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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 8/10/2026. Claims 31-60 are pending. Claims 31, 32, 51, and 60 have been amended.
Claim(s) 31-46 and 48-60 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP (JP2022076255, previously cited on the IDS filed 3/26/2025 and translation attached and referred to herein for paragraph numerals), further in view of Kim (USPPN 2017/0350066). Claims 31, 51, and 60 have been amended to recite “wherein the controller is configured to automatically control the heater or the compressor differently based on time points at which the clothing falls from the hanger.” Applicant argues that the JP reference does not automatically control the heater or compressor differently based on time points at which the clothing falls from the hanger. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that JP has been modified based on the teachings of Kim to include heat pump technology and drying, including a compressor. The JP reference discloses a falling object detection unit 63 and “if a falling object is detected during the operation of the clothing processing housing 3, the operation of the clothing processing housing 3 at that time is temporarily stopped by so-called interrupt processing for safety” (translation, paragraph 57). The modified apparatus would, for example, during operations using its heater and/or compressor, control the heater and/or compressor differently upon detection of a falling object because controlling the heater and/or compressor to be temporarily stopped is broadly and reasonably controlling the heater or the compressor differently based on time points at which the clothing falls from the hanger.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 31-46 and 48-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP (JP2022076255, previously cited on the IDS filed 3/26/2025 and translation attached and referred to herein for paragraph numerals), further in view of Kim (USPPN 2017/0350066).
As to claims 31-41 and 48-60, JP discloses a garment processing device 1 having a control device 2 and housing 3 that are electrically connected (para 11). Housing 3 includes an interior space 34 for processing garments and hanger mechanism 11, steam spray mechanism 4, and detection mechanism 6 (para 23). A pair of doors 32 are on the front side. Hanger mechanism 33 is formed on an upper side of the space 34 (para 28). A spraying mechanism 4 includes a a steam heater 45, that functions as a heat exchanger (para 34).
JP further discloses use of a falling objection detection unit 63, where for example clothes hung on the hanger 332 have fallen towards the bottom of the clothes processing space 34, then a signal is supplied from the falling object detection unit 63, the operations are interrupted, the door is unlocked, and prompts the user to open the doors to remove the fallen object and perhaps re-hang the item (para 57). Pausing operations at this step reads on applicant’s claims for suppressing start of a compressor or heater operation, or placing the machine in standby mode. In JP the control processing unit 215 displays on the operation display unit 213 and also live information relating to fallen objects is displayed (paras 57-58).
JP discloses broadly that its steam heater 45 operates as a heat exchanger but is silent regarding whether it includes use of a compressor. However, in the garment cleaning items that are hung up it is known in the art to use a combination of a compressor with a refrigerant in use with an evaporator (i.e. heat pump) for heating and cooling efficiency, moderation of energy consumption, and effective drying of clothes within the accommodation space such that they are refreshed into a suitable state to be worn (see Kim at paras 41-42). It would have been obvious to use such known heat pump technology as taught by Kim in JP, as this provides effective cooling of the air to remove moisture in the air and also effective heating by releasing latent heat into the air supply so it becomes dry and hot, in order to steam clothes while limiting excess moisture buildup. Excess moisture would result in molding, undesirable water retention in the articles being cleaned, and long steam cycles.
JP discloses the use of a controller 215 and related heater 45 controls. As noted above, based on fallen clothes, the operations are stopped/on standby and an alert is noted to the user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the course when it is restarted based on the time points at which the clothing falls and the user attends to the machine, thus altering the heater or compressor controls. Specifically, if the temperature drop is large from the time the article has fallen and it is attended to by the user, then the heating course may be adjusted to be longer to accommodate reheating the chamber from an ambient temperature, or the compressor step may be shortened if determined that the humidity has been lowered.
Based on the cited references, it would have been obvious to have the controller configured to, based on the sensor detecting that the clothing has fallen from the hanger, suppress the light emitting unit from emitting the light because once the detection occurs a user is alerted based on a display regarding the malfunction. Thus, the light does not need to be used during the steps until the clothing has been reset. The prior art of record discloses both the use of a sensor for detection of fallen clothes and linkage of the sensor to the controller, as well as the display.
JP discloses a door lock unit 62 connected to the controller such that when a fallen object is detection, the doors are unlocked to allow the user to open the doors 32 to remove the fallen object, for example, and hang the object up again (JP at para 57). As noted above, JP discloses a standby feature for safety when a clothing article has fallen. When the object placement is corrected by the user, the user presses a start button to restart operation from the time of operation; impliedly, the sensing functions and cleaning functions (including heating, steaming, cooling, etc.) re-commence.
As to claims 42-46, JP discloses use of a rope 632, roller 632, and hinge lever micro switch 633 in determining whether an object has fallen based on a change in tension indicating a fallen object (paras 51-52). In JP the micro switch 633 is located on the bottom of the housing (JP at para 51). Kim further discloses alternative sensing tools for detection of presence or items on the hanger, including and illumination device that comprises light from optical sensors 302, weight sensor 301 in the hanger bar 250, and generally use of various types of sensors in determining whether or not clothes are in the accommodation space (Kim at paras 96-99). It would have been obvious to use such known sensors as taught by Kim in JP as alternative ways to detect clothes in the accommodation space, and particularly as intended by JP, to detect whether an item has fallen off the hanger. Use of these alternative sensing tools in detection of fallen objects provides useful ways to detect information in a high heat environment that are reliable, sturdy, and cost effective. Based on this configuration of a light sensor at the base of JP, the light would then be located at the base near the air inflow and the sensor at a surface across from here on the base as well. These interruption of light detected from the sensor would trigger a “fallen article” response. Given the limited configurations for locations on the base for the light and sensor and related reflectors that face the sensor, it would have been obvious to have the reflectors across from one another on the base such that it can detect fallen clothes therebetween.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP and Kim as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Kim et al. herein referred to as “Kim2” (USPPN 2021/0363683).
As to claim 47, the cited references are silent regarding use of a body filter on the inflow body wherein the machine compartment further comprises: a body filter mounted on the inflow body, and a filter cover disposed above the body filter. However, Kim2 provides details of its inflow unit having a filter body 58 (see Kim2 at para 58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to use a filter at the air inflow for filtering the air as taught by Kim 2 in the applied prior art, thus reducing lint and allergens. This would improve refreshing functions and would ideally capture lint from entering the chamber, similar to that of conventional dryers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights