DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 07/09/2024. Claim(s) 1–12 are pending.
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.
Claim 3 is 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. Specifically, claim 3 requires that the gap between an inner surface of the main body and the housing is less than a predetermined gap. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would ascertain whether the gap was less than or equal to an unknown predetermined gap size. Because the claim is not understood, no examination under §§ 102 & 103 is possible at this time. Appropriate action is necessary.
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 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.
Claims 1–2 & 4–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0191212 et al in view of KR 20-0397606 (hereinafter, “KR ‘606”) (citations directed to the attached machine translation).
With regard to claim 1, Yoon discloses a washing machine (abstract) comprising: a main body (10) (Fig. 1A); a tub (17) arrangeable inside the main body (10) (Fig. 1B; ¶ 0034); a drum (18) rotatable inside the tub (17) (Fig. 1B; ¶ 0034); and a drying device (100) (Fig. 1B; ¶ 0036), arrangeable above the tub (17) (Fig. 1B; ¶ 0036), and including an evaporator (111) and a condenser (112) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0036–0037), such that while the drying device (100) is arranged above the tub (17) (Fig. 1B), the drying device (100) removes moisture from air discharged from the tub (17) and supplies heated air to the tub (17) (¶ 0041), wherein the drying device (100) comprises: a housing (120) to accommodate the evaporator (111) and the condenser (112) (¶¶ 0036–0037).
Yoon fails to disclose a holder member formed to protrude from the housing and connectable to an external equipment. KR ‘606 teaches a holder member (56a, 56b) formed to protrude from the housing and connectable to an external equipment (Pg. 2 of the translation; claim 1; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the laundry machine of Yoon with the attachment members of KR ‘606 because such a combination would have had the added benefit of making the heating unit easier to install/remove.
With regard to claim 2, Yoon further discloses the drying device (100) is insertable into an inner space of the main body (10) to thereby be placed in the inner space of the main body (10) (Fig. 1B).
With regard to claim 4, Yoon as previously combined with KR ‘606 fails to disclose the holder member is formed in a ring shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the holder member in the shape of a ring, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the choice of shape has no significant impact on the operation of the invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With regard to claim 5, Yoon as previously combined with KR ‘606 further discloses the holder member (KR ‘606: 56a, 56b) is formed to protrude from at least one of an upper surface or a side surface of the housing (KR ‘606: Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 6, Yoon as previously combined with KR ‘606 further discloses the holder member (KR ‘606: 56a, 56b) is formed integrally with the housing (KR ‘606: Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 7, Yoon as previously combined with KR ‘606 fails to disclose the holder member is a first holder member, and the first holder member is among a second holder member, and a third holder member, and wherein the first holder member is arrangeable at a position corresponding to a front surface of the main body, the second holder member is arrangeable at a position corresponding to a side surface of the main body, and the third holder member is arrangeable at a position corresponding to a rear surface of the main body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a second and third holder member, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first holder member arrangeable at a position corresponding to a front surface of the main body, the second holder member arrangeable at a position corresponding to a side surface of the main body, and the third holder member arrangeable at a position corresponding to a rear surface of the main body, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claim 8, Yoon further discloses the housing (120) includes a first side wall, a second side wall, a third side wall and a fourth side wall surrounding the evaporator (111) and the condenser (112) (¶¶ 0036–0037).
Yoon as previously combined with KR ‘606 fails to disclose the first holder member is arranged on an upper surface of the first side wall facing the front surface of the main body, the second holder member is arranged on an upper surface of the second side wall facing the side surface of the main body, and the third holder member is arranged on an upper surface of the third side wall facing the rear surface of the main body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first holder member arranged on an upper surface of the first side wall facing the front surface of the main body, the second holder member arranged on an upper surface of the second side wall facing the side surface of the main body, and the third holder member arranged on an upper surface of the third side wall facing the rear surface of the main body, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claim 9, Yoon further discloses the tub (17) includes a front opening and a rear opening (Fig. 1D; ¶ 0034, and the drying device further includes: an inflow duct (171) through which air discharged from the rear opening of the tub (17) flows (Fig. 1B; ¶ 0034); a heat exchange duct (121) connected to inflow duct (Fig. 1D; ¶ 0037); and a discharge duct (172) connecting the heat exchange duct (121) and the tub (17) and formed to discharge air discharged from the heat exchange duct (121) to the front opening of the tub (17) (Fig. 1B; ¶ 0034).
With regard to claim 10, Yoon as previously combined with KR ‘606 further discloses the inflow duct (Yoon: 171), the heat exchange duct (Yoon: 121), and the discharge duct (Yoon: 172) are inside the housing (Yoon: 120) (Yoon: Fig. 1D), and the holder member (KR ‘606: 56a, 56b) is arranged in a remaining area of the housing except for an area where the inflow duct (Yoon: 171), the heat exchange duct (Yoon: 121), and the discharge duct (Yoon: 172) are arranged (Yoon: Fig. 1D; KR ‘606: Pg. 2 of the translation; claim 1; Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 11, Yoon further discloses the housing (120) includes a first side wall, a second side wall, a third side wall and a fourth side wall surrounding the evaporator (111) and the condenser (112) (¶¶ 0036–0037).
Yoon as previously combined with KR ‘606 fails to disclose the holder member is a first holder member arranged on an upper surface of the first side wall facing a front surface of the main body; wherein the drying device includes: a second holder member arranged on an upper surface of the second side wall facing a side surface of the main body; and a third holder member arranged on an upper surface of the third side wall facing a rear surface of the main body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a second and third holder member, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first holder member arranged on an upper surface of the first side wall facing a front surface of the main body, the second holder member arranged on an upper surface of the second side wall facing a side surface of the main body, the third holder member arranged on an upper surface of the third side wall facing a rear surface of the main body, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claim 12, Yoon further discloses the drying device further includes a compressor (113) arranged closer to the third side wall than the first side wall (Fig. 1D; ¶ 0036).
Yoon fails to disclose the second holder member is arranged between the compressor and the discharge duct. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second holder member arranged between the compressor and the discharge duct, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights