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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 39-40, 42-48, 50-52, and 54-74 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06 April 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 38, 41, 49, and 53 (wherein Applicant elected Group I and the species for the heat exchanger) in the reply filed on 06 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant argues that Examiner does not adequately delineate the differing groups and fully describe why said groups and/or species relate to a single general inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because Examiner, in the Restriction requirement issued on 09 February 2026, explains why unity of invention does not exist with respect to the differing groups lacking a common technical feature as found at the end of page 3 and page 4 of the action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 38, 41, 49 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021508568A to Yao et al. (Yao) in view of U.S. Patent No. 2011265523 to Bison et al. (Bison).
Regarding claims 38 and 53, Yao discloses a laundry treating apparatus (Fig. 1, generally) comprising: a first drum configured to receive laundry therein (Fig. 1, part 2); a tub disposed below the first drum and configured to receive water therein (Fig. 1, part 3); a second drum disposed in the tub and configured to receive laundry therein (Fig. 1, part 4); a base disposed between the first drum and the tub (see Fig. 1, the area in which parts 13 and 14 are encloses); an air supply disposed at the base and configured to supply air to the first drum (Fig. 1, part 14); a fluid circulation system disposed at the base, the fluid circulation system comprising a compressor configured to compress a fluid for exchanging heat with the air of the air supply (Fig. 6, at part 61; machine translation, page 5, paragraph 5, “Optionally, in one embodiment, the drying component 13…”). Yao does not disclose wherein a detergent supply disposed between the first drum and the tub and configured to supply detergent into the tub, wherein a lower end of the compressor overlaps with the detergent supply along a direction parallel to a ground; and wherein the base is spaced apart from the detergent supply in a direction parallel to a ground, and wherein a lower end of the base is disposed downward relative to an upper end of the detergent supply.
Bison discloses a laundry treating apparatus (Fig.1-5, generally) wherein a detergent supply disposed above the tub and configured to supply detergent into the tub (Fig. 1, parts 42 and 12), wherein heat pump system includes a compressor (paragraph 51) wherein a lower end of the compressor overlaps with the detergent supply along a direction parallel to a ground (Fig. 5, at part 38) all in order to achieve the predictable result of fitting the components within a housing of the device thereof which reduces a vertical height thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to have modified the fluid circulation system of Yao with the detergent supply to tub to heat pump system with compressor configuration of Bison along with base to detergent supply configuration thereof all in order to achieve the predictable result of reducing a vertical height of the assembly.
Regarding claims 41 and 49, Yao in view of Bison is relied upon as above in claim 38. Bison further discloses that heat pump system comprises a heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between the fluid and the air of the air supply (paragraph 51), and Yao as modified by Bison, as above, discloses wherein a lower end of the heat exchanger overlaps with the detergent supply along the direction parallel to the ground. further comprising a heat exchanger that is disposed adjacent to the detergent supply and coupled to the base, the heat exchanger being configured to carry the fluid and to exchange heat between the fluid and the air of the air supply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (571)270-7379. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/BENJAMIN L OSTERHOUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights