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 § 112
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.
Claims 24-27 are 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.
Claim 24 recites the limitation: “a sterilization step of operating the compressor and one of the first heater and the second heater to increase a temperature inside the inner casing to a temperature equal to or higher than a sterilization temperature after steam is generated in the preparation step, wherein the second heater is configured to generate more steam than the first heater, wherein the sterilization step includes operating the first heater and the compressor.” It is unclear whether or not the second heater is being claimed to be operable in the sterilization step, since there appears to be a contradiction in the following limitations: “a sterilization step of operating the compressor and one of the first heater and the second heater” and “the sterilization step includes operating the first heater and the compressor”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US20170342651).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Choi et al. teaches a method for controlling a clothing treatment apparatus (see abstract) including a steam supply part 40 including a first heater 41 configured to generate steam to be supplied to an inner casing 12 where clothes are stored (see figures 1-3, paragraphs [0037], [0052]), and a heat supply part including a heat exchanger 53 configured to heat air to be supplied to the inner casing 12 and a compressor 51 configured to supply a refrigerant to the heat exchanger 53 (see figures 1-3, paragraphs [0053]-[0058]); a clothes setter 60 configured to receive a sterilization command (see command to supply steam and hot air) to sterilize the clothes accommodated inside the inner casing 12 (see paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0049], [0051]-[0053], [0063]-[0068]), the method comprising: a sensing step of sensing that the sterilization command is input (see paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0063], [0070]); a preparation step (see part of S210 including powering on the first heater 41, moving water to the steam supply part 40 and generating steam, prior to S220) of preparing steam to be supplied to the inner casing 12 by operating the first heater 41 (see figure 5, paragraphs [0052], [0070]-[0073]); a spray step S220 of supplying steam to the inner casing 12 by operating the first heater, wherein the spray step S220 includes stopping the operation of the compressor 51 (see figure 5, paragraphs [0073]-[0075]) (reads on claim 12); and a drying step S250 of drying the clothes with air heated by operating the compressor 51 (see figure 5, paragraph [0080]), wherein the method further includes a preheating step (see part of S210 whereby steam generated by the steam supply unit 40 is supplied to the inner casing 12) of supplying steam to the inner casing 12 by operating the first heater 41, after steam is generated in the preparation step S210 (see paragraphs [0052], [0070]- [0073]). Choi et al. does not explicitly teach a second heater. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a second heater disposed separately from the first heater and configured to operate independently of the first heater may be included in the system so as to increase the heating capacity of the system and optimize the laundry treatment for the particular application. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Choi et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0065]-[0068], [0070]-[0074] that the first heater 41 and the compressor 51 may be operated simultaneously, which would require an amount of power at least sufficient to operate the first heater 41 and the compressor 51 and smaller than an amount of power required in case that the first heater 41, the second heater (in the modified system), and the compressor 51 operate simultaneously. Therefore, it is readily apparent that the allowable amount of power of the clothing treatment apparatus may be set to be smaller than an amount of power required in case that the first heater, the second heater (in the modified system), and the compressor operate simultaneously, and set to be greater than an amount of power required in case that the compressor and the first heater operate simultaneously.
Regarding claim 3, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Choi et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0065]-[0068], [0070]-[0074] that the preheating step includes a section where the compressor 51 and one the first heater 41 simultaneously operate.
Regarding claim 11, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Choi et al. teaches a spray step S220 of supplying steam to the inner casing 12 by operating the first heater 41 (see figure 5, paragraph [0073]). Choi et al. does not teach that the spray step includes simultaneously operating the first heater and the second heater to supply steam to the inner casing. However, in the modified system including a second heater, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that both the first and second heaters may operate to supply steam to the inner casing so as to increase the capacity to supply steam to the inner casing.
Regarding claim 13, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 12. Choi et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0132]-[0136] a waiting step 230 of stopping the operation of the compressor 51 and the first heater 41 for a set time period (see standby time) when the spray step S220 ends. Hence, in the modified system including a second heater, it is readily apparent that the second heater would also be stopped for the set period of time.
Regarding claim 14, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 13. Choi et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0076]-[0079] and figures 2-5 a blowing fan 32 configured to supply air that has passed through the heat exchanger 53 into the inner casing 12, wherein the method further includes a cooling step S240 of operating the blowing fan 32 but stopping the operation of the compressor 51 when the waiting step ends.
Regarding claim 15, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Choi et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0080], [0142]-[0144] that the drying step S250 includes stopping the operation of the first heater 41. Hence, in the modified system including a second heater, it is readily apparent that the second heater would also be stopped.
