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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canadian patent CA 2,663,406 to Dalton et al (hereinafter “Dalton”).
Dalton discloses a laundry treating apparatus (10) comprising a cabinet (12) with a front panel having a first opening defined therein, an accommodating portion disposed inside the cabinet to accommodate laundry, a door (15) on the front panel and a control panel (20) disposed on the front panel having an output area with a screen (paragraph 12). The control panel includes a central portion with the output area having straight edges with respect to the front panel and a side portion positioned at each of the two lateral ends of the central portion and having a curved edge with respect to the front panel (seen in figure 2). The control panel is located between an upper end of the front panel and the upper end of the door with the first distance between the upper end of the front panel and an upper end of the control panel smaller than the distance between the lower end of the control panel and the upper end of the door (figure 1 shows control panel 20 roughly twice as far from the door as from the top of the front panel, figure 2 further shows display 36 much closer to the top than the bottom).
In regard to claim 2, The display of Dalton is shown above the midpoint between the door and the top of the front panel.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Ilco Electronics Estillo Mini Dryer User Review” from the January 27, 2025 IDS (hereinafter “Ilco”).
Ilco discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet with a front panel having a first opening defined therein, an accommodating portion disposed inside the cabinet to accommodate laundry, a door on the front panel and a control panel disposed on the front panel having an output area with a screen (See annotated figure, below). The control panel includes a central portion with the output area having straight edges with respect to the front panel and a side portion positioned at each of the two lateral ends of the central portion and having a curved edge with respect to the front panel (seen in figure). The control panel is located between an upper end of the front panel and the upper end of the door with the first distance between the upper end of the front panel and an upper end of the control panel smaller than the distance between the lower end of the control panel and the upper end of the door (See figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This figure discloses claims 2-4,7-11 and 13. The figure shows the center of the control panel higher than the midpoint between the door top and the top of the front panel as claimed in claim 2. It also shows the first and second distance each less than 1/20 of the total height of claim 3 and the first distance being less than half the height of the control panel of claim 4. In regard to claim 7, the panel shown is wider than the distance from the side of the control panel to the side of the front panel. It (the control panel) is also shown between 1/3 and ½ of the total width as claimed in claim 8. The output area is shown greater than twice the first distance as claimed in claim 9 and more than twice the height of the output area as claims in claim 10. In regard to claim 11, the output area is shown as greater than 2/3 of the central portion as the output area extends nearly the entire distance of the central portion. In regard to claim 13, the control panel in the figure is ½ the width of the door.
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.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton in view of US 2020/0087844 to Griffin-Nelson (hereinafter “Griffin-Nelson”).
As discussed above, Dalton discloses a laundry device with a door and a control panel with straight top and bottom edges and curved side edges which is located closer to the top of the device than to the door. Griffin-Nelson discloses a laundry device that uses a control panel 80 with curved side edges and straight edges that are parallel to the top edge of the front panel on the top and bottom. Griffin-Nelson does not use a door, but shows the control panel closer to the top of the front panel than to the top of the first drawer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants’ filing to modify the laundry device of Dalton by placing the control panel closer to top of the front panel than to the top of the access for laundry to make the control panel more accessible to users.
In regard to claim 2, The display of each of Dalton and Griffin-Nelson is shown above the midpoint between the door and the top of the front panel.
In regard to claim 3, the display of Griffin-Nelson is shown a distance less than 1/20 of the height of the cabinet from the top of the cabinet.
In regard to claim 4, the control display 80 of Griffin-Nelson is shown less than half the height of the control panel away from the top of the front panel.
In regard to claims 5,6 and 9, the height of the control panel 80 of Griffin-Nelson is between 2 and three times the distance between the top of the control panel and the top of the front panel.
Claims 2-13 all claim relative dimensions of the control panel and its position on the front panel. All of these claims are seen to be directed to how the device looks, not how it operates. It is considered obvious that a screen closer to a user’s sightline is desirable and components of a machine should not interfere with one another. These features and attributes are taught by the references. Thus, claims 2-13 are seen to be directed to making the device look more attractive, which is not patentable in utility patents. The specification supports the position that other than the obvious avoidance of interference of components, the claimed relative dimensions are cosmetic. For example, paragraph 184; “[00184] The control panel 100 and the door 16 disposed on the front panel 11 need to secure sufficient area sizes while minimizing interference with other components such as the tub 30, the accommodating portion 20, and the like disposed inside the cabinet 10. Further, determination of locations and sizes of the control panel 100 and the door 16 may be important to improve completeness of an outer appearance of the product and user's satisfaction via visual unity or patterning.” Also paragraph 193, “[00193] As described above, the control panel 100 and the door 16 disposed on the front panel 11 need to secure the sufficient area sizes while minimizing the interference with other components such as the tub 30, the accommodating portion 20, and the like disposed inside the cabinet 10. Furthermore, the determination of the locations and the sizes of the control panel 100 and the door 16 may be important to improve the completeness of the outer appearance of the product and the user's satisfaction via the visual unity or patterning.” These paragraphs state that the claimed dimensions are for “visual unity” which does not effect the functioning of the device and are therefore seen as matters of obvious design choice.
Double Patenting
Claim 4 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 4 of Application No. 18/814,333. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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 1-3 and 5-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-16 of copending Application No. 18/814,333 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as noted above claim 4 of the applications cover the same subject matter, with the last indent of independent claim 1 being the same limitation as claimed in dependent claim 4 of the other application. The remaining claims are directed to the same or similar claims of relative dimensions that are not seen to effect the functioning of the device, but rather just the outward appearance of the device. These changes are seen as matters of obvious design choice, which also overlap between the claims of the two applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shin (US 2014/0068872) shows a laundry treating apparatus with a control panel shown much closer to the top of the front panel than to the top of door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C DOERRLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-5.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571) 272-6928. 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.
/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights