DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 27, 28, 31-33, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170037559 by Gallagher et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100186461 by Hasse et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20080202173 by Kim et al.
As to claim 27, Gallagher teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet 12 (fig. 40); a tub in the cabinet; a first storage 340 at least partially exposed outside the cabinet and configured to receive a first detergent; a second storage 62 inside the cabinet, the second storage including a first chamber to receive a second detergent being in communication with the tub (fig. 40, para. 61, first chamber being the housing that receives the detergent drawer).
Gallagher does not teach that the second storage has a second chamber that receives the first detergent and that the second storage discharges the first detergent received in the second chamber into the tub via the first chamber. Instead, Gallagher teaches that the first detergent bypasses the second storage when discharged into the tub (fig. 40, first detergent flows through lines 366, 308, and 64). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious such that the second storage has a second chamber that receives the first detergent that is then discharged into the tub via the first chamber. Such modification to Gallagher would essentially be routing line 308 into the detergent drawer instead of directly into outlet conduit 64.
Hasse teaches a laundry treating apparatus having a first storage 23/24 that conveys a first detergent into a first chamber of a second storage (detergent drawer housing), the first detergent then being discharged into the tub (fig. 1, para. 17, 21). Hasse teaches that this allows the first chamber to function as a premix chamber for liquid or gel detergents (para. 18). The arrangement of Hasse routes the first detergent into a detergent drawer instead of directly into an outlet conduit.
Kim teaches a laundry treating apparatus having a first storage 150 that conveys a first detergent into a first chamber of a second storage (detergent drawer housing 125), the first detergent then being discharged into the tub (fig. 2, para. 34). The arrangement of Kim routes the first detergent into a detergent drawer instead of directly into an outlet conduit.
Modifying Gallagher be as claimed would require routing line 308 into the detergent drawer instead of directly into outlet conduit 64. Such configuration is taught by both Hasse and Kim, and Hasse specifically teaches that this allows for a premix chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify Gallagher as such based on the configuration having been known with a known benefit.
Upon this modification, a second chamber would be present. A pump, pipe or fitting disposed at the second storage (detergent drawer housing) to deliver the first detergent would have reasonably been considered a “second chamber” since such components are intended to hold fluid.
As to claim 28, Hasse teaches a first surface of a first chamber open to be in communication with the tub (fig. 1, a first surface e.g. the floor of the detergent drawer housing) and a portion of a second surface (top of the drawer housing) opposite the first surface is open in communication with the second chamber (pipe 27/28 and/or fitting).
As to claim 31, Gallagher teaches that the cabinet includes a top cover with a laundry inlet and the tub has a tub inlet facing the laundry inlet (fig. 40).
As to claim 32, Gallagher teaches that the first chamber includes a first space for receiving the second detergent (fig. 40, para. 61), and the second chamber includes a second space extending in a direction away from the first space, the first detergent being received in the second space (first space being a horizontal drawer with cups or recesses, the second space being at the top, which is vertically away from the first space, the second space being a pipe, fitting, or the like connecting the detergent line to the second storage, see Hasse, fig. 1).
As to claim 33, Gallagher is silent as to a detergent detector utilized in the embodiment of fig. 40. However, in another embodiment it teaches a detergent detector 206 disposed in a detergent flow path, the detector configured to sense a detergent (para. 98). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to put the detergent detector in a flow path of the first detergent received from the second chamber, such location being suitable for the purpose of sensing detergent and would have been obvious to try having the detector as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 40, upon the obvious modification discussed about, Gallagher would teach a second storage that includes a receiving casing including the first and second chambers, the receiving casing having a front open surface in communication with the tub, and a drawer to receive the second detergent and being retractable into the first chamber via the casing open surface (fig. 40, para. 61, traditional drawer-type dispenser that would have a second chamber as discussed above).
As to claim 46, Gallagher teaches that the first storage 340 includes a storage body exposed to the outside of the cabinet and is attachable to and detachable from the cabinet and configured to store the first detergent (figs. 38-40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29, 30, 34-39, and 41-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 29, the structural arrangement implied by the claim includes the second surface to be generally vertical since the claim requires the first detergent to flow “toward the bottom surface of the first chamber along the second surface.” A flow toward a bottom along a surface suggests that the surface is generally vertically-oriented. While one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a first surface as a generally horizonal bottom and a second surface at a top opposite the bottom, nothing in the prior art of record provides sufficient grounds to render the arrangement of claim 29 obvious. As to claim 30, the obvious modification of Gallagher would not teach that the second chamber would extend in a direction away from the drawer and that the first detergent received from the second chamber would flow to a bottom of the first chamber via a space between the second surface of the first chamber and the drawer. Nothing in the preset record suggests that such arrangement would have been obvious. As to claim 34, the obvious modification of Gallagher would not teach that the second storage would include a step portion defining a portion of the flow path of the first detergent, the step portion extending downward and having the detergent detector. Nothing in the preset record suggests that such arrangement would have been obvious. As to claim 41, the obvious modification of Gallagher would not teach that the second chamber would protrude from a rear wall opposite a casing open surface. Nothing in the preset record suggests that such arrangement would have been obvious. As to claim 44, the obvious modification of Gallagher would not teach a second chamber having the claimed detergent discharge hole, in particular its relative size. Nothing in the preset record suggests that such arrangement would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights