DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Kim fails to teach that the thicknesses of end portions of the curved ribs are the same as a thickness of the first straight ribs and the second straight ribs. In particular, Applicant asserts that “Kim depicts that the corner section A2 has a larger thickness throughout the entire corner section than a thickness in the straight section A1, which they are directly connected to.” However, fig. 9 does not explicitly depict a larger thickness through the entire corner section as Applicant asserts. In fact, Kim states that in the corner section the wire has a constant curvature and the spacing between adjacent wires is kept constant (para. 204), the thickness of the ribs in the corner being larger than in the straight sections (para. 209). To accomplish these stated characteristics the corner ribs must taper at their ends to smoothly connect with the straight ribs. Kim teaches that the spacing between ribs is just enough for the wire so that the wire may be firmly seated (fig. 6A, para. 149). If the corner section has a larger thickness throughout the entire corner section than a thickness in a straight section, the slot for the wire would narrow where the corner rib is adjacent to a straight rib in longitudinal and transverse directions and the wire would not fit. See Examiner’s conceptual drawing below:
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector]
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 17-21 and 31-36 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 22-30 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.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 § 102
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 17-21 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200048816 by Kim et al.
As to claim 17, Kim discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet 1000 having an inlet 1100 in a front surface (fig. 1, para. 70); a tub 2000 having a tub inlet 2200 facing the inlet of the cabinet (fig. 1, para. 70); a drum 3000 inside the tub (fig. 1); a driver 4000 including a rotation shaft coupled to a rear of the tub (fig. 1); and an induction module 5000 coupled to an outer circumferential surface of the tub, the module including a base 5100 coupled to the outer circumferential surface and a coil 5150 wound on the base (fig. 7, para. 80), wherein the base includes a seating surface 5100 fixed to the outer circumferential surface of the tub (fig. 7); a plurality of first straight ribs 5121 extending along a front and rear direction and spaced apart from each other in an outward direction (fig. 9); a plurality of second straight ribs extending along a width direction and spaced apart from each other in the outward direction (fig. 9); and a plurality of curved ribs each connecting a first straight rib and a second straight rib adjacent thereto to each other (fig. 9), wherein each of the curved ribs has a thickness different from a thickness of the first and second straight ribs (para. 209), wherein the coil is wound around the first straight ribs, the second straight ribs, and the curved ribs (para. 92), and wherein thicknesses of end portions of the curved ribs are the same as a thickness of the first and second straight ribs (figs. 6A, 9; paras. 149, 204, 209).
As to claim 18, Kim discloses that each of the curved ribs has a portion having a greater thickness than the thickness of the first and second straight ribs (para. 209).
As to claim 19, Kim discloses that each of the curved ribs has a central portion thicker than end portions thereof connected to each of the adjacent first and second straight ribs (fig. 9, para. 209).
As to claim 20, Kim discloses that the thickness of each of the curved ribs increases and then decreases while extending from the adjacent first and second straight ribs, respectively (fig. 9, also note coil slot of a set width that results in the depicted increasing and decreasing thickness, fig. 6A, paras. 137, 209).
As to claim 21, Kim discloses that radii of curvature of an outer surface and an inner surface of each of the curved ribs are different from each other (fig. 9, note increasing and decreasing thickness of the curved rib that results in different radii, also note coil slot of a set width that also results in the increasing and decreasing thickness and different radii, fig. 6A, paras. 137, 209).
As to claim 31, Kim discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet 1000 having an inlet 1100 in a front surface (fig. 1, para. 70); a tub 2000 having a tub inlet 2200 facing the inlet of the cabinet (fig. 1, para. 70); a drum 3000 inside the tub (fig. 1); a driver 4000 including a rotation shaft coupled to a rear of the tub (fig. 1); and an induction module 5000 coupled to an outer circumferential surface of the tub, the module including a base 5100 coupled to the outer circumferential surface and a coil 5150 wound on the base (fig. 7, para. 80), wherein the base includes a seating surface 5100 fixed to the outer circumferential surface of the tub (fig. 7); a plurality of first straight ribs 5121 extending along a front and rear direction and spaced apart from each other in an outward direction (fig. 9); a plurality of second straight ribs extending along a width direction and spaced apart from each other in the outward direction (fig. 9); and a plurality of curved ribs each connecting a first straight rib and a second straight rib adjacent thereto to each other (fig. 9), wherein the first and second straight ribs are constructed such that lengths thereof increase in the outward direction of the seating surface (fig. 9), wherein the coil is wound around the first straight ribs, the second straight ribs, and the curved ribs (para. 92), and wherein thicknesses of end portions of the curved ribs are the same as a thickness of the first and second straight ribs (figs. 6A, 9; paras. 149, 204, 209).
As to claim 32, Kim discloses that the lengths of the first and second straight ribs increase at a predetermined rate in the outward direction of the seating surface (fig. 9).
As to claim 33, Kim discloses that a length of a shortest first straight rib is larger than a length of a shortest second straight rib (fig. 9).
