claims 2-4, the regeneration unit 9 is in a first (upper left) of the corner regions, the hardness component remove is located in a second of the four corner regions (upper right). 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. 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. 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(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" WO 2013/045299 , hereinafter referred to as “’299”. ‘299 is relied upon as applied to the claims above. In the event that Claims 1-4 are not found to be anticipated by ‘299 because the cylindrical tub and drum are not found to be explic i t l y taught , these claims are rejected as unpatentable because it is both very well known and obvious to provide a cylindrical tub and drum for washing clothing in a washing machine. Re Claim 5, ‘299 teaches a detergent container case 3 between the water softening device and the tub and configured to hold detergent, wherein the detergent container case is located in the upper region (See Fig. 1). However, regarding Claim 5, ‘299 does not appear to explicitly teach the regeneration agent to be located below the detergent container case. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide the regeneration agent to be below the detergent container case because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only rou tine skill in the art, and in doing so each part (detergent dispensing and salt regeneration) would perform the intended and expected functions without unexpected results. Re Claim 6, the container is shown as a withdrawable drawer in the front of the case. See Fig. 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13 -1 6 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. T he pool tank provided between a detergent container case and the hardness component remover and temporarily holding soft water; a water supply path connecting the pool tank to the regeneration agent container unit; and a pump configured to supply the soft water from the pool tank to the regeneration agent container unit, and supply water treated for regeneration from the regeneration agent container unit to the pool tank does not appear to be obvious to provide in conjunction with the other softening device structure as claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JASON Y KO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7451 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9:00-6:00 . 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 Michael Barr can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1414 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT JASON Y. KO Primary Examiner Art Unit 1711 /JASON Y KO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711