Regarding claim 16, Choi et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Choi et al. teaches a spray step S220 of supplying steam to the inner casing 12 by operating the first heater 41 (see figure 5, paragraphs [0073]-[0075]). Choi does not explicitly teach that the spray step further includes a reduced spray step of operating only one of the first heater and the second heater. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that an additional spray step operating the first heater may be included so as to allow for the provision of a greater amount of steam to the inner casing, so as to optimize the laundry treatment for the particular application.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US20170342651) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hong et al. (KR20110035030A).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Choi et al. teaches a method for controlling a clothing treatment apparatus (see abstract) including a steam supply part 40 including a first heater 41 configured to generate steam to be supplied to an inner casing 12 where clothes are stored (see figures 1-3, paragraphs [0037], [0052]), and a heat supply part including a heat exchanger 53 configured to heat air to be supplied to the inner casing 12 and a compressor 51 configured to supply a refrigerant to the heat exchanger 53 (see figures 1-3, paragraphs [0053]-[0058]), the method comprising: a preparation step (see part of S210 including powering on the first heater 41, moving water to the steam supply part 40 and generating steam, prior to S220) of preparing steam to be supplied to the inner casing 12 by operating the first heater 41 (see figure 5, paragraphs [0052], [0070]-[0073]); a spray step S220 of supplying steam to the inner casing 12 by operating the first heater 41 (see figure 5, paragraph [0073]); and a drying step S250 of drying the clothes with air heated by operating the compressor 51 (see figure 5, paragraph [0080]), wherein the method further includes a preheating step (see part of S210 whereby steam generated by the steam supply unit 40 is supplied to the inner casing 12) of supplying steam to the inner casing 12 by operating the first heater 41, after steam is generated in the preparation step S210 (see paragraphs [0052], [0070]- [0073]). Choi et al. does not explicitly teach a second heater. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a second heater disposed separately from the first heater and configured to operate independently of the first heater may be included in the system so as to increase the heating capacity of the system and optimize the laundry treatment for the particular application. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Choi et al. also teaches a controller 60 capable of automatically operating the system (see paragraphs [0033], [0037]). Choi et al. does not teach a clothes setter configured to receive vulnerability information indicating that the clothes accommodated in the inner casing are able to be deformed by moisture or high temperature. Hong et al. teaches a clothing treatment apparatus (see abstract) and a clothes setter 152 configured to receive vulnerability information indicating that the clothes accommodated in the inner casing are able to be deformed by moisture or high temperature (see e.g. information input that indicates that the nature of clothes accommodated in the inner casing comprises silk and/or wool) and that in case that the vulnerability information is input, the preheating step is skipped (see e.g. use of only hot air and not steam in the initial phase when information input indicates that the clothes accommodated in the inner casing comprise silk and/or wool), and the application of steam is minimized so as to minimize the deformation of the items being treated (see pages 3 and 6 of the translation). Since both Choi et al. and Hong et al. teach laundry treatment systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a clothes setter may be included in the system by Choi et al. so as to allow input of vulnerability information and skip the preheating step in case vulnerability information is input so as to minimize deformation of the items being treated, as shown to be known and conventional by Hong et al.
Regarding claim 19, Choi et al. and Hong et al. together teach the limitations of claim 18. Choi et al. does not teach that the spray step includes operating only one of the first heater and the second heater when the vulnerability information is input. Hong et al. teaches that the clothes setter 152 is configured to receive vulnerability information indicating that the clothes accommodated in the inner casing are able to be deformed by moisture or high temperature (see e.g. information input that indicates that the nature of clothes accommodated in the inner casing comprises silk and/or wool) and that in case that the vulnerability information is input the application of steam is minimized so as to minimize the deformation of the items being treated (see pages 3 and 6 of the translation). Since both Choi et al. and Hong et al. teach laundry treatment systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the spray step may include operating only one of the first heater and the second heater when the vulnerability information is input so as to minimize deformation of the items being treated, as shown to be known and conventional by Hong et al.
Regarding claim 20, Choi et al. and Hong et al. together teach the limitations of claim 19. Choi et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0076]-[0079] and figures 2-5 a blowing fan 32 configured to supply air that has passed through the heat exchanger 53 into the inner casing 12, wherein the method further includes a cooling step S240 of operating the blowing fan 32 but stopping the operation of the compressor 51. Choi et al. does not teach an additional cooling step of operating the blowing fan and stopping the operation of the compressor after the drying step when the vulnerability information is input. Hong et al. teaches that the clothes setter 152 is configured to receive vulnerability information indicating that the clothes accommodated in the inner casing are able to be deformed by moisture or high temperature (see e.g. information input that indicates that the nature of clothes accommodated in the inner casing comprises silk and/or wool) and that in case that the vulnerability information is input the application of steam is minimized so as to minimize the deformation of the items being treated (see pages 3 and 6 of the translation). Since both Choi et al. and Hong et al. teach laundry treatment systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the modified system by Choi et al. may include an additional cooling step of operating the blowing fan and stopping the operation of the compressor after the drying step when the vulnerability information is input so as to minimize deformation of the items being treated, as shown to be known and conventional by Hong et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 25-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-10, 21-23 are 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 closest prior art of record is Choi et al. (US20170342651). Choi et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 4, 5, 9, 21-23, 24, including the following limitations of independent claim 24: “..the second heater is configured to generate more steam than the first heater..”. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711