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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications KR 10-2023-0085253 filed on 30 June 2023 and KR 10-2024-0001043 filed on 03 January 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of these applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner notes that an electronic retrieval was attempted by the Office on 30 November 2024 in the Priority Document Exchange, however, a failure occurred therewith. Examiner has sent an email to the Priority Document Exchange Program requesting another attempt to retrieve said documents, however, Applicant filing a certified copy of said documents may expedite the matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/746,826 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims, claim a clothes treating apparatus comprising: a housing; a tub; a drum; a drying device; wherein the tub comprises: a tub opening, a tub back, a bearing housing configured to rotatably support a rotating shaft comprising a recess reinforcing portion and rib reinforcing portion, a housing outlet corresponding with a tub outlet, a reinforcing rib, a tub duct comprising a recess portion and partition rib, and a duct cover; an air inlet; multiple tub outlets; and the drying device comprising a heat pump and is disposed above the tub along with configurations of components thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150 word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 14 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.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitation "the rib reinforcing portion" in line 2. It appears that this claim language is found in claim 4, however, this claim depends from claim 13 which depends from claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
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 1-2, 5, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 1020230057787 to Kang et al. (Kang) in view of JP 2010-012088 to Matsuoka et al. (Matsuoka).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a clothes treating apparatus (Fig 1, generally) comprising: a housing comprising a laundry inlet formed on a front surface of the housing (Fig. 2, at part 10); a tub disposed in the housing and configured to store water (Fig. 2, part 20); a drum configured to rotate in the tub and to accommodate laundry (Fig. 2, part 30); and a drying device comprising a drying case disposed above the tub and configured to remove moisture from air discharged from the tub (Fig. 2, part 70), and configured to supply heated air to the tub (see machine translation, paragraph 5), wherein the tub comprises: a tub opening disposed on a front surface of the tub to correspond to the laundry inlet (Fig. 2, see part 20 and at part 13), and a tub back disposed on a rear surface of the tub (Fig. 2, part 200 and part 20) and comprising a tub outlet configured to discharge air inside the tub (Fig. 2, part 220); and wherein a bearing housing configured to rotatably support a rotating shaft connected to the drum is coupled to the tub back (see machine translation, paragraph 55). Kang does not disclose or make obvious wherein a housing outlet is formed in a position, which corresponds to a position of the tub outlet, in the bearing housing.
Matsuoka discloses a clothes care apparatus (see machine translation, paragraphs 1-2) wherein a bearing housing (Fig. 1, part 6) configured to rotatably support a rotating shaft (Fig. 1, part 2) connected to the drum (Fig. 1, part 3) is coupled to the tub back (Fig. 1, part 1), wherein a housing outlet (Fig. 3, part 6c) is formed in a position, which corresponds to a position of the tub outlet (Fig. 3, at part 7), in the bearing housing to thereby avoid interfering with the connection of the circulating air path thereof (see machine translation, paragraph 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Kang with the teachings Matsuoka including housing outlet and the tub outlet to align thereof all in order to avoid interfering with the connection of the circulating air path thereof.
Regarding claim 2, Kang in view of Matsuoka is relied upon as above in claim 1. Kang discloses wherein the tub further comprises: a reinforcing rib protruding rearward of the tub back (Fig. 3, part 200) and configured to reinforce a strength of the tub back; a tub duct formed in the tub back to guide air discharged through the tub outlet (Fig. 3, part 80), to the drying device; and a duct cover provided to cover the tub duct and configured to form an exhaust flow path provided to guide air discharged through the tub outlet to the drying device, by covering the tub duct (Fig. 3, part 81).
Regarding claim 5, Kang in view of Matsuoka is relied upon as above in claim 1. Kang in view of Matsuoka does disclose wherein the bearing housing is formed in a disc shape having a same size as a size of the tub back.
However, this is merely a change in size/proportion wherein the only difference between the prior art and the current invention is that of a recitation of relative dimensions and the device of the current invention has not been shown to perform differently than that of the prior art and therefore the current invention, as claimed, has not been shown to be patentably distinct from that of the prior art device thereof. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, A.
Regarding claim 10, Kang in view of Matsuoka is relied upon as above in claim 1. Kang discloses wherein the tub further comprises an air inlet formed in a front end portion of the tub (Fig. 2, at part 25), the air inlet through which heated air is configured to flow into the tub from the drying device (Fig. 2, part 70), wherein the air inlet is formed on one side adjacent to an upper end of the tub (Fig. 2, at part 25) and the tub outlet is formed on another side adjacent to a lower end of the tub back (Fig. 2, at part 220).
Regarding claim 11, Kang in view of Matsuoka is relied upon as above in claim 1. Kang discloses wherein the tub outlet comprises: a first tub outlet disposed below a center of the tub back (Fig. 10, parts 221C), a second tub outlet disposed above the first tub outlet (Fig. 10, parts 222C) and disposed below the center of the tub back; and a third tub outlet disposed above the second tub outlet (Fig. 10, parts 223C), wherein a sum of an area of the first tub outlet and an area of the second tub outlet is greater than an area of the third tub outlet. Kang in view of Matsuoka does not disclose the second tub having a larger area.
However, this is merely a change in size/proportion wherein the only difference between the prior art and the current invention is that of a recitation of relative dimensions and the device of the current invention has not been shown to perform differently than that of the prior art and therefore the current invention, as claimed, has not been shown to be patentably distinct from that of the prior art device thereof. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, A.
Regarding claim 12, Kang in view of Matsuoka is relied upon as above in claim 11. Kang discloses wherein the housing outlet comprises: a first housing outlet having a position and shape corresponding to the first tub outlet (Fig. 10, parts 221C and 82Ca); a second housing outlet having a position and shape corresponding to the second tub outlet (Fig. 10, parts 222C and 82Cb); and a third housing outlet having a position and shape corresponding to the third tub outlet (Fig. 10, parts 223C and 82Cc).
Regarding claim 15, Kang in view of Matsuoka is relied upon as above in claim 1. Kang discloses wherein the drying device comprises a heat pump and is disposed above the tub (Fig. 2, at parts 70, 73, 74, and 20).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 1020230057787 to Kang et al. (Kang) in view of JP 2010-012088 to Matsuoka et al. (Matsuoka) further in view of CN113355838 to Feng et al. (Feng).
Regarding claim 3, Kang in view of Matsuoka is relied upon as above in claim 2. Kang in view of Matsuoka does not disclose or make obvious wherein the tub duct comprises: a recess portion formed around the tub outlet and positioned in front of a rear end of the reinforcing rib; and a partition rib protruding rearward of the tub back from an edge of the recess portion.
Feng discloses a clothes care apparatus (machine translation, paragraph 3) wherein the tub duct (Fig. 1, part 12 and Fig. 2, part 121) comprises: a recess portion formed around the tub outlet (Fig. 2, parts 121 and 1211) and positioned in front of a rear end of the reinforcing rib (Fig. 2, at part 121); and a partition rib protruding rearward of the tub back from an edge of the recess portion (Fig. 2, at part 121; see ribs in Figs. 1-2, generally).
Regarding claims 4 and 13-14, Kang in view of Matsuoka further in view of Feng is relied upon as above in claim 3. Kang in view of Matsuoka further in view of Feng does not disclose wherein the bearing housing comprises: a recess reinforcing portion inserted into the recess portion and configured to reinforce a strength of the recess portion; and a rib reinforcing portion inserted into the partition rib and configured to reinforce a strength of the partition rib; the partition rib comprises: an outer partition rib disposed on one side of the tub outlet with respect to a radial direction of the tub back; an inner partition rib disposed on another side of the tub outlet with respect to the radial direction of the tub back; and a connecting partition rib provided to connect the outer partition rib and the inner partition rib; and wherein the rib reinforcing portion comprises: an outer rib reinforcing portion provided to correspond to the outer partition rib and configured to reinforce a strength of the outer partition rib; an inner rib reinforcing portion provided to correspond to the inner partition rib and configured to reinforce a strength of the inner partition rib; and a connecting rib reinforcing portion provided to correspond to the connecting partition rib and configured to reinforce a strength of the connecting partition rib.
However, this would have been obvious to try as the prior art to Kang, Matsuoka, and Feng disclose reinforcing ribs, as discussed above, which one of ordinary skill realizes strengthens the overall structure of the device thereof (see Kang, Figs. 3 and 10, see ribs; Matsuoka, Figs. 3 and 4, see ribs; and Feng, Figs. 1 and 2, see ribs).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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 closest prior art of record is that of KR 1020230057787 to Kang et al. (Kang). Kang discloses a clothes treating apparatus comprising: a housing comprising a laundry inlet formed on a front surface of the housing; a tub disposed in the housing and configured to store water; a drum configured to rotate in the tub and to accommodate laundry; and a drying device comprising a drying case disposed above the tub and configured to remove moisture from air discharged from the tub, and configured to supply heated air to the tub, wherein the tub comprises: a tub opening disposed on a front surface of the tub to correspond to the laundry inlet, and a tub back disposed on a rear surface of the tub and comprising a tub outlet configured to discharge air inside the tub; and wherein a bearing housing configured to rotatably support a rotating shaft connected to the drum is coupled to the tub back. Kang does not disclose wherein a housing outlet is formed in a position, which corresponds to a position of the tub outlet, in the bearing housing; wherein the tub duct comprises: a recess portion formed around the tub outlet and positioned in front of a rear end of the reinforcing rib; and a partition rib protruding rearward of the tub back from an edge of the recess portion; and wherein the tub further comprises a stepped portion extending obliquely forward from an upper end of the recess portion configured to increase a front-to-back width of the exhaust flow path.
The advantage of the current invention over that of the prior art to Kang is that of the combination of the configurations of the housing outlet; tub duct with recess portion; and stepped portion wherein this increases a spacing thereof to reduce vibration along with noise associated therewith. Claims 7-9 depend from claim 6 and would otherwise be allowable for the same reasons as claim 6 from which they depend thereon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (571)270-7379. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/BENJAMIN L OSTERHOUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711