DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 02/26/2024. Claim(s) 1–20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13–20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim at this time. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/10/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “where a high-speed period” does not make grammatical sense in the context of the surrounding claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 & 14–16 of co-pending Application No. 18/686745 to Kim et al (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim language present in this application is also present in the reference application.
Claims 1–8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7–8 & 14 of co-pending Application No. 18/686749 to Lee et al (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim language present in this application is also present in the reference application.
These are provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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.
Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008-259549 to Akitaka (citations are directed to the attached machine translation) in view of KR 10-2018-0164327 to Choe (citations are directed to English equivalent US 2022/0064848).
With regard to claim 1, Akitaka discloses a method for controlling a laundry treating apparatus (Page 1) including a drum (104) configured to accommodate laundry therein (Fig. 1; Page 3), a driver (119) configured to rotate the drum (104) (Fig. 1; Page 3), a circulation flow channel (203) providing a space where air of the drum (104) is circulated or moisture contained in air is condensed (Fig. 2; Page 5), and a heat exchanger assembly (204) configured to heat air flowing through the circulation flow channel (203) (Fig. 2; Page 5), the method comprising: an air supply step (S201) of supplying heated air to the drum via the heat exchanger assembly (Fig. 11; Page 8); and a rotation step of rotating the drum during the air supply (Page 8), wherein the air supply step is divided into a preheating period, a constant-rate drying period, and a falling-rate drying period (Page 8; Figs. 10 & 11), wherein the falling-rate drying period is set to be entered when a discharge temperature of the circulation flow channel rises to a temperature equal to or higher than a reference temperature or dryness of the laundry reaches a set value (Pages 8–12), wherein the rotation step includes a rolling motion of rotating the drum (S208) (Page 9), wherein the rolling motion is performed in the falling-rate drying period (Page 9; S208 occurs during the fall-rate drying state).
Akitaka fails to disclose the laundry falling or rolling at a vertical level lower than a vertical level of a center of the drum. Choe teaches the laundry falling or rolling at a vertical level lower than a vertical level of a center of the drum (¶¶ 0045–0046; Fig 3a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer of Akitaka with the low rolling of Choe because such a combination would have had the added benefit of increased movement of the article being dried, which increases drying efficiency.
With regard to claim 2, Akitaka further discloses the rolling motion is performed when entering the falling-rate drying period (Page 9).
With regard to claim 3, Akitaka further discloses the rolling motion is performed until the dryness of the laundry reaches a specific value in the falling-rate drying period (Page 10).
With regard to claim 4, Akitaka further discloses the rolling motion is performed for a set time period when entering the falling-rate drying period (Page 10).
With regard to claim 5, Akitaka as previously combined with Choe further discloses the rotation step includes a hanging motion [with] a high-speed period where the laundry rotates in a state of being attached to an inner wall of the drum (Choe: 3) and a low-speed period where the laundry rotates while falling from the inner wall of the drum (Choe: 3) are periodically performed (Choe: ¶¶ 0046–0047), wherein the rolling motion is performed before the hanging motion (Choe: Fig. 2; ¶ 0051).
With regard to claim 6, Akitaka as previously combined with Choe fails to disclose a duration of the rolling motion in the falling-rate drying period is set to be longer than a duration of the hanging motion. The duration of each spin mode is a known results-effective variable because increased duration only improves moisture removal to a certain extent (an increase in spin time has a decreasing rate of marginal returns). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine an optimum duration of each mode based on the value of the returns for added time, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 7, Akitaka as previously combined with Choe further discloses the hanging motion is terminated when the dryness of the laundry reaches a completion value higher than the specific value (Choe: ¶ 0012).
With regard to claim 8, Akitaka as previously combined with Choe further discloses the rolling motion is provided to rotates the drum at a constant speed in one direction (¶¶ 0045–0046).
Claims 9–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akitaka in view of Choe, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0190720 to Noh et al.
With regard to claim 9, Akitaka fails to disclose the rotation step includes a shaking motion including repeatedly increasing and decreasing a rotation speed of the drum in a predetermined period, wherein the rolling motion is performed after the shaking motion. Noh teaches a shaking motion including repeatedly increasing and decreasing a rotation speed of the drum in a predetermined period (Fig. 4), wherein the rolling motion is performed after the shaking motion (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer of Akitaka with the shaking motion of Noh because such a combination would have had the added benefit of breaking apart a bundle of clothes to ensure they are evenly and uniformly dried (balling can cause incomplete drying of clothes toward the middle of the ball).
With regard to claim 10, Akitaka as previously combined with Noh further discloses the shaking motion is performed before entering the falling-rate drying period (Noh: Fig. 4; induction heater is on).
With regard to claim 11, Akitaka as previously combined with Noh further discloses the shaking motion periodically varies the rotation speed of the drum to at least two of a first speed for the laundry to rotate while being attached to an inner wall of the drum (Noh: Fig. 4), a second speed lower than the first speed (Noh: Fig. 4), and a third speed lower than the second speed (Noh: Fig. 4), wherein the rolling motion is performed after the shaking motion is terminated (Akitaka: Page 9; Noh: Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 12, Akitaka as previously combined with Choe and Noh further disclose the rolling motion rotates the drum at a speed lower than the third speed (Akitaka: Page 9; Choe: ¶¶ 0045–0046; Fig 3a); Noh: Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights