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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL filed 1/21/2025 having 18 total pages showing a review of a Minnix laundry apparatus herein referred to as “Minnix” (cited on IDS filed 1/21/2025).
As to claim 1, Minnix discloses a laundry machine having a cabinet, opening for inserting laundry, a door, and a control panel (see images of Minnix, particularly at pages 9 and 11). The controller part is formed at a front side of the machine, along an upper part of the front side. The shape of the Minnix controller reads on the claimed central portion having straight edges and the side portions having curved edges. See for example, Applicant’s own Figure 1 showing its controller 100 on the left and Minnix’s machine shown on the right, particularly with note of the similarity of the controller shape and location of the controller at the upper part of the front face of the machine:
PNG
media_image1.png
808
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
666
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen from these side-by-side illustrations, the controller shape is nearly the same and the location is quite similar. This reads on Applicant’s claims of “wherein a height of the control panel defined based on a height direction of the cabinet is equal to or greater than 2 times a first distance between the upper end of the front panel and an upper end of the control panel” as recited in claim 1. The height of the cabinet is greater than twice the distance between the upper end of the front panel and an upper end of the control panel.
As to claim 2, based on the illustrations of Minnix it is observable that “a horizontal center line of the control panel is defined to be parallel to a width direction of the cabinet and pass through a center of the control panel, and is located upward of a midpoint between the upper end of the door and the upper end of the front panel” given its location at the top quartile of the front face of the door.
As to claim 4, based on the illustrations of Minnix it is apparent that “the first distance is equal to or smaller than a second distance between a lower end of the control panel and the upper end of the door” as there is more space between the lower end of the controller and the upper part of the door in comparison to the space between the upper end of the controller and the top of the machine.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnix as applied to claims above.
As to claim 3, Minnix it is not apparent whether “wherein a distance between the upper end of the front panel and a horizontal center line of the control panel is equal to or smaller than 1/10 times a height of the cabinet” however it would have been obvious to optimize the distance such that the distance claimed is equal to or smaller than 1/10 the height of the cabinet, to ensure the controller size is much smaller than the size of the drum. The controller panel need not be larger than a smart phone or tablet that would be typically sized for a home appliance, to therefore maximize the actual space in the apparatus for accommodating articles to be cleaned in the drum. Optimization of these ratios ensure the controller is sufficiently large to allow a user to make selections and effectively control the machine, while also maximizing the drum size to allow for maximum capacity cleaning therein.
As to claim 5, it is not feasible to determine whether Minnix discloses “wherein the second distance is equal to or smaller than 4/3 times the first distance” however, given the limited space constraints above and below the controller, optimizing the space here would allow for ease of access by the user, maximum drum space, and result in expected results of placement of the controller at an upper part of the front side of the machine.
Similarly, as to claim 6, it is not feasible in determining whether “each of the first distance and the second distance is equal to or greater than 1/3 times the height of the control panel” however given the limited space in the placement at the top of the machine in Mannix, it would have been obvious to select a ratio of the controller size in comparison to open space above and below the controller that is balanced, yet allows for a significantly sized controller for ease of use. Optimizing these ratios would be well within the ordinary skill of one in the art to ensure the sizing of the controller relative to the space of the cabinet is utilized properly and achieves the results of having the controller as the specific location as shown in Minnix.
As to claims 7-13, as discussed above and in relation to other ratios of the controller (in terms of height and width) and the surrounding cabinet space, optimizing the size of the controller to the cabinet would be known to persons having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, with the expected result of having a controller formed at a top side of the front of a laundry machine. Particularly, benefits that are expected and achieved by optimizing these ratios would be ideal placement of the controller in a structurally sound location that is easily accessible by a user, and optimizes the size of the controller for ease of seeing and using the controller, and minimizing interference of the drum with the controller by having sufficient distance therebetween.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5pm EST.
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.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711