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(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leibman et al. (US 10,590,593).
Regarding claim 1, Leibman teaches a laundry appliance (10) operating in a commercial laundromat, the laundry appliance comprising: a cabinet (12); a tub (26) positioned within the cabinet; a basket rotatably mounted within the tub and defining a chamber (28) configured for receiving a load of clothes; a door (30) rotatably mounted to the cabinet for providing selective access to the chamber; and a battery charging assembly (120, 124 and 150) mounted to the cabinet, the battery charging assembly comprising: a docking station (120) positioned on or within the cabinet; a charging pack (102) removably received within the docking station; and a charging assembly (150) operably coupled to the docking station and being configured for charging the charging pack when the charging pack is installed in the docking station (figs. 1-5; col. 2, line 62 to col. 3, line 60 and col. 5, line 32 to col. 7, lines 52).
Regarding claim 11, Leibman further teaches wherein the docking station comprises an electrical docking port for wired charging of the charging pack (col. 7, lines 34-52).
Regarding claim 12, Leibman further teaches wherein the docking station comprises: a wireless charging assembly for selectively charging the charging pack when the charging pack is installed in the docking station (col. 7, lines 45-52).
Regarding claim 13, Leibman further teaches wherein the docking station is recessed within the cabinet (figs. 4 and 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-9 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibman in view of Abbott (WO 2023/076954A1).
Regarding claim 2, Leibman teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for a locking mechanism as claimed.
However, Abbott teaches locking mechanism for securing the charging pack within the docking station ([00159] and [00240]).
In view of Abbott’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leibman by incorporating the teaching as taught by Abbott in order to secure the charging pack and also prevent the charging pack from being removed from the docking station (see Abbott: [00159]).
Regarding claim 3, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Leibman and Abbott further teaches wherein the locking mechanism comprises a protruding latch that is received within an aperture of the charging pack (Leibman: fig. 7 and col. 6, line 62 to col. 7, line 6. Abbott: [00159]).
Regarding claim 4, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Leibman further teaches wherein the locking mechanism comprises: a docking door (112) that is movable between an open position to permit access to the charging pack and a closed position to prevent access to the charging pack (fig. 6 and col. 5, line 64 to col. 6, line 8).
Regarding claim 5, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Leibman further teaches a controller operably coupled to the battery charging assembly (col. 4, line 56 to col. 5, line 6) but silent to receive a request to access the charging pack; and unlock the docking station to permit access to the charging pack.
However, Abbott teaches receive a request to access the charging pack; and unlock the docking station to permit access to the charging pack ([00240]).
In view of Abbott’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leibman by incorporating the teaching as taught by Abbott in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Abbott further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: prompt a user for payment upon receiving the request to access the charging pack; and receive payment from the user prior to unlocking the docking station ([00219], [00221]-[00223] and [00239]).
Regarding claim 7, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Leibman further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: lock the door when the charging pack is removed from the docking station; and unlock door when the charging pack is returned into docking station (fig. 6 and col. 5, line 64 to col. 6, line 21).
Regarding claim 8, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Leibman further teaches wherein the controller is configured to: lock the charging pack in the docking station before unlocking the door of laundry appliance (fig. 6 and col. 5, line 64 to col. 6, line 21).
Regarding claim 9, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the charging pack comprises: a wireless charging assembly for wirelessly charging a cell phone.
However, Abbott teaches the charging pack comprises: a wireless charging assembly for wirelessly charging a cell phone ([00109] and [00240]).
In view of Abbott’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leibman by incorporating the teaching as taught by Abbott since it is just a matter of intended use of the battery pack.
Regarding claim 14, Leibman teaches a method operating a laundry appliance in a commercial laundromat, the laundry appliance comprising a tub positioned within a cabinet (12), a door (30) rotatably mounted to the cabinet for providing selective access to the tub, and a battery charging assembly (120, 124 and 150) mounted to the cabinet and comprising docking station (120) positioned on or within the cabinet, a charging pack (102) removably received within the docking station, and a charging assembly (150) operably coupled to the docking station and being configured for charging the charging pack when the charging pack is installed in the docking station (figs. 1-5; col. 2, line 62 to col. 3, line 60 and col. 5, line 32 to col. 7, lines 52).
Leibman fails to teach receiving a request to access the charging pack; and unlocking the docking station to permit access to the charging pack.
However, Abbott teaches receive a request to access the charging pack; and unlock the docking station to permit access to the charging pack ([00240]).
In view of Abbott’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leibman by incorporating the teaching as taught by Abbott in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Abbott further teaches prompting a user for payment upon receiving the request to access the charging pack; and receiving payment from the user prior to unlocking the docking station ([00219], [00221]-[00223] and [00239]).
Regarding claim 16, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Abbott further teaches wherein the laundry appliance further comprises a locking mechanism for securing the charging pack within the docking station ([00159] and [00240]), the method further comprising: locking the door when the charging pack is removed from the docking station; and unlocking door when the charging pack is returned into docking station (See Leibman: fig. 6 and col. 5, line 64 to col. 6, line 21).
Regarding claim 17, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Leibman further teaches wherein the laundry appliance comprises an electrical docking port to charge the charging pack, the method comprising: charging the charging pack using the electrical docking port when the charging back is installed within the docking station (col. 7, lines 32-52).
Regarding claim 18, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the charging pack comprises: a wireless charging assembly for wirelessly charging a cell phone.
However, Abbott teaches the charging pack comprises: a wireless charging assembly for wirelessly charging a cell phone ([00109] and [00240]).
In view of Abbott’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leibman by incorporating the teaching as taught by Abbott since it is just a matter of intended use of the battery pack.
Regarding claim 19, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Leibman and Abbott further teach wherein the docking station comprises a wireless charging assembly for selectively charging the charging pack when the charging pack is installed in the docking station (Leibman: col. 7, lines 45-52. Abbott: [00109] and [00240]).
Regarding claim 20, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Leibman further teaches wherein the docking station is recessed within the cabinet (fig.3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibman in view of Hemesath et al. (US 2016/0020638).
Regarding claim 10, Leibman teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for wherein the charging pack comprises: a charging cable configured for electrically coupling to a cell phone for charging the cell phone.
However, Hemesath teaches charging pack (300) comprises: a charging cable (320) configured for electrically coupling to a cell phone for charging the cell phone (130) (figs. 3A, 6 and [0027]).
In view of Hemesath’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leibman by incorporating the teaching as taught by Hemesath since it is notoriously well-known to have charging cable for wired charging cell phone, e.g. USB charging cable.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibman as modified by Abbott as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hemesath.
Regarding claim 18, Leibman as modified by Abbott teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for wherein the charging pack comprises: a charging cable configured for electrically coupling to a cell phone for charging the cell phone.
However, Hemesath teaches charging pack (300) comprises: a charging cable (320) configured for electrically coupling to a cell phone for charging the cell phone (130) (figs. 3A, 6 and [0027]).
In view of Hemesath’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Leibman and Abbott by incorporating the teaching as taught by Hemesath since it is notoriously well-known to have charging cable for wired charging cell phone, e.g. USB charging cable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Reeves (US 2024/0117549); Min et al. (US 2023/0068541) and Kim et al. (US 12,247,340) are cited because they are related to laundry machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights