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
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 2 and 3 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.
Regarding claim 2, the term "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. For the purpose of this Office action, the prior art does not have to disclose the limitations following the term, “optionally”.
All remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al. (CN 208250748 U) in view of RYEOL (KR 101438540 B1) in view of DELEGUE et al. (FR 2533239 A1) and in further view of WURM (US 7,870,685 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, ZHANG discloses a seat ironing system comprising: a first vision unit (camera 31; para 0090) configured to photograph a seat (Fig. 2); an ironing robot unit (3) provided with an ironing unit (32a) configured to remove wrinkles from the seat (Figures 1, 6 and 7); wherein the ironing robot unit removes the wrinkles from the seat based on seat image information provided from the first vision unit (para 0128-0132). However, it is not clear from ZHANG if the ironing unit (32a) is a steam iron. The use of steam within an ironing unit is old and known in the art; regardless, RYEOL discloses an ironing robot unit (10) comprising a steam ironing unit (20, 30) in order to use both heat and moisture to relax fibers thus making the process of removing wrinkles faster and more effective (Figures 1-7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the ironing robot of ZHANG with a steam ironing unit, in light of the teachings of RYEOL, in order to use both heat and moisture to relax fibers thus making the process of removing wrinkles faster and more effective.
Additionally, ZHANG and RYEOL fails to teach a seat preheating unit configured to preheat the seat. DELEGUE teaches a textile smoothing system comprising a preheating unit (1) configured to preheat a textile in order to make the wrinkle removing process thereafter more efficient (note Figure). Note that the preheating unit of DELEGUE comprises a heating booth (chamber 1) and a heating unit (a unit provides warm air to preheating chamber 1 that is suctioned from the cooling zone 4 and filtered) (Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the seat ironing system of ZHANG in view of RYEOL with a preheating unit, in light of the teachings of DELEGUE, in order to make the wrinkle removing process thereafter more efficient.
Lastly, ZHANG, RYEOL and DELEGUE fail to teach a seat heat treatment unit configured to heat-treat the seat. As is old and known in the art, WURM discloses a heat treatment unit (11) in order to dry a seat after steam has been applied to remove wrinkles therefrom (as accomplished within chamber 8) (Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the seat ironing system of ZHANG in view of RYEOL and in further view of DELEGUE with a heat treatment unit configured to heat-treat the seat, in light of the teachings of WURM, in order to dry the seat after the steaming process.
Regarding claim 4, ZHANG discloses the ironing robot unit (3) be able to perform a wrinkle removing operation on a leather seat and a fabric seat (para 0133). However, ZHANG appears to only disclose a single ironing robot unit to accomplish these tasks. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided an additional ironing robot unit to aid in accomplishing these tasks, since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al. (CN 208250748 U) in view of RYEOL (KR 101438540 B1) in view of DELEGUE et al. (FR 2533239 A1) in view of WURM (US 7,870,685 B2) and in further view of WILSKER et al. (US 3,765,580).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of ZHANG, RYEOL, DELEGUE and WURM teaches a seating ironing system as discussed above. However, the combined references fail to disclose the heating unit [of the seat preheating unit] comprising first and second infrared heaters (note the heating unit of DELEGUE as discussed above). WILSKER discloses a heating unit comprising first and second infrared heaters (on one side wall 22: 60, 62, 63) (on the opposite side wall 22: 60, 62, 63) directed at opposite surfaces of a textile in order to accomplish rapid heating of the textile (Figurers 2-3 and 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the heating unit with first and second infrared heaters, in light of the teachings of WILSKER, in order to rapidly heat the seat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are allowed. Claims 5-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claims 11 and 14, the prior art fails to disclose “a second vision unit configured to identify remaining wrinkles in the seat passing through the seat heat treatment unit”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, as cited on attached PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that US 2008/0034807 A1 discloses a preheating unit (within chamber 11 as shown in figure 2). Additionally, note that US 2004/0200092 A1 discloses a seat heat treatment unit (second treatment chamber 17) (Figures 1, 3-4 and 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732