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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Turning to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is noted that the terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989))
and limitations from a pending application's specification will not be read into the claims
(Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices. Inc.,
848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892
(1988); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference does not
require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or the recognition of
properties that are inherently possessed by the prior art reference. Verdegaal Brothers
Inc. v. Union Oil co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject
matter of a claim when that reference discloses each and every element set forth in the
claim (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990));
however, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what
Applicant is claiming, but only that the claims "read on” something disclosed in the
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984) (and overruled in part on another
issue), SRI Intel v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. Of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118, 227 USPQ
577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the
claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with
his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. See In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).
At the outset, it is noted that claims 5 and 10 have been incorporated into independent claim 1. Claims 5 and 10 were previously rejected by the cited prior art.
Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues that “the lapse of the certain time is recited as the condition associated with retraction of the push portion” is not taught in Li. However, the “wherein” clause associated with the lapse of a “certain time” is an intended use recitation and the position is maintained that Li is fully capable of retracting the push portion when a “certain time” elapses based on user decision to retract the drawer at a desired time. There is no structural limitation associated with the lapse of a “certain time” associated with the structural limitations as currently claimed. Applicant is reminded that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)) and that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)).
It appears Applicant may have intended to recite the “certain time” lapse for the push portion retraction to be controlled by a controller or control module, however, such recitation is not in the claim. Thus, it is unclear what claimed structure has the capability to perform such operation based on time other than some type of (electrical) controller or control module. Absent adequate structure for performing such function, the “wherein” clause reciting time is considered an intended use operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 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]), the extending-out device including a body portion (13) coupled to the cabinet and a push portion (14) protruding forward from the body portion (see Figs. 2-4),
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 push 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).
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 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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights