DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the line lighting installation portion is recessed from an inner surface of the accommodating housing facing the accommodating space and extends parallel with the second inlet. However, such arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Yan teaches line lighting parallel to an opening of a laundry treating apparatus and teaches a clear motivation to have line lighting (see para. 18). The particular placement of the line lighting at an inner surface of the accommodating housing facing the accommodating space would have been an obvious placement to direct light within the treating chamber as desired, which is consistent with the teachings of Yan and its stated objectives. It would also have been obvious to recess a line lighting installation portion based on Yan’s teachings of a need to have a sealed surface between the lighting and the cabinet where it is disposed (see paras. 20-21).
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 44 and 45 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 36-54 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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 36-51, 53, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021184613A1 by Ren et al. in view of WO2020108243A1 by Yan et al. and KR101820859B1 by Bang.
As to claim 36, Ren teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet 1 including a first inlet in a front surface (fig. 1); a first chamber 11 inside the cabinet to accommodate laundry via the first inlet; a second chamber at a lower side of the cabinet defining an installation space separated from the first chamber (figs. 1 and 3); and a door assembly 3 coupled to the cabinet, the door assembly including an accommodating body including a second inlet in a front surface (fig. 7); and an accommodating housing inside the accommodating body in communication with an outside of the door assembly via the second inlet, and defining an accommodating space 31 separated from the first chamber and the second chamber (fig. 7).
Ren does not teach lighting devices within its apparatus, and thus does not teach a line lighting in the accommodating housing in parallel with the second inlet and configured to illuminate the accommodating space. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Ren to have the claimed line lighting. Yan teaches a laundry treating apparatus that includes line lighting around the side and/or top walls of its chamber and parallel to an inlet (figs. 1-3, para. 8). Yan teaches that the line lighting increases the illumination range of the lamp assembly to illuminate all of the inside of the apparatus; this allows a user to see clearly wrinkles on clothing for ironing and improve the user's visual effect and experience (para. 18). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus taught by Lee to have line lighting on top and/or side surfaces of the chamber in order to illuminate all of the chamber to improve a user's visual effect and experience, as taught by Yan.
Yan teaches a line lighting installation portion, and in particular teaches that it is beneficial to have a complete, sealed surface between the lighting and a cabinet surface in order to prevent dust and water vapor from entering a gap between the cabinet and lighting assembly which also avoid breeding bacteria (paras. 20-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide the line lighting installation portion recessed from a portion of an inner surface of the accommodating housing facing the accommodating space. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to locate the line lighting at a surface of the accommodating housing facing the accommodating space based on the teachings of Yan that teach the utility of having line lighting facing an accommodating space (para. 18). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recess the line lighting installation portion so that the line lighting installation portion may have a continuous surface sealed against the surrounding surfaces and not have a gap with the surface on which it is installed, which Yan teaches to be beneficial (see paras. 20-21).
Yan does not teach that its line lighting includes a protective cover that extends along the accommodating housing in parallel with the second inlet. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a protective cover that extends along a line lighting assembly. Bang teaches line lighting with a protective cover 40 (fig. 2). Bang teaches that its structure allows for heat dissipation (para. 32) and protection and diffusion of light (para. 27). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the line lighting structure taught by Bang in the apparatus of Ren in order to provide lighting and to realize the benefits of heat dissipation and light diffusion.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 37, Yan does not teach that its line lighting includes a linear heat dissipating body with an insertion hole in a surface, an LED assembly inside the heat dissipating body, and a protective cover coupled to the insertion hole. However, the claimed lighting structure was known as evidenced by Bang. Bang teaches line lighting with a heat dissipating body 10 including an insertion hole (to receive 22), an LED assembly 30, and a protective cover 40 (fig. 2). Bang teaches that its structure allows for heat dissipation (para. 32) and protection and diffusion of light (para. 27). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the line lighting structure taught by Bang in the apparatus of Ren in order to provide lighting and to realize the benefits of heat dissipation and light diffusion.
