DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites “wherein the installation bracket includes a bracket recessed portion defined as a portion of the lower panel is recessed”. This particular phrase requires grammatical correction as it is unclear if a word or words are missing or if words are present by mistake.
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 1, 2, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160177489 by Ahn et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200392664 by Choi et al.
As to claim 1, Ahn teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet 11 (fig. 1); an inner casing 11 defining treating space and having an opening in a front surface; a machine room 12 in side the cabinet and below the inner casing; a heat supply unit 110 inside the machine room and including an evaporator, a condenser, and a compressor 160 (fig. 2, para. 36); a circulation duct 111 inside the machine room to accommodate the evaporator and condenser and provide a passage for air to circulate (fig. 3, para. 37); a base 400 inside the machine room and supporting a lower portion of the circulation duct (fig. 3); and a steam supply unit 130 inside the machine room, wherein the steam supply unit 130 is disposed to overlap at least a portion of the compressor 160 in a height direction (figs. 2 and 3).
Ahn does not explicitly teach that its circulation duct has an open top surface. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Ahn such that its circulation duct has an open top surface. It has been held that making a structure separable would have been obvious if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)); here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the top of the circulation duct 111 of Ahn to be separable such that the duct has an open top surface so that access for installation and/or service of the evaporator and condenser may be performed. Choi teaches a circulation duct 210 with an open top to accommodate an evaporator and condenser (fig. 5, para. 116), which demonstrates that such configuration was known and would have provided guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an open top to provide access for installation and/or service.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Ahn teaches that the base includes a compressor 160 installation portion and that the steam supply unit 130 is disposed upwardly of the base (figs. 2 and 3).
As to claim 14, Ahn teaches a fan installation portion (for fan 140, fig. 3) coupled to the circulation duct 111, wherein the steam supply unit 130 overlaps at least a portion of the fan installation portion in a width direction of the base (figs. 2 and 3).
As to claim 15, Ahn teaches that the fan installation portion includes a blower fan 140 (fig. 3); a fan housing coupled to the circulation duct 111 and accommodating the blower 140; and a discharge duct 150 extending from the fan housing toward the inner casing, wherein the steam supply unit 130 overlaps at least a portion of the discharge duct 150 in a width direction (fig. 2).
Claims 3, 4, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160177489 by Ahn et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200392664 by Choi et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160090683 by Lyu.
As to claim 3, Ahn teaches that its steam supply unit 130 has a casing that is positioned upwardly of the compressor (figs. 2 and 3), but does not disclose particular details of how the steam supply unit is fixed within the apparatus, and thus does not teach an installation bracket surrounding at least a portion of the steam supply unit casing. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the claimed installation bracket. Lyu teaches a laundry treating apparatus having a steam supply unit 7 having a casing 71, and an installation bracket 8 that surrounds at least a portion of the steam supply unit casing (fig. 3). Lyu teaches that the installation bracket serves to secure the steam generator casing to a support, and further teaches that its particular bracket allows the casing to be spaced apart from a support to prevent deformation of the support due to heat and also to prevent an increase in time required to generate steam due to heat loss (paras. 32-33). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an installation bracket with the apparatus taught by Ahn in order to support the steam supply unit casing and to provide spacing to manage heat loss and transfer, as taught by Lyu. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 4, upon the obvious modification to have an installation bracket, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that it may be on a side surface facing the compressor. As shown by Ahn, a side piece of the bracket taught by Lyu, upon installation to the steam supply unit casing of Ahn, would face its compressor (figs. 2 and 3). Furthermore, it has been held that a rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of a device would be an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the arrangement of the steam supply unit and compressor in relation to each other would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
As to claim 7, Lyu teaches that its installation bracket 8 includes a lower panel and side panels (fig. 3). While Lyu depicts a vertical orientation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the bracket would be horizontally oriented to support the steam supply unit of Ahn (see fig. 2), and as such the bracket of Lyu would have a lower panel beneath the steam supply unit casing and side panels positioned on both sides casing.
As to claim 8, Lyu teaches that its bracket includes fixing clips (note attachment structures, fig. 3) extending from the side panels (note attachment portion on 711 to fix to the side panels) coupled to the steam supply unit casing to prevent the casing from being separated from the bracket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized as obvious to have fixing clips in order to prevent separation, which would have readily been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as undesirable.
As to claim 9, Lyu teaches that the installation bracket includes a bracket recessed portion 81 of the lower panel that is recessed away and spaced apart from the steam supply casing (fig. 3) for the purpose of spacing the casing from a support to prevent deformation or heat loss (paras. 32-33).
As to claim 10, a base cover would be coupled to the circulation duct to shield an open top surface of the duct to define a passage for air to circulate (see Ahn, fig. 3). It has been held that a rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of a device would be an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having the steam supply unit installed on the base cover would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
As to claim 11, upon the obvious modification to have a base cover, it would include a shielding body for shielding a portion of the open top surface (see Ahn, fig. 2) and an inlet body extending from the shielding body (fig. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a fixing body on the shielding body in order to fix the steam supply unit.
As to claim 12, Lyu teaches that its installation bracket 8 includes a lower panel and side panels (fig. 3). While Lyu depicts a vertical orientation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the bracket would be horizontally oriented to support the steam supply unit of Ahn (see fig. 2), and as such the bracket of Lyu would have a lower panel beneath the steam supply unit casing and side panels positioned on both sides casing. Lyu further teaches a bracket fixing portion extending from the lower panel away from the steam supply unit casing that would be coupled to a fixing portion (fig. 3).
As to claim 13, Lyu teaches that its installation bracket 8 has a hole that extending through the lower panel and the steam supply unit casing includes a casing body that defines a space for storing water and a protrusion that is inserted into the bracket hole (fig. 3).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160177489 by Ahn et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200392664 by Choi et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160090683 by Lyu as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of KR20130134488A by Doh et al.
As to claims 5 and 6, Lyu is silent as to a material of its installation bracket, and thus does not teach that it is made of a non-combustible material, in particular a metal material. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to make the bracket out of metal. Doh teaches that a bracket for a steam unit ideally is made of metal so that it may withstand heat of the casing (para. 33). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus taught by Ahn to have an installation bracket made of metal based on the teachings of Doh. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160177489 by Ahn et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200392664 by Choi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN105484000A by Qian et al.
As to claim 16, Ahn does not teach that the circulation duct and base are integrally formed with each other. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that forming components integrally has benefits of reduced cost, a simple and compact structure, and high production efficiency (see Qian, para. 9). Also, making the components would have been an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the circulation duct and base integrally in order to realize the advantages taught by Qian. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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