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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 12-23 in the reply filed on 2/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Mugihei is not sufficient for demonstrating a lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because a lack of unity is demonstrated in view of the rejections over Uhlin as described in this office action, as the claimed invention does not provide a .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 12-23 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.
Re Claim 12, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “a distillation tank configured to store liquid carbon dioxide” is because a distillation tank suggests distillation as function but the described function is storage. Claims 13-23 are rejected as they depend from Claim 12 without curing the deficiency.
Re Claim 13, “before supplying the gaseous carbon dioxide to the washing tub” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Furthermore, it appears that it should be liquid carbon dioxide being supplied to the washing tub.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 12-19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by UHLIN (US 6,860,123).
Re Claim 12, UHLIN teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising: a washing tub 10 that defines an inner space configured to receive laundry; a distillation tank (evaporator 36 or supply tank 18) configured to store liquid carbon dioxide; a compressor 46 configured to receive gaseous carbon dioxide evaporated (downstream of both); a cooler (condenser 44, Re Claim 22) configured to cool the gaseous carbon dioxide discharged from the compressor and to supply; and a controller (See col. 5 lines 45-60).
Re Claims 13, 15-19, it appears that the controller controls the distillation/evaporation before the liquid carbon dioxide is then provided for washing in a washing cycle, based on a completion of the washing cycle, and the discharged from the chamber to both 36 and 18.
Re Claim 14, controlling the internal pressure of the washing tub (chamber 10) is taught. See col. 5 line 61-col. 6 line 12.
Re Claims 21 and 23, the distillation tank is capable of storing the amount of liquid carbon dioxide for a single washing cycle and to drain impurities.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UHLIN (US 6,860,123).
UHLIN is relied upon as applied to the claims above. In the event that the claims are not found to be anticipated in view of UHLIN because of a lack of specific teaching of the distillation tank, even though as claimed it only needs to store liquid carbon dioxide, these claims are rejected as both storage and evaporator are taught, and further storing liquid carbon dioxide in an evaporator or tank would read on this.
Re Claim 20, it is unclear whether a vacuum pump is specifically taught but given the pressure control is taught and a vacuum pump is well known in the art especially of a heat exchanger arrangement, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the laundry treating apparatus as taught by UHLIN and provide a vacuum pump for the pressure control, a desired result already being taught.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y KO whose telephone number is (571)270-7451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-6:00.
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 571-270-1414. 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.
JASON Y. KO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/JASON Y KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights