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 § 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR102238355B1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, Jeong et al. teaches a washing machine (see abstract), comprising: a cabinet 110 (see figures 1-2, page 8 of the translation); a drum 140 arrangeable on an inner side of the cabinet 110 such that while the drum 140 is arranged on the inner side of the cabinet 110, the drum 140 forms a laundry room (see figure 2, page 8 of the translation); and a detergent supply apparatus configured to supply detergent to the laundry room, the detergent supply apparatus including: a detergent container 210 forming a detergent receiving space to accommodate the detergent to be supplied to the laundry room (see figures 1-3, pages 8-11 of the translation), and a detergent pump 440, 455, 449, 451, 450, 447, 310, 320, couplable to and decouplable from the detergent container, configured to pump detergent accommodated in the detergent receiving space toward the laundry room (see figures 4-9, pages 11-13, 16-17 of the translation); the detergent pump 440, 455, 449, 451, 450, 447, 310, 320 including: a pumping portion 310, 312, 320 including a compression space 312 having a volume that is controllable to be varied such that the detergent accommodated in the detergent receiving space is drawn into an inner side of the detergent pump 440, 455, 449, 451, 450, 447, 310, 320 (as shown in figure 8) or is discharged to an outer side of the detergent pump 440, 455, 449, 451, 450, 447, 310, 320 (as shown in figure 9) as the volume of the compression space is varied (see figures 8-9, pages 16-17 of the translation, the expansive motion of the piston 320 results in the drawing in the suction of detergent into an inner side of the detergent pump, and the compressive motion of the piston 320 results in the discharge of detergent to an outer side of the detergent pump), a detergent discharge flow path 363 connectable to the compression space 312 such that while the detergent discharge flow path 363 is connected to the compression space 312, detergent discharged from the compression space 312 is moved to the outer side of the detergent pump 440, 455, 449, 451, 450, 447, 310, 320. Jeong et al. teaches in pages 13, 16-17, figures 5-6, 8-9, that the relative volume of the detergent discharge flow path 363 and the compression space 312 allows the fluid check valves 365 and 375 to close and open, respectively, during compression of the piston 320 for fluid discharge, and vice versa during expansion of the piston 320 for suctioning of fluid; the detergent pump 440, 455, 449, 451, 450, 447, 310, 320 comprises: a first check valve module 365 capable of opening or closing the detergent discharge flow path 363 by the pumping portion on a side where detergent moves inward, and a second check valve module 375 capable of opening or closing the detergent discharge flow path 363 by the pumping portion on a side where the detergent moves outward, wherein the detergent discharge flow path 363 is a detergent space disposed between the first check valve module 365 and the second check valve module 375. Jeong et al. does not explicitly teach that a volume of the detergent discharge flow path is less than or equal to a maximum volume of the compression space or a maximum volume change of the compression space. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the volume of the compression space may be increased so as to be provide greater detergent suctioning and discharging capacity (reads on claims 2 and 4). Furthermore, it has been determined that changes in relative dimensions constitute an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 3, Jeong et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jeong et al. also teaches in pages 11-13 of the translation and figures 5-9 that the pumping portion comprises: a cylinder 310 configured to form the compression space 312, and a piston 320 moveable to be inserted into the cylinder 310 and capable of discharging the detergent accommodated in the compression space 312 from the compression space 312, and wherein a cross-sectional area of the detergent discharge flow path 363 is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the compression space 312.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jeong et al. also teaches in pages 12 and 14 of the translation and figures 4-6, 8-9 that the detergent pump 440, 455, 449, 451, 450, 447, 310, 320 includes a front case 361a and a rear case 361b couplable to a rear side of the front case 361a, and the front case 361a comprises: a front case body, a detergent intake portion 381 extending from the front case body in a direction in which the detergent pump 440, 455, 449, 451, 450, 447, 310, 320 is couplable with the detergent container 210, the detergent intake portion 381 forming an intake space therein, and a detergent discharge portion 391 forming a discharge space therein and connected to a detergent outlet pipe 264/268 (see pages 10-11 of the translation, figure 3). Jeong et al. does not teach that the detergent discharge portion extends forwardly from the front case body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the detergent discharge portion may be configured so as to extend forwardly from the front case body depending on the desired direction of detergent discharge as per the arrangement of the outlet piping and related features of the washing machine interior for the particular application. Furthermore, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong et al. teaches the limitations of claim 5. Jeong et al. also teaches in figures 8-9 and pages 13 and 16 of the translation, a shared flow path (see path of fluid as shown in figure 8), connecting the intake space and the compression space 312, and configured to allow detergent to be movable based on the detergent being moved from the intake space to an inner side of the compression space 312, and a connecting flow path (see path of fluid as shown in figure 9), connecting the shared flow path and the discharge space (see space inside 391), and configured to allow detergent to be movable through the shared flow path based on the detergent being moved from the compression space 312 to the discharge space.
Regarding claims 8-9, Jeong et al. teaches the limitations of claim 6. Jeong et al. also teaches in figures 5-6 that a cross-sectional area of the shared flow path is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the compression space 312 (reads on claim 8); and that a diameter of the shared flow path is smaller than a diameter of the compression space 312 (reads on claim 9).
Regarding claim 14, Jeong et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4. Jeong et al. also teaches in figures 5, 8-9 and pages 13 and 16 of the translation that the first check valve module 365 comprises: a check valve body including a head portion (see central portion of 365 that is in contact with the port 364) capable of opening or closing an intake space (see port 364 and upstream space 380), and an elastic support portion (see two-pronged portion on downstream end of 365) extending from one end (see downstream end) of the head portion and formed integrally with the head portion, the elastic support portion having a cross-sectional area smaller than the one end of the head portion, and an elastic member 367 configured to elastically bias the check valve body 365 in a direction toward the intake space.
Regarding claim 15, Jeong et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3. Jeong et al. also teaches in figure 3 that the cylinder 310 is formed to extend vertically (see vertical orientation of 280 in figure 3), and the piston 320 is capable of moving up and down within the cylinder 310 to vary the volume of the compression space 312.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Jeong et al. (KR102238355B1). Jeong et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in par along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711