DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/9/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 6/9/2026
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) and Stevens et al. (US 20130176700 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 so that the second surface of the operation panel board and a side surface of the operational panel board connecting the first surface and the second surface are not covered by the waterproof coating layer, 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).
Examiner further notes it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select “only on the first surface”, there being only 4 combinations of coating that protect the first surface: top only, top-side only, top-bottom only, all sides. Here, Martin teaches coating a surface against which protection is desired (¶ [0014]) and Maeda is concerned with waterproofing against the dripping of condensation, i.e. requires top protection. As such, the selection of top-only would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as selection of one of a limited combination of possibilities. Moreso, in view of Martin’s figures leading one of ordinary skill in the art depicting only one surface being coated.
Nonetheless, to any extent the motivation between Maeda and Martin is unclear as to making the selection of only the first surface, Stevens is cited for explicitly teaching a conformal coating formed on only one surface (see Fig. 3A, refs. 30A’’, 30B’’ on only an upper surface; or see also Fig. 2 ref. 30 on only a lower surface) of electronic components (refs. 24), while leaving other surfaces exposed to the same internal space uncoated (¶ [0012]), including removing portions of the moisture-resistant coating from selected regions (¶ [0012]), with emphasis on protecting features more susceptible to damage from moisture (¶ [0039]).
Regarding “so that the second surface of the operation panel board and a side surface of the operational panel board connecting the first surface and the second surface are not covered by the waterproof coating layer”, Stevens teaches leaving other surfaces exposed (¶ [0012]) e.g. Fig. 3A the side and bottom surfaces appear uncoated and Fig. 2 the side and top surfaces appear uncoated (¶ [0025] portions 23’ of the surfaces that define the boundaries 23’ may remain uncoated).
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; and to further
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 Stevens, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2004/0150303 A1).
Re claims 4 and 12, Maeda/Martin/Stevens discloses as shown above. Martin 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/Stevens 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 6/9/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown in the rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to the Martin and Maeda (Arguments at p. 7-8), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, Martin’s conformal layer may be a substitute or in conjunction with the potting/molding of Maeda. The motivation to combine is not to avoid thermal, mechanical, [and] warpage as purported by Applicant, but rather to avoid known operability concerns of water damage, and also cost savings. Applicant’s assertion that additional coating could reintroduce or aggravate the operability concerns are pure speculation.
Applicant’s assertion that Maeda already addresses waterproofing does not preclude (i.e. make non-obvious) any lateral or improved waterproofing techniques. That is, Maeda teaching waterproofing does not teach away, discredit nor disparage one of ordinary skill in the art from looking at other waterproofing methods.
Applicant further appears to conflate “potting” with “a conformal coating”. As previously argued by Applicant and argued at p. 10 by Applicant, “potting”/molding is significantly different form of waterproofing than a thin “conformal coating”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be led to believe that a thin film conformal coating would yield the same issues of warping, increased operation force, and deterioration of operability, as considered by Maeda. As such, Maeda’s teachings as to avoiding certain regions from potting/molding do not constitute a teaching away from a conformal coating.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to “only on the first surface”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The selection of one of the limited four combinations of top only, top plus side only, top plus bottom only and all sides, is prima facie obvious where the primary problem faced by both Maeda and Applicant is the problem of protecting the board from water dropping from above, i.e. desirable to protect the top.
Nonetheless, Examiner has cited new reference Stevens et al. (US 20130176700 A1) for explicitly teaching a conformal coating formed on only one surface (see Fig. 3A, refs. 30A’’, 30B’’ on only an upper surface; or see also Fig. 2 ref. 30 on only a lower surface) of electronic components (refs. 24), while leaving other surfaces exposed to the same internal space uncoated (¶ [0012]), including removing portions of the moisture-resistant coating from selected regions (¶ [0012]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110143021 A1 note coat top surface of a PCB.
KR 20130055960 A note conformal coating on an upper surface of a semiconductor device to prevent contamination or moisture.
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
Prosecution Insights