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 an application filed in Korea on 22 December 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2023-0189285 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 10-2023-0189285 to which priority is claimed has FAILED on 05/22/2025, as per the letter mailed on 05/22/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “steam generator 542” and the “steam nozzle 543” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0140095 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus (1000) for treating laundry, the apparatus comprising:
a cabinet forming an exterior and having an opening formed in a front to put the laundry therethrough;
a first case (formed around receiving case 14) provided within the cabinet to mount the laundry put through the opening thereon;
a second case (formed between panel 130 and door 110; see Figs. 8-9) rotatable coupled to the cabinet to open/close the opening and having an open surface in a front to put the laundry therethrough;
a door (110; see Figs. 8-9) rotatably coupled to the second case to open/close the open surface; and
a machine room (20) comprising:
a suction unit disposed under the first case to suck air inside the first case (see outlet 36 which discharges air from the first case to the heat exchanger via fan 32);
a heat exchange unit (31) disposed ahead of the suction unit to dry the sucked air at a high temperature; and
a supply unit disposed ahead of the heat exchange unit to supply the air having passed through the heat exchange unit to the first case and the second case (see duct leading to cabinet inflow hole 50 to the first case and duct leading to door inflow hole 148 to the second case in Fig. 8 and ¶ [0181]-[0182], which read on the claimed supply unit),
wherein the first case and the second case are configured to be simultaneously supplied with the air from the supply unit (note fan 32 is configured to perform such operation of flow into the two cases/chambers).
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses wherein the first case comprises a first supply hole communicating with the supply unit, wherein the second case comprises a second supply hole communicating with the supply unit, and wherein the first supply hole and the second supply hole are configured to face the supply unit (note the door inflow hole 148 and cabinet inflow hole 50 are configured to face the supply unit, which includes the ducts in which they are attached).
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) 3-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses the machine room comprising a steam supply unit supplying steam, the steam supply unit comprising: a water supply container (see water tanks 45,47) detachably provided under the supply unit to store water (water tanks may be detachable; see ¶ [0126] and [0132]); a steam generator (41) accommodating a heater part (411) generating steam from heating water supplied by communicating with the water supply container; and a steam nozzle located on a side of the supply unit and communicating with the steam generator to inject the steam generated by the steam generator (implicit to a steam supply from steam generator to the supply unit). Kim discloses supplying steam to the first case but does not expressly disclose wherein the steam nozzle is configured to supply the steam to the first case by being disposed behind the second case to face the first supply hole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the steam supply/nozzle as desired to achieve the same and predictable results of supplying steam into the first case, 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 4, Kim discloses the claimed supply unit in the form of a duct configuration for supplying/circulating air. Kim does not expressly disclose wherein an area of the supply unit increases upward. However, absent an adequate showing of secondary considerations, 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 modify the duct size and/or shape in order to achieve the desired air supply therethrough, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A) & (B) regarding Obviousness and Changes in Size & Shape, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the supply unit holes 148,50 as separated or partitioned.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the first case having a hanger unit (51,516) coupled to an upper surface of the first case, and an embodiment with a hanger support (521) extending from a rear toward a front (see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 8). Kim does not expressly disclose the first case having said hanger unit extending from a rear toward a front. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the hanger support in the first case to extend from a rear toward a front to achieve the same and predictable laundry supporting results, 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2002/0133969 to Cassella.
Kim, supra, discloses the claimed invention including the cabinet having a door. Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the door is formed of a transparent material to view an inside of the second case. However, transparent (glass) door components are known in the art for allowing user visual access to the inside of laundry treating cabinets. Cassella teaches an art-related drying and dewrinkling cabinet having a transparent door component “to allow a user to see the clothing disposed within the compartment” (Cassella at ¶ [0051]).
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 form the door of Kim with known transparent materials, such as that taught in Cassella, to yield the same and predictable results of allowing user to see clothing within the cabinet.
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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed first and second communication holes connected by a connection passage between the first case and second case. Such configuration provides an air circulation passage in the form of a connection passage that may be shortened or lengthened (see Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0052].
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