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
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) 1-3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2016/0201251).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising: a cabinet having an inlet defined in a front surface thereof (Figure 2; note inlet must be present at the door 4/5); a drum disposed inside the cabinet to accommodate laundry therein (abstract; paragraph 25); a door rotatably coupled to the cabinet to open and close the inlet (4/5; paragraphs 48 and 50, note hinge); a lock disposed on the cabinet to selectively lock the door to the cabinet (paragraphs 44, 48); and a sensor disposed in the door to receive an opening command for the door to open the inlet, wherein the lock is controlled to unlock the door in case that the sensor receives the opening command (3/9; paragraphs 44, 45, 48). Note that operating the apparatus as claimed is intended use capable of being met by the apparatus of Zhang. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang would be capable of operating such that wherein the lock is configured to repeat a process of sequentially locking and unlocking the door whenever the door is pressed toward the inlet. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claims 3, and 15, Zhang discloses wherein the sensor is equipped as a touch panel (3, 9; Fig. 4); an executor disposed above the inlet and configured to receive an execution command to execute a course for treating the laundry (1; paragraphs 9 and 59, note “start” button of the washer), wherein in case that the executor is pressed, the lock maintains the door in a locked state even when the sensor receives the opening command (Figure 1: see “Start,” “Yes” path from “Whether to touch and open the door,” “No” path from “Whether the door can be opened,” and “Yes” path from “Whether the door can be opened”).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2016/0201251)
Regarding claim 13, Zhang is relied upon as above and discloses wherein the sensor is controlled to be deactivated from receiving the opening command in case that the driver operates (paragraphs 54-55), but does not expressly disclose a driver configured to rotate the drum. However, Zhang refers to a drum (paragraphs 26, 54) and a motor rotating (paragraphs 26, 54), and it is old and well-known in the art to use a driver to rotate the drum during washing, rinsing and spinning cycles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a driver to rotate the drum during the cycles when the door is locked, and the results would have been obvious, namely, providing a known means of driving a drum.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2016/0201251) in view of Erickson (US 2006/0123855).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang is relied upon as above and further discloses a hinge disposed on one side of the inlet to rotatably fix the door to the cabinet (paragraphs 16, 48, 50), wherein the sensor is provided to be identifiable on a surface of the door and is disposed upward of the hinge (Figure 2: note location of cable 2, which goes though the hinge, and the location of the sensor 3), but does not expressly disclose wherein the lock is disposed on an opposite side of the inlet from the hinge, wherein the sensor is disposed upward of the lock.
Erickson discloses a washing machine having a front panel (12), a control panel (14), a door (16) provided on the front panel pivotally supported by a hinge (20), and a door lock opposite the hinge (26), and a wire harness extending between the door lock (26) and the control panel (14).
Because it is known in the art to have a door hinge and door lock on opposite sides of the door, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, use of a known arrangement for a known purpose, 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 lock is disposed on an opposite side of the inlet from the hinge, wherein the sensor is disposed upward of the lock
Claims 5-9 are considered to be met by modified Zhang as applied above and which results in: wherein the sensor is disposed closer to the lock than to the hinge (Zhang: 3, hinge is at cable 2; Erickson: 20, 26); wherein the sensor is disposed in an area spaced upwardly apart from the hinge with an angle equal to or greater than 90 degrees based on a center of the door, wherein the sensor is disposed in an area spaced upwardly apart from the lock with an angle smaller than 90 degrees (Zhang: 3, hinge is at cable 2; Erickson: 20, 26; also note the angles can be measured clockwise or counterclockwise); wherein the sensor is disposed closer to an outer circumferential surface of the door than to a center of the door (Zhang: see 3 and 5); a control panel disposed on the cabinet above the inlet and connected to at least one of the sensor and the lock; and a first cable connecting the sensor with the control panel, wherein the first cable is provided to connect the sensor with the control panel via the hinge (Zhang: 1, 2, 3; paragraphs 16, 48, 50); further comprising a second cable connecting the control panel with the lock (Erickson: 26, 28).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2016/0201251) in view of Erickson (US 2006/0123855), and further in view of Kwon et al. (KR 2017-0082110).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhang is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the hinge includes: a mounting portion coupled to the cabinet and supporting the door; a connector having one side rotatably coupled to the mounting portion and an opposite side coupled to the door to guide the rotating of the door; and a stopper having one side coupled to the connector and an opposite side coupled to the door to restrict a rotating angle of the door.
Kwon discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising a hinge unit (30) including: a mounting portion (311) mounted to a main body (20) and supporting the door (10); a connection member (330) having one side rotatably coupled to the mounting portion and an opposite side coupled to the door to guide the rotating of the door (Figures 6-7: 315, 321, 331, 322, 332); and a stop hinge (400) having one side coupled to the connection member (411) and another side coupled to the door (430) and a friction ring (440) with a friction slit at one side such that it only surrounds a part of the outer circumferential surface of the shaft (420). Figure 6 shows the friction ring (440) would inherently limit the total rotation angle of the door friction plate (430).
Because it is known in the art to have a door hinge as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, use of a known hinge for a known purpose, 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 hinge includes: a mounting portion coupled to the cabinet and supporting the door; a connector having one side rotatably coupled to the mounting portion and an opposite side coupled to the door to guide the rotating of the door; and a stopper having one side coupled to the connector and an opposite side coupled to the door to restrict a rotating angle of the door.
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhang is relied upon as above and further results in: a control panel disposed on the cabinet upward of the inlet and connected to at least one of the sensor and the lock (Zhang: 1, 2, 3); and a first cable connecting the sensor with the control panel (Zhang: 2, 3), wherein at least one of the mounting portion and the connector includes a guide groove where the first cable is accommodated and installed (Zhang: paragraphs 16, 48; Kwon: 337, 338).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2016/0201251), in view of Erickson (US 2006/0123855), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0002841).
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhang is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a tub accommodating therein the drum inside the cabinet; and a water supply valve configured to supply water to the tub, wherein the sensor is controlled to be deactivated from receiving the opening command when the water supply valve is opened.
Zhang further discloses that a door can be locked to prevent water inside the washing machine from flowing out due to opening of the door (paragraphs 4, 8), and whether the door is openable or unopenable is based on a water level in the drum (paragraphs 25, 26). The working state of the washing machine can include a water supply (paragraph 27, 56). In an unopenable state of the door, even if the user pressed down the touch region (9) of the touch sensor, the door body is still locked and cannot be opened (paragraphs 54-55). Kim discloses a washing machine having a machine body (10), a drum (20), a water tub (30), and a water supply valve (82) and water supply pipe (83) to introduce water into the tub.
Because it is known in the art to introduce water as claimed, and for the sensor to be deactivated as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, preventing the door opening for safety purposes, 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 a tub accommodating therein the drum inside the cabinet; and a water supply valve configured to supply water to the tub, wherein the sensor is controlled to be deactivated from receiving the opening command when the water supply valve is opened.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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 does not disclose, or render obvious, the laundry treating apparatus as defined by the combination of claims 1, 4, 10, and 11. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Zhang et al. (US 2016/0201251), to further include an elastic body coupled to the connector and the mounting portion to adjust a rotating angle of the connector and restrict the rotating angle of the door.
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