DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/30/2026.
Claims 12-40 have been cancelled. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 4/30/2026 is acknowledged.
The restriction dated 3/25/2026 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the non-elected claims.
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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20100022382 A (“KR’382”) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) in view of JP 6355075 B2 (“JP’075”) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 1, KR’382 discloses a laundry treatment apparatus abstract (abstract) comprising:
a cabinet (ref. 10) including an opening formed at a front side thereof;
an inner case (ref. 110) provided in the cabinet to accommodate clothes therein;
a door (ref. 20) rotatably coupled to the cabinet to open and close the opening;
a machine room (ref. 120) provided below the inner case to generate hot air or steam to be supplied to an inside of the inner case;
a holder (ref. 130) exposed to the inside of the inner case and allowing the clothes or a clothes hanger (ref. 30) to be seated thereon;
and a drive unit (ref. 140) to agitate the holder (see figs. 1-2) including a rotary shaft (see figs. 1-2, “rotational force of the motor 141” necessarily includes a shaft between ref. 141 and 143 to transfer rotational movement) extending from the outside of the inner case in a width direction of the inner case to agitate the holder, and
a motor (ref. 141) configured to rotate the rotary shaft;
wherein the drive unit is configured to support a load of the holder and to agitate the holder (see figs. 1-2, via. Refs. 150 and 142c and 143c),
wherein the rotary shaft extends in a width direction of the inner case and is arranged to be blocked from being exposed to the inside of the inner case (see fig. 1 housing of ref. 140 blocks rotary shaft from inside of the inner case 110).
KR’382 does not explicitly disclose including a rotary shaft extending from the outside of the inner case in a width direction of the inner case. However, JP’075 discloses it is known in the laundry treatment apparatus art (title) to provide a rotary shaft (see fig. 9 and 15, ref. 250, 250F and unlabeled shaft from motor 230) of a drive unit (ref. 200, 200C, 200D) extending from the outside of the inner case in a width direction of the inner case (see fig. 15) and is provided to extend in the width direction of the inner case (see fig. 15), and further at least part of the rotary shaft is therefore arranged to be blocked from being exposed to the inside of the inner case (see fig. 15).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the drive unit and rotary shaft of KR’382 to further extend outside of the inner case, as suggested by JP’075, in order to provide ease of installation, repair and maintenance.
Re claim 2, JP’075 wherein the motor and the rotary shaft are disposed outside the inner case (see fig. 15 at least portion of ref. 250 and 230 and unlabeled shaft are outside).
Re claim 3¸ KR’382 further discloses a power transmission unit inside the inner case (ref. 142, 143,150) coupled to the rotary shaft to support the holder. JP’075 further discloses a power transmission unit (inner portion of ref. 250) coupled to the rotary shaft to support the holder, wherein at least one of the power transmission unit and the holder is disposed to penetrate the inner case (see fig. 15 part of ref. 250 inside the inner case).
Re claim 4, wherein the power transmission unit includes: a bearing unit (ref. 142a) having an outer circumferential surface that is obliquely coupled to the rotary shaft so that an extension direction of the outer circumferential surface rotates about the rotary shaft; and a rigid body unit (ref. 142b, 143b) coupled to the outer circumferential surface of the bearing unit to rotate independently of the bearing unit and configured to support the holder. Regarding “wherein the bearing unit and the rigid body unit are disposed outside the inner case”, JP’075 discloses transmission units (ref. 210, 240, 220) outside the inner case (see fig. 15). It thus being obvious to arrange the power transmission unit of KR’382 outside with the motor, as in JP’075, for purposes of ease of installation, access and repair. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Re claim 5, KR’382 further discloses wherein: the holder is coupled to the rigid body unit and extends into the inner case (see fig. 1).
Re claim 7, KR’382 or JP’075 further discloses wherein the inner case includes: a through-hole (KR’382 see fig. 2 unlabeled opening through ref. 111; JP’075 see fig. 15 unlabeled opening for shaft 250) through which the holder or the power transmission unit passes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20100022382 A (“KR’382”) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) in view of JP 6355075 B2 (“JP’075”) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached), and further in view of KR 20160028798 A (“KR’798”) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 6¸ KR’382/JP’075 discloses as shown above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the holder includes: a holding plate coupled to the rigid body unit; and a hanger unit provided at a lower portion of the holding plate and allowing the clothes or a clothes hanger to be seated thereon. However, KR’798 discloses it is well-known in the clothes treating apparatus art (abstract) to provide a holder (see fig. 4) includes: a holding plate (see fig. 4 ref. 201; or see also fig. 6 ref. 930; or see also fig. 8 ref. 210) coupled to the rigid body unit (see fig. 6 ref. 320, 330a; or see also fig. 7 ref. 210, 260, 240, 250, 633); and a hanger unit (see fig. 4 ref. 221) provided at a lower portion of the holding plate and allowing the clothes or a clothes hanger (ref. 910, 920) to be seated thereon.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the holder of KR’382/JP’075 to further include a holding plate and a hanger unit, as claimed, as suggested by KR’798, in order to provide different garments divided into an accommodation space in different strokes to neighboring spaces.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20100022382 A (“KR’382”) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) in view of JP 6355075 B2 (“JP’075”) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0154486 A1).
Re claims 8-11, KR’382/JP’075 discloses as shown above, but does not disclose further comprising: a sealing unit configured to seal the through hole to block the rotary shaft from being exposed to hot air or steam. However, Kim discloses it is well-known in the clothes treating apparatus art (abstract) to provide a sealing unit (ref. 140) configured to seal the through hole to block the rotary shaft from being exposed to hot air or steam (see fig. 4 ¶ [0060]-[0061], [0063]-[0069] prevent that an air of high temperature and humidity soaks into the driving unit 1313 through the gap). wherein the sealing unit includes: a sealing body configured to seal the through hole (ref. 141 see figs. 4 and 6-8); and a transmission hole (see fig. 6 unlabeled central hole) formed to penetrate the sealing body and surrounding the power transmission unit or the holder. a support plate (ref. 113a or 113b) fixed to the cabinet to block a lower portion of the rotary shaft from being exposed to the inside of the inner case. wherein: the support plate is disposed between the cabinet and a top surface of the inner case (see figs. 1 and 7)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the through hole of KR’382/JP’075 to further include a sealing unit, as suggested by Kim, in order to prevent air of high temperature and humidity from damaging the driving unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights