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 Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because “a fixed UI section” should be changed to “a fixed user interface (UI) section” and “a variable UI section” should be changed to “a variable user interface (UI) section.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-17, 20, 22-29 and 31-34 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/841,850 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the copending application include the claimed subject matter of the present claims [the difference in language is semantics], except for what is listed below.
In regard to claims 32 and 33, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 15-17, 20, 21, 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong [CN 112941823].
In regard to claim 15, Dong discloses [in Figs. 1-3 and 11 a laundry treating apparatus for performing a processing operation for laundry, the laundry treating apparatus comprising: a main body [1] configured to accommodate the laundry; a cover [5, 111] defining an exterior of the main body [1], the cover including a first through hole [511] at a front upper end portion of the cover; and a control panel [Fig. 11] located at an inner surface of the cover, the control panel being partially exposed to an exterior of the cover through the first through hole [511] to allow a user to input a control signal for the processing operation, the control panel including: a window [52] having a front surface in contact with the inner surface of the cover at an area other than the first through hole [511]; a touch screen [53] located at a rear surface of the window [52]; and a coating guide [55] coupled to the window [52], the coating guide [55] configured to support a rear surface of the touch screen [53], the coating guide [55] being located at the inner surface of the cover.
In regard to claim 16, Dong discloses [in Figs. 1-3 and 11] the laundry treating apparatus of claim 15, wherein the control panel further includes a first sealing member [glue] interposed between the window [52] and the coating guide [55].
In regard to claim 17, Dong discloses [in Figs. 1-3 and 11] the laundry treating apparatus of claim 15, wherein the control panel further includes a printed circuit board (PCB) [57] located at a rear surface of the coating guide [55], the printed circuit board [57] connected to the touch screen [53].
In regard to claims 20 and 21, Dong discloses [in Figs. 1-3 and 11] the laundry treating apparatus of claim 17, further comprising a controller [on 57] configured to input and output signals related to controlling the processing operation, wherein the controller is configured to receive signals for controlling the processing operation from the touch screen [53] through the printed circuit board [57].
In regard to claims 32 and 33, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 34, Dong discloses [in Figs. 1-3 and 11] the laundry treating
apparatus of claim 15, wherein the window [52] includes an area corresponding to the first through hole [511], a first portion of the area being a transmissive area, a remaining portion of the area being a non-transmissive area, and wherein the touch screen [53] is located at a rear surface of the window [52], the touch screen [53] being visible through the transmissive area.
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.
Claims 22, 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong [CN 112941823] in view of Park [KR 20130109356].
In regard to claims 22 and 23, Dong discloses [in Figs. 1-3 and 11] the laundry treating apparatus of claim 20. Dong does not disclose a wireless communicator configured to transmit and receive wireless signals to and from an outside of the laundry treating apparatus, the wireless communicator being located at the inside surface of the cover, the wireless communicator being coupled to a bottom of the control panel, wherein the wireless communicator is configured to transmit and receive the wireless signals for controlling the processing operation from and to the controller. Park teaches [in Fig. 3] a wireless communicator [180] configured to transmit and receive wireless signals to and from an outside of the laundry treating apparatus, the wireless communicator being located at the inside surface of the cover, the wireless communicator being coupled to a bottom of the control panel, wherein the wireless communicator is configured to transmit and receive the wireless signals for controlling the processing operation from and to the controller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the wireless communicator or Park with the apparatus of Dong in order to control and operate the apparatus as desired.
In regard to claim 31, Dong discloses [in Figs. 1-3 and 11] the laundry treating apparatus of claim 15. Dong does not disclose that the control panel includes: a fixed user interface (UI) section including a first control UI having a fixed display; and a variable user interface (UI) section including a second control UI having a variable display. Park teaches in [Fig. 9] that the control panel [200] includes: a fixed user interface (UI) section including a first control UI [235] having a fixed display [around 235]; and a variable user interface (UI) section including a second control UI [213] having a variable display [214]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fixed and variable user interface sections of Park with the apparatus of Dong in order to increase the functionality of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 19 and 30 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.
In regard to claim 18, in combination with other limitations, the control panel further including a panel rib protruding rearward from a lower end portion of the coating guide, the panel rib supporting the PCB is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 30, in combination with other limitations, a portion of the first hook protrusion being bent and a portion of the second hook protrusion being bent is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jang et al. [US 2025/0179713, US 2025/0163628, US 20250154707, US 20250154706] disclose similar laundry treating apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LHEIREN MAE A CAROC whose telephone number is (571)272-2730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/LHEIREN MAE A CAROC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights