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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention..
Claim 14 recites “ wherein the locker is configured to lock the door after the drum stops based on the executing portion receiving input while the motor rotates the drum” and claim 33 recites “based on receiving the execution command while rotating the motor, controlling the locker to lock the door after the drum stops rotating”. There is no support in the originally filed specification under 371 for these limitations in the claims. The originally filed specification only discloses to lock the door in case the executing unit is input, while the drive unit rotates the drum during laundry amount sensing step (Fig. 25).
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.
Claims 18-19, 24-25, 26, 31-33 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.
Claims 18, 24 recite “based on that the power portion is input”. It is unclear how the power portion can be input because the power portion is a hardware component.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the power supply" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the selection of the course" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Since claims 19, 25 and 32-33 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 22 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 22 depends to claim 21, which in turn depends to claim 20, which in turn depends to claim 14. Claim 18 recites “after the drum stops rotating while the door is unlocked”. However, claim 14 recites “rotate the drum in state that the locker unlocks the door” and “lock the door after the drum stops”. Therefore, claim 18 failed to further limit the subject matter of “lock the door after the drum stops” in claim 14.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ito et al. (US 6,539,753 B1) discloses a laundry treating apparatus and a method for controlling a laundry treating apparatus comprising: a cabinet 1 that defines an opening 2a (Fig. 1); a drum 10 disposed inside the cabinet 1 and configured to accommodate laundry (Fig. 1); a motor 17 connected to the drum 10 and configured to rotate the drum (Fig. 1); a door 9 coupled to the cabinet 1 and configured to open and close the opening 2a (Fig. 1); a locker 28 configured to lock the door 9 to the cabinet 1 and to unlock the door 9 from the cabinet 1 (Figs. 2-6); and an execution portion 44, configured to receive an execution command to execute any one of courses (Fig. 15) ; wherein the motor 17 is configured to rotate the drum 10 in state that the locker unlocks the door 9 (Fig. 8, during the time period Tr, col. 10, lines 15-20), wherein the locker 28 is configured to lock the door based on that the executing portion is input and wherein the locker is configured to lock the door based on the executing portion receiving input while the motor rotates the drum. (Fig. 8, control unit sends a signal to proceed to the second agitation period, the door is locked, this step is considered as an executing portion is input to start second agitation and lock the door while the motor rotates the drum).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights