Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/561,133

CLOTHES TREATMENT APPARATUS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Nov 15, 2023
Examiner
PERRIN, JOSEPH L
Art Unit
1711
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Electronics Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
974 granted / 1263 resolved
+12.1% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1299
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1263 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Turning to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is noted that the terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable interpretation (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and limitations from a pending application's specification will not be read into the claims (Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices. Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or the recognition of properties that are inherently possessed by the prior art reference. Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject matter of a claim when that reference discloses each and every element set forth in the claim (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); however, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what Applicant is claiming, but only that the claims "read on” something disclosed in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984) (and overruled in part on another issue), SRI Intel v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. Of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118, 227 USPQ 577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962). Regarding independent claim 1 and the § 102 rejection over Lee, Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose the amended features of "supplying water to the tub via the tub water supply pipe up to a predetermined water level at which the drain hole is submerged," and "supplying the detergent and water into the tub via the storage water supply pipe after completion of supplying the water via the tub water supply pipe." Examiner disagrees. Lee clearly discloses adding a predetermined amount of water directly into the tub for the purpose of wetting in step 604, and given the fact that the drain hole is at the bottommost position of the tub, the position is taken that any amount of water added to the tub would necessarily submerge the drain hole. Detergent and water are subsequently added to a predetermined level (note water level sensor 17 below the bottommost portion of the rotary drum for sensing a water level). Regarding similar arguments for independent claims 8 and 12, these are not persuasive for reasons of same indicated above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0099052 to Lee et al. (“Lee”). Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, and 12-13, Lee (in Figs. 1, 3-5, and associated text) discloses a method for controlling a laundry treating apparatus including a tub (11) configured to store water therein, a drum (12) rotatably disposed inside the tub to store an object-to-be-washed therein, a detergent storage (19) with a detergent and rinse chamber configured to store a detergent and rinsing agents therein (see ¶ [0053]), a storage water supply pipe (22) configured to supply water to the detergent/rinse storage, a tub connecting pipe (26) configured to guide water discharged from the detergent storage to the tub, a tub water supply pipe (30) configured to supply water to the tub, a drain hole (top of drain pipe 62) defined to extend through the tub, a sensor (17) configured to sense a water level in the tub, and a drain pump (52) connected to the drain hole, the method comprising: supplying water to the tub via the tub water supply pipe up to a predetermined water level at which the drain hole is submerged (see step 604/6058; note a predetermined amount of water is added directly to the tub, which manifestly covers the drain hole located at the very bottom of the tub); supplying the detergent and water into the tub via the storage water supply pipe after completion of supplying the water via the water supply pipe is completed (see step 606); and washing the object-to-be-washed by rotating the drum after completion of supplying the detergent and water via the storage water supply pipe (see step 620), wherein the predetermined water level comprises a first water level set to a water level lower than a lowest point of the drum and higher than the drain hole at the tub (see step S6058 - S6062 in Fig. 5), wherein the laundry treating apparatus further includes a heater (16) fixed to the tub and positioned between the lowest point of the drum and the drain hole, the heater being configured to heat water stored in the tub, and wherein the first water level is set to a water level where the heater is submerged (see step 612 and ¶ [0090]-[0091] where the water is stopped and heated by the heater, manifestly requiring submersion of the heater). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 5-7, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 2019/0211495 to Im et al. (“Im”). Regarding claims 5-7, 11, and 14, Lee, supra, discloses the claimed invention including filling steps of supplying water to a set level and supplying water and detergent to a set level. Lee also discloses claim 6 and comprising sensing an amount of the object-to-be-washed stored in the drum before supplying the detergent and the water into the tub via the storage water supply pipe, wherein the second water level is set to increase in proportion to the amount of the object-to-be-washed stored in the drum (see steps 604-608; note ¶ [0110] where amount of load is detected). Lee does not expressly disclose the water levels higher than the lowest point of the drum or rotating the drum to dissolve detergent. Im (in Fig. 11 and associated text) teaches an art-related washing machine and process with a detergent dissolving step S2 with a water level LV1 higher than the bottom of the drum following supplying detergent and water (S1) to the tub and prior to washing (S5). Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to modify the washing control method of Lee by filling to a water level above a bottom of the drum and dissolving/mixing detergent and water by drum rotation, as taught in Im, to yield the predictable results of dissolving detergent in the washing machine tub prior to washing. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US2019/0024297 to Gwon et al. (“Gwon”). Lee, supra, discloses the claimed invention including a water level sensor. Lee does not expressly disclose the sensor configuration including a communication pipe and the sensor monitoring a change in pressure inside the communication pipe to determine water level. Gwon teaches that it is known in the washing machine art to utilize a pressure sensor 92 and communication pipe 91 to determine water level (see Fig. 1 and ¶ [0057]). Because both Lee and Gwon teach sensing a water level in a washing machine, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one known water level sensor for the other to achieve the predictable result of determining a water level in a washing machine. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00. 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, Michael E. 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. Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D. Primary Examiner Art Unit 1711 /Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 26, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601099
DISPENSER ASSEMBLY FOR A LAUNDRY TREATMENT APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595617
LAUNDRY APPLIANCE HAVING AN IMPELLER WITH A REMOVABLE FILTRATION STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595615
WASHING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590397
INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584257
LAUNDRY WASHING MACHINE WITH SPIRAL VARIABLE LENGTH AGITATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+22.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1263 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month