As to claim 38, Bang teaches an end cover 22 coupled to an end of its line lighting (fig. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide an end cover to both ends of line lighting in order to seal the side surfaces.
As to claim 39, Bang teaches a body fastening hole 15 through the heat dissipating body in a direction opposite the insertion hole to couple the line lighting using a fastening member (fig. 4, para. 21).
As to claim 40, Bang teaches that the protective cover 40 is inserted into the line lighting installation portion (fig. 4).
As to claim 41, Bang teaches a body sealing member between the protective cover and the heat dissipating body to prevent moisture or foreign substances from penetrating into the heat dissipating body (fig. 4). Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing a sealing member in a lighting assembly was well-known and common in the art for its obvious purpose of sealing the assembly against moisture or foreign substances.
As to claim 42, Bang teaches a plate-shaped heat dissipating body 10, an LED assembly 30 on one surface of the heat dissipating body, and a protective cover 40 coupled to the heat dissipating body to cover the LED assembly (fig. 2).
As to claim 43, Bang teaches line lighting 30 that is inserted into and coupled to the line lighting installation portion (fig. 4).
As to claim 44, Bang teaches that the heat dissipating body includes a recessed portion facing an inside of the protective cover 40 and a body fastening hole 15 through the heat dissipating body along a periphery of the recessed portion (fig. 4). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, the recessed portion would be recessed toward the accommodating body and a portion of the protective cover would be inserted into the accommodating space.
As to claim 45, while Band does not explicitly teach a body sealing member along a perimeter of a top of the protective cover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing a sealing member in a lighting assembly was well-known and common in the art for its obvious purpose of sealing the assembly against moisture or foreign substances, which Bang teaches would be undesirable (paras. 20-21).
As to claim 46, Ren teaches that the door assembly includes top, bottom, left side, right side, and rear accommodating space surfaces (fig. 7). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have front and rear line lighting in order to provide illumination to all of the inside, as suggested by Yan.
As to claim 47, the claim recites line lighting disposed along top and side surfaces of front and rear surfaces of the accommodating space. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide line lighting in the claimed locations in order to further realize the benefit of illuminating all of the inside of the space, as suggested by Yan. Notably, Yan teaches that line lighting may be disposed around a circumference of an inner wall (abstract) which would include lighting along top and side surfaces. The particular locations of the lighting would have produced expected results and would have required mere routine skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 48, Yes teaches upper lighting in a top surface to emit light downward along with circumferential lighting (para. 8); one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to locate the lighting as claimed with expected results.
As to claim 49, the claim recites line lighting disposed along top and side surfaces of a rear surface of the accommodating space. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide line lighting in the claimed locations in order to further realize the benefit of illuminating all of the inside of the space, as suggested by Yan. Notably, Yan teaches that line lighting may be disposed around a circumference of an inner wall (abstract) which would include lighting along top and side surfaces. The particular locations of the lighting would have produced expected results and would have required mere routine skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 50, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that front and rear line lighting would be capable of illuminating different areas since the light would originate from different locations.
As to claim 51, Yan teaches lower lighting 213 that emits light upward (para. 49); one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have lower lighting in the door assembly of Ren in order to provide further lighting to illuminate the chamber.
As to claim 53, Bang teaches that the protective cover is made of a light diffusion material (para. 27).
As to claim 54, Bang teaches that the protective cover is made of a light diffusion material (para. 27).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021184613A1 by Ren et al. in view of WO2020108243A1 by Yan et al. and KR101820859B1 by Bang as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200208325 by Park et al.
As to claim 52, Yan does not teach that its line light is able to change an intensity and color of light. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure lighting as such. Park teaches a laundry treating apparatus having lighting to allow a user to visually recognize laundry items within the apparatus (para. 131), the lighting in particular being an LED which has the advantage of easy control of color and dimming (para. 133) to provide a range of colors and intensities as desired (para. 137). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide line lighting that can change color and intensity in order to provide lighting desired by a user, as suggested by Park. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
