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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Interview Summary
The Attorney Thomas Palisi confirmed that the amendment claim set filed 04/03/2024 should be examined in the interview conducted on 12/08/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastening device” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-10 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.
Claim 2 recites “the charging position corresponding to a position in which the iron would be unstable without said magnetic attraction device”. It is unclear the iron is stable or unstable without said magnetic attraction device. For the benefit of applying art, the limitation is interpreted that the charging position corresponding to a position in which the iron is unstable without said magnetic attraction device.
Claim 4 recites “the magnetic attraction device is connected to the first part and in the second part of the hydraulic connector”. It is unclear the magnetic attraction device is formed in the second part or the magnetic attraction device is connected to the second part. For the purpose of applying art, the magnetic attraction device is interpreted to be connected to the first part and to the second part of the hydraulic connector.
Claim 6 recites “the rear part” in line 5. It is unclear the Applicant wants to mention the rear cantilever part of the housing or a rear part of the iron. For the purpose of applying art, the rear part is interpreted as the rear cantilever part of the housing.
Claim 10 recites “the rear cantilever rear part of the iron”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim 8 upon which it depends as the limitations recited in claim 10 are already recited in claim 7.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwami (US 5315773).
Regarding claim 1, Iwami teaches an ironing appliance comprising: a cordless iron (fig. 5, ironing head 4) including: a soleplate (fig. 5, sole 30) with an ironing surface configured to contact a clothing article and a charging base (fig. 5, housing 5); a hydraulic connector including a first part (fig. 5, valve 45) attached to the charging base and a second part (fig. 5, valve 38) attached to the iron; and a magnetic attraction device (fig. 6a, magnet 47 and reed switch 46) configured to generate a force connecting the first part and the second part of the hydraulic connector (column 6, lines 4-13, the reed switch is operated by the magnet 47, which generates a magnetic force to detect if the valve 38 is connected to the valve 45).
Regarding claim 4, Iwami teaches the magnetic attraction device is connected to the first part and in the second part of the hydraulic connector (fig. 10, when the ironing head is connected to the ironing apparatus, the magnetic attraction device (47, 46) is connected to the first part (45) and in the second part (38) of the hydraulic connector).
Regarding claim 6, Iwami teaches the iron includes a housing positioned above the soleplate (fig. 5), the housing including a rear cantilever part extending behind the soleplate, wherein the second part of the connector is mounted on the rear part of the iron (annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Iwami teaches the second part of the hydraulic connector is mounted on a lower surface of the rear cantilever part (annotated fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 8, Iwami teaches the appliance further comprises an electrical connector including a first part (terminals 44) attached to the charging base and a second part (annotated fig. 8 below) attached to the iron.
PNG
media_image2.png
438
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Iwami teaches the second part of the electrical connector is positioned above the second part (38) of the hydraulic connector when the iron is resting on the soleplate (annotated fig. 8 above).
Regarding claim 10, Iwami teaches the second part of the hydraulic connector is mounted on a lower surface of the rear cantilever part (annotated fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 11, Iwami teaches the base includes a lower surface configured to rest on the worksurface (fig. 5) and wherein the first part (45) of the hydraulic connector is positioned at a top of an access ramp (fig. 5) slopes toward the lower surface, the access ramp configured to transition the iron from the base to the work surface by sliding the iron along the access ramp (fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
377
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2-3, 5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami (US 5315773), as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of WO2017/144798 (hereinafter WO’798).
Regarding claim 2, Iwami teaches the force generated by the magnetic attraction device provides a stable equilibrium of the iron in a charging position (fig. 6a, when the pins 42 are connected to the terminals 44) in which the iron is hydraulically connected to the base by the hydraulic connector (fig. 6a, when the valve 38 is connected to the valve 45) and the soleplate is in contact with ambient air (fig. 6a, there is space between the sole 30 and the ironing head rest 17).
Iwami does not clearly teach the charging position corresponding to a position in which the iron would be unstable without said magnetic attraction device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, WO’798 teaches the magnetic attraction device comprises two magnets (75, 85) integrated into the first and second parts (7, 8) of the connector, the magnetic attraction force generated by the two magnets (75, 85) attracting the first and second parts (7, 8) against each other. These magnets (75, 85) are sized to generate a magnetic attraction force which ensures that the iron remains balanced in the charging position, the charging position being a naturally unstable position of the iron on the base so that it would automatically tip forward in the absence of the magnets (75, 85). (fig. 2, machine translation, para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Iwami with the magnetic attraction device as taught by WO’798 for the benefit of providing a good connection of the iron on the base when the iron is brought close to the charging position and avoiding a significant rise in the temperature if the iron remains long in the position (WO’798, machine translation, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Iwami teaches the charging base is configured to rest on a work surface (fig. 6a, the bottom surface of the housing is configured to rest on a surface), and wherein, in the charging position, the ironing surface is sloped at an angle relative to the work surface (fig. 6a, ironing surface is sloped relative to the horizontal surface).
Iwami does not teach the angle between 00 and 450.
However, WO’798 teaches the angle is between 00 and 450 (machine translation, para. [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ironing surface of Iwami sloped at an angle between 00 and 450 as taught by WO’798 for the benefit of allowing for optimized ergonomics of use, the slight inclination of the iron in the charging position preventing significant twisting of the user's wrist during the operation of connecting and/or disconnecting the iron (WO’798, machine translation, para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Iwami does not teach the first part and the second part of the hydraulic connector include at least one ring shaped permanent magnet.
However, WO’798 teaches the magnetic attraction device is at least one ring shaped permanent magnet (machine translation, para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the magnetic attraction device of Iwami with ring shaped permanent magnets as taught by WO’798 for the benefit of providing a good connection of the iron on the base when the iron is brought close to the charging position and avoiding a significant rise in the temperature if the iron remains long in the position (WO’798, machine translation, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Iwami does not teach the base includes a fastening device configured to be stabilize the work surface.
However, WO’798 teaches the base includes a fastening device (fastening flange 29) configured to be stabilize the work surface.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Iwami with a fastening device as taught by WO’798 so that the base is immobilized on the worktop (WO’798, machine translation, para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Iwami teaches the base includes a power cable (fig. 10, cord).
Iwami does not clearly teach a plug for electrical connection to a household power supply network.
However, WO’798 teaches a plug for electrical connection to a household power supply network (machine translation, para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Iwami with a plug as taught by WO’798 for the benefit of providing power supply for the ironing system by connecting the plug to a domestic electrical network (WO’798, machine translation, para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, “the work surface is an ironing board” is an intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, the ironing appliance of the modified structure Iwami-WO’798 is capable of being used with an ironing board.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732