As to claim 34, Kim discloses a first and second plurality of first straight ribs which are parallel to each other, and a first and second plurality of second straight ribs which are parallel to each other (fig. 9).
As to claim 35, Kim discloses that the seating surface has an air passing hole interposed between the first and second plurality of first straight ribs and the first and second plurality of second straight ribs (fig. 9).
As to claim 36, Kim discloses that the curves ribs connect the first and second plurality of first straight ribs to the first and second plurality of second straight ribs (fig. 9).
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 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200048816 by Kim et al.
As to claim 22, Kim does not explicitly teach that each of the curved ribs has a smaller radius of curvature of the outer surface than a radius of curvature of the inner surface. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the relative radii as such. Kim clearly discloses that the curved ribs are thickest at their central portion (fig. 9, para. 209); one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the radius of curvature of the inner surface is smaller than that of the outer surface the rib would be thinnest at the central portion, which is the opposite of what is depicted. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that each of the curved ribs would necessarily have a smaller radius of curvature of the outer surface than a radius of curvature of the inner surface in order to be configured as depicted and discussed by Kim. Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape over what is disclosed in the prior art would have been an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the claimed shape is significant or anything more than one of numerous configurations one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the claimed shape would have produced the intended result set forth by Kim, namely to effectively prevent detachment of the wire (para. 210). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 23, Kim teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet 1000 having an inlet 1100 in a front surface (fig. 1, para. 70); a tub 2000 having a tub inlet 2200 facing the inlet of the cabinet (fig. 1, para. 70); a drum 3000 inside the tub (fig. 1); a driver 4000 including a rotation shaft coupled to a rear of the tub (fig. 1); and an induction module 5000 coupled to an outer circumferential surface of the tub, the module including a base 5100 coupled to the outer circumferential surface and a coil 5150 wound on the base (fig. 7, para. 80), wherein the base includes a seating surface 5100 fixed to the outer circumferential surface of the tub (fig. 7); a plurality of first straight ribs 5121 extending along a front and rear direction and spaced apart from each other in an outward direction (fig. 9); a plurality of second straight ribs extending along a width direction and spaced apart from each other in the outward direction (fig. 9); and a plurality of curved ribs each connecting a first straight rib and a second straight rib adjacent thereto to each other (fig. 9), wherein the coil is wound around the first straight ribs, the second straight ribs, and the curved ribs (para. 92), and wherein thicknesses of end portions of the curved ribs are the same as a thickness of the first and second straight ribs (figs. 6A, 9; paras. 149, 204, 209).
Kim does not explicitly teach that in the plurality of curved ribs a radius of curvature of a rib at an outer side of the seating surface is less than a radius of curvature of a rib at an inner side of the seating surface. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the relative radii as such. Kim clearly discloses that the curved ribs are thickest at their central portion (fig. 9, para. 209); one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the radius of curvature at an inner surface is smaller than that at an outer surface the rib would be thinnest at the central portion, which is the opposite of what is depicted. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that each of the curved ribs would necessarily have a smaller radius of curvature at an outer side than a radius of curvature at an inner side in order to be configured as depicted and discussed by Kim. Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape over what is disclosed in the prior art would have been an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the claimed shape is significant or anything more than one of numerous configurations one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the claimed shape would have produced the intended result set forth by Kim, namely to effectively prevent detachment of the wire (para. 210). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 24, Kim teaches that a radius of curvature of an inner surface of a curved rib at the inner side of the seating surface and a radius of curvature of an inner surface of a rib at the outer side of the seating surface are equal to each other (fig. 9, note that each rib has the same configuration; also, the curvature and spacing of the wire is constant, para. 204).
As to claim 25, Kim teaches that a radius of curvature of an outer surface of a curved rib at the inner side of the seating surface and a radius of curvature of an outer surface of a rib at the outer side of the seating surface are equal to each other (fig. 9, note that each rib has the same configuration; also, the curvature and spacing of the wire is constant, para. 204).
As to claim 26, Kim teaches that a length of a curved rib at the inner side of the seating surface and a length of a rib at the outer side of the seating surface are equal to each other (fig. 9, note that each rib has the same configuration; also, the curvature and spacing of the wire is constant, para. 204).
As to claim 27, Kim teaches that a shape of a curved rib at the inner side of the seating surface and a shape of a rib at the outer side of the seating surface are the same (fig. 9, note that each rib has the same configuration; also, the curvature and spacing of the wire is constant, para. 204).
As to claim 28, Kim teaches that an extended line from one end of the curved ribs forms a first straight line that is perpendicular to an extended line of an other end of the curved ribs (fig. 9, para. 205).
As to claim 29, Kim teaches that a spacing between the one end of the curved ribs and the other end of the curved ribs is maintained in the outward direction of the seating surface (fig. 9, note that each rib has the same configuration; also, the curvature and spacing of the wire is constant, para. 204).
As to claim 30, Kim teaches that the first straight rib and the second straight rib are constructed such that the lengths thereof increase in the outward direction of the seating surface (fig. 9).
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
Prosecution Insights