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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II and Species 1a and 2a in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 10-21 are generic. This is not found persuasive because claims 10-21 contain claim language relating to the location of the handle being at the rear bracket, which is not generic to the alternative species of having a bracket at the side of the apparatus.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/31/2025.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-19 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.
At claim 10, line 4, it states that “a first treating apparatus stacked on the first treating apparatus”, however, it seems rather from the disclosure that the first treating apparatus is stacked on the second treating apparatus. Clarification is requested.
At claim 10, the last two lines thereof states “a first frame for coupling a front portion of the first side panel and a front portion of the second side panel”. However, this is inconsistent with the disclosure as filed. Rather it seems that the first frame is formed at a front portion of the first front panel and a front portion of the second front panel. Clarification is requested.
At claim 11, it is not apparent in the disclosure that the upper fastening unit is coupled to the front portion of the first side panel, but rather at Fig. 8 is shows a side profile of the apparatus and upper fastening unit 201a appears to be formed at the front panel. Clarification is requested.
The other identified claims depend, either directly or indirectly, from claims 10 and/or 11.
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.
Claims 10-11 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20130027926 herein referred to as “KR” (cited previously by Applicant on the IDS filed 4/12/2024).
As to claims 10-11, KR discloses a laundry treating apparatus having an upper unit 10 and lower unit 20 (Figs. 1-3) with front, side, and rear panels at each. At Fig. 6, the rear panels of each unit 10, 20 are connected by a rear bracket 160. The front sides of each bracket 150 form a frame.
As to claims 19-20, KR discloses wherein the rear bracket includes a middle part extending in a lateral direction, an upper part extending upward from the middle part in the lateral direction and a lower part extending downward from the middle part in the lateral direction and wherein the middle part contacts a top of the second treating apparatus, and wherein the upper part contacts the first rear panel and the lower part contacts the second rear panel (see rear bracket 160).
As to claim 21, KR discloses wherein a handle is provided at the middle part of the rear bracket (given the plateaued shape of bracket 160, it may be interpreted to be a handle, as there is something to hold on to). The claim language reciting a handle is an intended use of the apparatus, and KR discloses this feature because its bracket 160 is designed to be grasped by the hand due to its step/plateaued shape. This shape not only fits the rear side of the laundry apparatus, but also is formed with a shape for being capable of being handled due to the cavity of the shape formed at an underside of the bracket.
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.
Claims 10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. herein referred to as “Hwang” (USPN 7,685,846), further in view of KR (cited above).
As to claim 10, Hwang discloses a pair of laundry machines stacked together 80, 90. In KR there is disclosure of side, front, and rear fastening units (at Fig. 2: see front machine unit 170 and side fastening units 100, and at Fig. 9: see rear fastening unit 260). The rear fastening bracket of fixing bracket 260 connects at two points to the machines, first at the backside of the first device 90 and second at the bracket 100. Bracket 100 connects to the upper machine 80 and thus bracket 160 connects to the upper machine 80 indirectly, thus reading on “a rear bracket for coupling the first rear panel and the second rear panel”.
As to claims 12-14, Hwang discloses at Figs. 6-8, its front frame bracket 170 is coupled to the front portion of brackets 100, and bracket 170 includes a guide mechanism for accurately coupling to bracket 100 by use of a recess 179, projection 178, and flanges 174, 175. Brackets 170 and 100 are connected, as shown in Figs. 7-8 for example. A supplementary stopper 378 is formed having a curved cross-section along A-A of 379. Supplementary bracket 379 is useful in coming into contact with device 90 intermittently by the vibration of the device and thus limiting sounds from such vibrations. As shown in Fig. 10B bracket 370 is bent upwards from device 90 (supplementary bracket reads on the claimed guide panel having first and second protrusions).
As to claim 15, in Hwang it is unclear at Fig. 11, whether bracket 370 is ahead of a front face of bracket 170. However, due to the purpose of eliminating vibrational sounds and dampening, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make bracket 370 have a footprint that amply covers the space it is installed in above bracket 170, thus preventing elements of the fastening frame and laundry units from colliding, and thus limiting noise. As shown in Fig. 10B, the sides of bracket 379 appear to extend further forward to aid in covering the stacked bracketed areas, thus supporting a need for the bracket 379 extending further forward than the bracketing mechanisms below.
As to claim 16, Hwang at Fig. 2 shows laundry apparatus 90 having a controller at its front panel and formed between upper and lower laundry apparatus 80, 90.
As to claims 17-19, in Hwang the bracket 170 is formed on the top of the bottom laundry apparatus, and it is not apparent in Hwang the use of a complementary bracket on the bottom of the upper laundry apparatus that would be coupled together with 170. However, in Hwang, the side brackets 100 have both a top and bottom part that form together to create a sturdy connection point by use of extensions (see disclosure above). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the front and even rear edges between the lower and upper laundry machines connected with complementary bracketing. This would ensure a very tight fit together, to reduce sound during vibrational motions. Duplication of known bracketing parts would result in expected results of improved bracketing. In other words, having complementary bracketing along all the edges of the plane in which the lower and upper apparatus are connected, would ensure a tighter fit, thus reducing loosening of the top machine from the bottom machine, and also reduce sounds from vibrational effects of tumbling laundry. See also the rear bracket 160 in KR.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5pm EST.
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 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.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711