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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang (US 2002/0074123). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Jang, as teaching:
a treatment chamber 100 that is defined within the laundry treating apparatus and that is configured to accommodate a laundry hanger 639, the laundry hanger being configured to hang laundry (see paragraph [0091]);
a laundry hanger support portion 690, 694 that is disposed at the treatment chamber and that is configured to receive the laundry hanger, wherein the laundry hanger support portion is configured to repeat a reciprocating motion between a first position and a second position (figure 6 paragraph [0180]);
a driver 610 configured to provide driving force to the laundry hanger support portion (see paragraph [0091]);
a moisture removal module 230 configured to remove moisture from air in the treatment chamber (see paragraph [0092], [0336]);
a controller 270 configured to control the driver to control a frequency of the reciprocating motion of the laundry hanger support portion, (see paragraph [0138]);
wherein the controller is configured to:
in a first motion mode, control the driver to maintain the frequency of the reciprocating motion at a reference frequency, (see paragraph [0021], [0026-0027], [0324-0325] and
in a second motion mode, control the driver to vary the frequency of the reciprocating motion to be greater than or equal to the reference frequency (again see paragraph [0021], [0026-0027], [0324-0325]. Jang also discloses the claim 2 feature wherein the hanger feature is configured reduce the moisture content of the laundry hanger (paragraph [0464] and figure 22). wherein the laundry treating apparatus is configured to perform a plurality of laundry treatment courses including a first treatment course (shown in figure 22), the claim 3 feature wherein the reference frequency is selected from a frequency range that is predetermined based on a sample hung on the laundry hanger having (i) a first shape of a first waveform in a first state in which the sample is biased to a first side of the laundry hanger support portion and (ii) a second shape of a second waveform in a second state in which the sample is biased to a second side of the laundry hanger support portion, and wherein the frequency range is defined based on overlap points of the first waveform and the second waveform (paragraphs [348], 0349]), the claim 5 feature of the laundry hanger support portion is configured to, based on the laundry hanger support portion reciprocating between the first position and the second position, reciprocate ends of the laundry hanger along an arc with respect to a central axis of the laundry hanger (paragraph [0167]), the claim 6 feature wherein the frequency of the hanger bar may be between 120 RPM (revolutions per minute or rounds per minute) to 200 RPM thereby reading on the reference frequency is selected from a range of 200rpm to 250rpm (paragraph [0411]), the claim 7 feature wherein the controller is configured to, in the second motion mode, control the driver to vary the frequency of the reciprocating motion to be (i) greater than or equal to a minimum frequency and (ii) less than or equal to the reference frequency (paragraph [0411]), the claim 9 feature wherein the controller is configured to in the second motion mode, vary the frequency over a period ranging from 20 seconds on minute (paragraph [0351]).
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.
Claims 4, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang. Jang discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the recited width/length/weight ranges, reference frequency percentage, plural frequencies, shape, plural motions/ courses/ content. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features since the teachings of Jang would perform the invention as claimed regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 of U.S. Patent No. 18/819,420. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because current application claim 1 is anticipated by copending claim 1, except the current application does not recite an independently claimed steam supply. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to exclude a steam supply in the current claim 1 since all the features are recited in the copending application. Current application claim 3 is anticipated by copending claim 3, since both claims are nearly identical. Current application claim 4 is anticipated by copending claim 4, since both claims are nearly identical. Current application claim 5 is anticipated by copending claim 5, since both claims are nearly identical. Current application claim 6 is anticipated by copending claim 6, since both claims are nearly identical. Current application claim 7 is anticipated by copending claim 7, since both claims are nearly identical. Current application claim 9 is anticipated by copending claim 9, since both claims are nearly identical. Current application claim 11 is anticipated by copending claim 11, since both claims are nearly identical.
Claims 10, 15, 16, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 16, 17, 18 of U.S. Patent No. 18/819,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because current application claim 20 is anticipated by copending claim 18, except the current application does not recite an independently claimed first, second, third, and fourth modes. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to exclude those modes in the current claim 20 since all the features are recited in the copending application. Current application claim 10 is anticipated by copending claims 1, 9, since both claims recite nearly identical subject matter. Current application claim 15 is anticipated by copending claims 1, 16, since both claims recite nearly identical subject matter. Current application claim 16 is anticipated by copending claims 1, 17, since both claims recite nearly identical subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this application may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting. References A, B, C, N, O, P, Q, cited with this application are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, teach laundry treating apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Thursday, September 24, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights