DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) and claims 2 and 5-14 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.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 1, 3, 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230129622 by Yoon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130174615 by Back et al.
As to claim 1, Yoon teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet 102 (fig. 1); a tub 108 inside the cabinet (fig. 3); a drum 114 inside the tub; a water supply pipe 166 in the cabinet to receive water from an external source 170 and allow the water to pass therethrough; and a detergent pipe 168 in the cabinet to receive detergent discharged from a storage 158 and allow the detergent to pass therethrough, wherein the water supply pipe includes a neck (within venturi pump 164) where a cross-sectional area decreases and then increases again along a flow direction of water, wherein the detergent pipe 168 is connected to the neck to provide detergent into the water supply pipe.
Yoon does not teach a detergent detector and thus does not also teach that it is connected to the water supply pipe downstream of the neck and includes a pair of electrodes have a length extending in a direction different from the flow direction. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a detergent detector as claimed. Back teaches a detergent detector 700 in a water supply pipe 320, the detector having a pair of electrodes 720, 730 extending lengthwise into the pipe orthogonal from the water flow direction (fig. 8, para. 94). Back teaches that a detergent detector allows for sensing the amount of detergent in the wash water to control the proper amount of detergent and water supplied to the tub (para. 72). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a detergent detector, such as the detector taught by Back, in the water supply pipe of Yoon, downstream of the neck so that introduced detergent may be detected, in order to control the concentration as necessary.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 3, Yoon teaches a detergent outlet 176 in the cabinet (fig. 3), the outlet connected to the water supply pipe downstream of the neck to receive water and detergent, wherein the detergent outlet 176 discharges water and detergent 178 into the tub.
As to claim 4, Yoon teaches that the water supply pipe 166 is connected to the tub and supplies water and detergent to the tub together (from outlet 176, fig. 3).
As to claim 14, Back teaches a controller connected to the detergent detector and configured to determine whether detergent is present via a value measured by the pair of electrodes (para. 72).
As to claim 15, while Yoon is silent as to the diameter of the detergent pipe, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the claimed relative pipe diameters would have been an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence of a criticality. A detergent supply pipe where it contacts the water supply pipe being smaller, or equal to, the diameter of remaining portion of the detergent pipe would have produced predictable and expected flow characteristics.
Claims 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230129622 by Yoon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130174615 by Back et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060081016 by Hsu et al.
As to claim 2, Yoon teaches that the neck is connected to the detergent pipe 168 (fig. 3) but only schematically depicts the spatial arrangement of its neck and detergent storage 158. Thus, it does not explicitly teach that the neck is located downwardly (i.e. below in a vertical direction) of the detergent storage. However, Hsu teaches a laundry treating apparatus having a neck of a water supply pipe (venturi pump section) below a detergent storage 40 (fig. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been an obvious design choice to locate the neck downwardly of the detergent storage based on Hsu’s teachings that demonstrate success of such spatial arrangement. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 5, Yoon does not teach a second detergent storage and a second detergent pipe. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Yoon to have a second storage and a second pipe and connect the pipes to the neck of the water supply pipe. Hsu teaches a laundry treating apparatus having a plurality of detergent storages 40 and respective detergent pipes 47, 48, 49 connected to the neck portion of a water supply pipe venturi tube (fig. 7). Hsu teaches that this arrangement allows for automatic dispensing of various types of detergents, such as a detergent, fabric softener, and bleach (para. 40). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus taught by Yoon to have first and second detergent storages and respective detergent pipes arranged as claimed in order to allow for dispensing of different detergents during a washing cycle as desired. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 6, Yoon does not teach a plurality of detergent pipes. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a plurality of pipes based on the teachings of Hsu discussed above. Hsu teaches that its plurality of detergent pipes 47, 48, 49 are spaced apart from each other along a longitudinal direction of the neck and are connected to the neck (fig. 7).
As to claim 7, Hsu teaches a plurality of detergent valves 32 respectively connected to detergent pipes 47, 48, 49 to regular detergent flows (fig. 7), wherein a least a portion of the neck extends parallel to an arrangement direction of the valves and is connected to the detergent pipes.
Claims 8, 9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230129622 by Yoon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130174615 by Back et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN112663295A by Ju et al.
As to claims 8 and 9, Yoon does not teach a plurality of detergent pipes and thus does not teach pipes connected to the neck at a same location on a longitudinal direction of the neck (where the water pressure would be presumed to be the same at each connection point). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Yoon to have a plurality of detergent pipes connected at the same longitudinal location along the neck. Ju teaches a laundry treating apparatus having a plurality of detergent pipes 20 connected to respective detergent storage boxes 40, each pipe 20 connected to the neck of a venturi section of a water supply pipe at the same longitudinal (axial) direction (para. 50). Ju teaches that this arrangement allows for providing different types of treatment agents and ensuring that each detergent pipe 40 can have the same suction force to deliver detergent (para. 50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus taught by Yoon to have the detergent pipes and arrangement taught by Ju in order to have the ability to deliver different agents with the same suction force to ensure delivery. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 16, Ju teaches a plurality of detergent pipes, as discussed above. While Ju is silent as to the relative lengths of each detergent pipe, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the lengths of each detergent pipe would be a design choice based on the distance to respective detergent reservoirs, and the lengths being different would not have unexpected results or significant consequential effects.
As to claim 17, Ju teaches first and second detergent pipes to allow detergent to be discharged from respective first and second detergent storages, the axis of an opening of the first pipe may be orthogonal to an axis of an opening of the second pipe (para. 50, the detergent pipes form an included angle which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized to include an orthogonal angle with expected results).
As to claim 18, Ju teaches first and second detergent pipes to allow detergent to be discharged from respective first and second detergent storages. Ju teaches that a length of a first detergent pipe may overlap the neck with respect to a vertical direction (see fig. 1). Ju teaches that the second detergent pipe may form an included angle with the first detergent pipe (para. 50); while no particular angle is specified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that an acute included angle would result in a first portion of the second pipe overlapping the neck in the vertical direction and a second portion that does not overlap the neck in the vertical direction. Such angle would have produced expected results and would have been an obvious design choice to accommodate a plurality of detergent pipes and would have functioned as intended.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230129622 by Yoon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130174615 by Back et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120048306 by Pelkey et al.
As to claims 10 and 11, Yoon teaches a water supply valve 172 connected to the water supply pipe to regulate a flow of water (fig. 3), but does not teach a pressure regulator. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Yoon to have a pressure regulator. Pelkey teaches a detergent delivery system for laundry treating apparatuses, the system including a water supply valve 56 (fig. 2) and a pressure regulator 64 connected to the water supply pipe between the valve and an aspirator assembly 12 where detergent is injected. Pelkey teaches that the pressure regulator allows gas to flow into the water supply pipe and blocks water inside the pipe from flowing out to resolve a negative pressure inside the pipe in order to prevent water backflow and allowing water to be delivered to the aspirator with sufficient pressure (para. 24). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus taught by Yoon to have the claimed pressure regulator in order to realize the benefits taught by Pelkey. 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
Prosecution Insights