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 without traverse of Species I, claims 1-27, in the reply filed on 04 December 2025 is acknowledged.
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) 1-14 and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2021/0062399 to Li et al. (“Li”) in view of US 2021/0071336 to Hwang et al. (“Hwang”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising
a cabinet with a front surface in which an opening is formed (see Figs. 1-2 showing the apparatus cabinet);
a drawer (3) that is at least partially retracted or extended into or out of the cabinet through the opening;
a laundry receiving portion (storage space within drawer 3) provided in the drawer and configured to accommodate laundry;
a front portion (4) configured to open and close the opening of the cabinet in a retracting-in state in which the drawer is inserted into the cabinet;
a drawer button provided in the front portion and manipulated by a user (see button used to open the drawer in ¶ [0023]); and
an extending-out device (ejection device 12 with telescoping rod 14) provided in the cabinet and configured to move the front portion forward to extend out the drawer in the retracting-in state from the cabinet when the drawer button is manipulated (see ¶¶ [0023]-[0024] and [0049]).
Li discloses the claimed invention including a drawer button manipulated by a user for operating an extending-out device, but Li does not expressly disclose the drawer button provided in the front portion. Hwang teaches an art-related laundry treating apparatus having a drawer button (400) provided in the front portion and manipulated by user to open the drawer.
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to rearrange the location of the drawer button of Li to the drawer front as taught by Hwang in order to achieve the same and predictable drawer opening results.
Regarding claim 2, Li further discloses wherein, when the drawer button is manipulated, at least a portion of the extending-out device protrudes forward from the opening and pushes the front portion forward (see above, as well as Fig. 2 and associated text).
Regarding claim 3, Li further discloses wherein the extending-out device is coupled to an internal surface of the cabinet and includes a push portion configured to push the front portion forward (see Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 4 Li, supra, discloses the claimed invention including an extending-out device (12) with a push portion that protrudes forward to open the drawer upon pushing of the drawer button. Li does not expressly disclose the device being coupled to an upper surface of the internal surface of the cabinet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to rearrange the location of the extending-out device as desired within the cabinet to yield the same and predictable results of automatically opening the drawer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 5, Li further discloses wherein the extending-out device includes a body portion (13) coupled to the cabinet and a push portion (14) protruding forward from the body portion (see Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses a drawer button and extending-out device but Li does not expressly disclose details with respect to the amount of protrusion relative to the amount of force exerted by the extending-out device. However, such modification would be prima facie obvious as such operation is standard and conventional regarding such manually operated devices absent an adequate showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 7-8, Li further discloses wherein a body opening that is open forward is provided at a front end of the body portion, and the push portion is extended out forward from the body portion through the body opening (see Figs. 2-3), wherein the body opening is located on the same plane as the opening of the cabinet (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Li further discloses wherein the body portion includes a receiving space formed to accommodate the push portion, and includes an extending-out driver configured to provide power for protrusion of the push portion (note driving device in ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Li further discloses wherein, when the drawer button is manipulated, the push portion is extracted out forward from the body portion, and when a certain time elapses after the push portion is extended out, the body portion is retracted back into the body portion (note Li is fully capable of retracting the push portion when a “certain time” elapses based on user decision to retract the drawer at desired time).
Regarding claim 11, Li further discloses wherein the drawer button and the extending-out device receive power from different control modules (note separate control of ejection device 12 by terminal 20).
Regarding claim 12, Li further discloses a first control module connected to the drawer button and configured to receive a user manipulation signal for the drawer button (see control system in ¶ [0044]); and a second control module connected to the extending-out device and operating the extending-out device when the drawer button is manipulated (see terminal 20 which receives signal from control system to operate the extending-out device 14).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses controlling the drawer button and extending-out device but does not expressly disclose wherein, when a manipulation signal of the drawer button is generated, the first control module switches the second control module from a minimum power consumption state to a normal power consumption state, and the extending-out device receives power through the second control module in the normal power consumption state. However, controlling of power consumption between components to optimize power usage would be well within the general knowledge and skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to yield the same and predictable optimizing results.
Regarding claim 14, the operation of the extending-out device is intended use and not afforded patentable weight in an apparatus claim. The apparatus of Li is fully capable of performing the intended use based on a user’s desired operation.
Regarding claims 21-22, Li further discloses wherein a rail support body is provided on each of both sides of the drawer, a rail portion on which the rail support body is accommodated to slide forward or backward is provided on an internal surface of the cabinet, and the rail portion includes a retracting-in guider configured to move the rail support body located in a guide section defined in the rail portion backward (see rail support configuration in Figs. 4-5 on both sides of the drawer; note rails for drawers are standard and conventional components in order to controllably slide the drawer open and closed) and wherein the extending-out device pushes the front portion such that the rail support body is located ahead of the guide section (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 23, Li further discloses wherein the drawer button is provided in a touch manner and configured to receive a touch signal of the user (see ¶ [0023]).
27. The laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cabinet is provided to upwardly support an additional treating apparatus located above the cabinet and configured to accommodate laundry, and a front panel of the additional treating apparatus and the front portion of the drawer are located vertically and on the same plane.
Regarding claim 24, Li discloses the drawer comprising “washing equipment” but does not expressly disclose a tub provided on the drawer and configured to accommodate water, wherein the laundry receiving portion is located inside the tub and rotated about a rotation axis perpendicular to a ground. Hwang (see Figs. 1-3) teaches a drawer having a tub (210) with a rotation axis perpendicular to a ground as claimed.
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide washing equipment in Li, such as a tub as disclosed in Hwang, to yield the predictable results of providing a tub for washing clothes.
Regarding claims 25-26, Hwang further discloses a controller provided inside the cabinet and configured to control rotation of the laundry receiving portion to treat laundry accommodated in the laundry receiving portion, and wherein the controller treats the laundry accommodated in the laundry receiving portion based on information transmitted from an external device located outside the cabinet (see controller in Hwang at ¶ [0083]-[0084], which is fully capable of the intended use of receiving external information to treat laundry) and wherein the external device includes an additional treating apparatus provided outside the cabinet to accommodate laundry, and the controller treats the laundry accommodated in the laundry receiving portion based on information determined through a manipulation unit provided in the additional treating apparatus and manipulated by the user (intended use, the washing drawer of Hwang being fully capable of treating laundry based on external input).
Regarding claim 27, Li further discloses wherein the cabinet is provided to upwardly support an additional treating apparatus located above the cabinet (see first washing part 1 above the drawer in Figs. 1-2) and configured to accommodate laundry, and a front panel of the additional treating apparatus and the front portion of the drawer are located vertically and on the same plane (see Figs. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 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.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the first upward protrusion and extending-out device pressing the first upward protrusion during operation, which may function as both the opening/closing mechanism of the drawer and a handle for the drawer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711