CTNF 18/819,878 CTNF 85780 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 7 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. 07-34-05 Claim 7 recites the limitation "the width direction." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-35 Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-16 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 they are directed to substantially similar subject matter, only having minor differences in language or minor obvious differences. See the following prior art rejections for discussions of what is known in the prior art and considered to be obvious for modifying the conflicting application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/819,781 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter, only having minor differences in language or minor obvious differences. See the following prior art rejections for discussions of what is known in the prior art and considered to be obvious for modifying the conflicting application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/814,093 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter, only having minor differences in language or minor obvious differences. See the following prior art rejections for discussions of what is known in the prior art and considered to be obvious for modifying the conflicting application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/814,046 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter, only having minor differences in language or minor obvious differences. See the following prior art rejections for discussions of what is known in the prior art and considered to be obvious for modifying the conflicting application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/814,044 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter, only having minor differences in language or minor obvious differences. See the following prior art rejections for discussions of what is known in the prior art and considered to be obvious for modifying the conflicting application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 10-2015-0094502; cited by Applicant) . Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising: a cabinet, the cabinet including a front panel having a first opening located therein (Figure 1: 10, 120); an accommodating portion disposed inside the cabinet, the accommodating portion being configured to accommodate laundry therein (90); a door located on the front panel, the door being configured to open and close the first opening, the door having a circular edge (2); and a control panel located on the front panel between the door and an upper end of the front panel (410), the control panel being configured to output a screen at an output area (411), the control panel including: a central portion including the output area, the central portion having a pair of straight edges (Figure 1: top/bottom of 410); and a pair of side portions positioned at opposite lateral ends of the central portion, each side portion having a curved edge connected to the pair of straight edges of the central portion (Figures 1, 3: lateral sides of 410). Regarding claims 2 and 14, Kim discloses wherein the front panel further includes a second opening spaced apart from the first opening (126), wherein the control panel is coupled to the front panel so as to be located in the second opening, and wherein the second opening has a pair of straight edges and curved edges corresponding to the pair of straight edges and the curved edges of the control panel, respectively (Figures 1, 3: see 126, 410; machine translation, page 4, paragraph 1); wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the output area is equal to or greater than 2/3 of a width of the central portion (see 410 and 411; and note that a width of the central portion can be arbitrarily sized to meet the claimed limitation) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-13, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2015-0094502; cited by Applicant) . Regarding claims 3-7, Kim is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a first distance between the upper end of the front panel and an upper end of the control panel is equal to or smaller than a second distance between a lower end of the control panel and an upper end of the door; wherein, based on a height direction of the cabinet, an overall height of the control panel is equal to or greater than twice the first distance; wherein an overall height of the output area is equal to or greater than twice the first distance; wherein each of the first distance and the second distance is equal to or smaller than 1/20 of a height of the cabinet; wherein a horizontal center line parallel to the width direction of the cabinet passes through a center of the control panel, the horizontal center line being located above a midpoint between an upper end of the door and the upper end of the front panel. However, the figures of Kim appear to show the same proportions of the display panel support frame (410), door (2), and portions of the cabinet front cover (120) as claimed. Additionally, it has been established that it is obvious to a PHOSITA to change the size or proportions of a device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A) – Changes in Size/Proportion. Absent evidence of unexpected results or persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proportions and/or to use the proportions shown in the figures of Kim, yielding wherein a first distance between the upper end of the front panel and an upper end of the control panel is equal to or smaller than a second distance between a lower end of the control panel and an upper end of the door; wherein, based on a height direction of the cabinet, an overall height of the control panel is equal to or greater than twice the first distance; wherein an overall height of the output area is equal to or greater than twice the first distance; wherein each of the first distance and the second distance is equal to or smaller than 1/20 of a height of the cabinet; wherein a horizontal center line parallel to the width direction of the cabinet passes through a center of the control panel, the horizontal center line being located above a midpoint between an upper end of the door and the upper end of the front panel. The results of the modification would be predictable. Regarding claims 8-10, Kim is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the control panel is equal to or greater than a shortest distance between one of two lateral ends of the front panel and the control panel; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the control panel is equal to or greater than 1/3 of a width of the front panel and equal to or smaller than 1/2 of the width of the front panel; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the control panel is equal to or greater than 1/3 of a width of the door and equal to or smaller than 1/2 of the width of the door. It has been established that it is obvious to a PHOSITA to change the size or proportions of a device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A) – Changes in Size/Proportion. Absent evidence of unexpected results or persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proportions to be as claimed, yielding wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the control panel is equal to or greater than a shortest distance between one of two lateral ends of the front panel and the control panel; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the control panel is equal to or greater than 1/3 of a width of the front panel and equal to or smaller than 1/2 of the width of the front panel; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the control panel is equal to or greater than 1/3 of a width of the door and equal to or smaller than 1/2 of the width of the door. The results of the modification would be predictable. Regarding claims 11-12, Kim is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein, based on a height direction of the cabinet, an overall height of the output area is equal to or greater than 8/10 of an overall height of the control panel; wherein, based on a height direction of the cabinet, an overall height of the output area is equal to or smaller than 1/6 of a height of the door. However, the figures of Kim appear to show the same proportions of the display panel support frame (411), display panel (411), and door (2) as claimed. Additionally, it has been established that it is obvious to a PHOSITA to change the size or proportions of a device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A) – Changes in Size/Proportion. Absent evidence of unexpected results or persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proportions and/or to use the proportions shown in the figures of Kim, yielding wherein, based on a height direction of the cabinet, an overall height of the output area is equal to or greater than 8/10 of an overall height of the control panel; wherein, based on a height direction of the cabinet, an overall height of the output area is equal to or smaller than 1/6 of a height of the door. The results of the modification would be predictable. Regarding claims 13, 15, 16, and 20, Kim is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet and a height direction of the cabinet, a width of the output area is equal to or greater than twice an overall height of the output area; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the output area is equal to or greater than 1/2 of a width of the control panel and equal to or smaller than 2/3 of the width of the control panel; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the output area is equal to or greater than 1/4 of a width of the door and equal to or smaller than 1/3 of the width of the door; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a vertical quadrant line of the door is defined to pass through a midpoint between a vertical center line of the door and an outermost end of the door, and wherein a vertical outer line passing through an outermost end of the control panel is located between the vertical center line of the door and the vertical quadrant line of the door. It has been established that it is obvious to a PHOSITA to change the size or proportions of a device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A) – Changes in Size/Proportion. Absent evidence of unexpected results or persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proportions to be as claimed, yielding wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet and a height direction of the cabinet, a width of the output area is equal to or greater than twice an overall height of the output area; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the output area is equal to or greater than 1/2 of a width of the control panel and equal to or smaller than 2/3 of the width of the control panel; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a width of the output area is equal to or greater than 1/4 of a width of the door and equal to or smaller than 1/3 of the width of the door; wherein, based on a width direction of the cabinet, a vertical quadrant line of the door is defined to pass through a midpoint between a vertical center line of the door and an outermost end of the door, and wherein a vertical outer line passing through an outermost end of the control panel is located between the vertical center line of the door and the vertical quadrant line of the door. The results of the modification would be predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2015-0094502; cited by Applicant; hereafter, “Kim ‘502”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0075215; hereafter, “Kim ‘215”) . Regarding claim 17, Kim ‘502 is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the control panel includes a pair of buttons located at opposite ends of the central portion such that at least a portion of each button is located on a corresponding side portion of the pair of side portions. Kim ‘215 discloses a laundry treating apparatus having a control panel (180) having a display panel thereon (185), a power key (181) on a side portion of the control panel and a start key (183) on the opposite side portion of the control panel. Because it is known in the art to have a panel and button arrangement as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a panel and button arrangement known to be effective, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the control panel includes a pair of buttons located at opposite ends of the central portion such that at least a portion of each button is located on a corresponding side portion of the pair of side portions. Regarding claims 18-19, Kim ‘502, in view of Kim ‘215, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the pair of straight edges of the central portion and the curved edge of each side portion are connected to each other via a pair of connecting points such that a pair of boundary lines of the central portion passing through the pair of connecting points crosses the corresponding button; or wherein the central portion has a rectangular shape defined by the straight edges and the pair of boundary lines, and wherein each side portion has a semicircular shape defined by the curved edge and the corresponding boundary line of the pair of boundary lines. However, these limitations are considered to be a mere change of shape of the control panel (Kim ‘215: 180), and changes of shape are considered to be obvious to a PHOSITA. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B) – Changes of Shape. Absent evidence of unexpected results or persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the control panel to be as claimed, yielding wherein the pair of straight edges of the central portion and the curved edge of each side portion are connected to each other via a pair of connecting points such that a pair of boundary lines of the central portion passing through the pair of connecting points crosses the corresponding button; or wherein the central portion has a rectangular shape defined by the straight edges and the pair of boundary lines, and wherein each side portion has a semicircular shape defined by the curved edge and the corresponding boundary line of the pair of boundary lines. The results of the modification would be predictable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00. 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 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. DAVID G. CORMIER Examiner Art Unit 1711 /DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 2 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 3 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 4 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 5 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 6 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 7 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 8 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 9 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 10 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 11 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 12 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 13 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 14 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 18/819,878 Page 15 Art Unit: 1711
Prosecution Insights