DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/22/2025.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 12-17 are pending and have been examined.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 5-10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (JP 2013-143990 A) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached in prior action) in view of Martin et al. (US 2011/0262740 A1).
Re claims 1 and 10, Maeda discloses a washing machine (abstract) comprising:
a body (ref. 2) including a washing tub (ref. 1); and
an operation panel assembly (ref. 6, 8) which receives a manipulation input or displays an operation state of the body, the operation panel assembly comprising:
a first cover (ref. 8) including: a first front portion defining an opening (around ref. 7); and
a first side portion (see fig. 2 sides of ref. 8 extending downward) extending from the first front portion, the first front portion and the first side portion defining a first accommodation space;
an operation panel board (ref. 9) including:
a first surface (see figs. 1-2 lower surface) on which an electronic component (ref. 10) aligned with the opening of the first cover is disposed; and
a second surface (see figs. 1-2 upper surface) opposite to the first surface and arranged in the first accommodation space so that the first surface faces the first front portion (see fig. 2); and
a second cover (ref. 13) which is coupled to the first cover and closes the first accommodation space.
Maeda does not disclose a waterproof coating layer formed only on the first surface of the operation panel board wherein the waterproof coating layer includes a conformal coating layer.
However, Martin discloses it is very well-known in the circuit board protection and waterproofing art (¶ [0002]-[0003], [0043]-[0045]) to provide a waterproof coating layer (ref. 3’ see figs. 3A-3C) formed only on the first surface of the operation panel board (see fig. 3A-3C, ¶ ¶ [0003], [0009], [0093] circuit boards) wherein the waterproof coating layer includes a conformal coating layer (¶ [0002]-[0003], [0043]-[0056], [0057]-[0061] conformal coatings).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the operational panel board of Maeda to further include a waterproof coating layer only on the first surface, including a conformal coating layer, as suggested by Martin, in order to provide compact waterproof protection and save costs.
Re claims 5-8 and 13-14, Maeda discloses wherein the second cover includes a second front portion (see figs. 2-3 upper surface of ref. 13) facing the first front portion of the first cover and a second side portion (see figs. 2-3 sides of ref. 13) extending from the second front portion to an opposite side of the first cover, wherein an opposite side of the second front portion is open (see figs. 2-3). comprising a main board (ref. 11) arranged in a second accommodation space formed by the second front portion and the second side portion. wherein the main board is accommodated in the second accommodation space so that a component surface faces an opposite side of the second front portion (see figs. 2-3). comprising a waterproof molding layer filling the second accommodation space and covering the component surface of the main board (power switch potting portion 44 and potting agent 24).
Re claims 9 and 15, Maeda discloses comprising an operation panel (ref. 6) disposed opposite to the first front portion of the first cover so that the electronic component is accessed through the opening.
Re claims 16-17, Martin further discloses wherein a thickness of the conformal waterproof coating layer ranges from several tens to several hundreds of micrometers (claims 57-58, ranges include 100 angstrom to 3.0 mm and 0.0025 mm to 0.0500 mm).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (JP 2013-143990 A) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) in view of Martin, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2004/0150303 A1).
Re claims 4 and 12, Maeda/CN114173487A further discloses comprising: a through-hole (see hole for ref. 15) which penetrates the operation panel board; and a protrusion (ref. 14) extending from the first front portion, passing through the through-hole (see figs. 2-3), protruding outward from the second surface of the operation panel board (see figs. 2-3). Maeda does not disclose a fusion protrusion and a protruding end fused to the second surface. However, Park discloses it is known in the washing machine art (abstract) to provide a fusion protrusion and a protruding end fused to the second surface (¶ [0007]-[0008] 120 a and 120 b fusion ribs, fig. 2; see also ¶ [0026] fusion protrusion ref. 550a with fusion recess 550 b see fig. 3).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the washing machine of Maeda/Martin to further include a fusion protrusion, as suggested by Park, in order to securely adhere the cover to the operation panel board.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the foreign priority date of the present Application pre-dates the publication of CN 114173487 A. Therefore, the rejection dated 1/14/2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Martin et al. (US 2011/0262740 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0176700 A1 note conformal coatings for moisture-resistance.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 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 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711