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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the treatment side having a substantially triangular shape (with corresponding intake ports) (claims 16-17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 5, 6, 8 and 15-17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Within line 2 of claim 2, please replace “is at spaced least” with “is spaced at least”.
Within the first couple lines of claim 5, the applicant recites, “at least two intake ports”. It appears that the applicant is trying to further define the “at least one intake port” as introduced within claim 1. In order to avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, the examiner suggests stating something like “wherein the at least one intake port comprising at least two intake ports”.
Within the first couple lines of claim 6, the applicant recites, “a plurality of intake ports”. It appears that the applicant is trying to further define the “at least one intake port” as introduced within claim 1. In order to avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, the examiner suggests stating something like “wherein the at least one intake port comprising a plurality of intake ports”.
Within the second line of claim 8, the applicant recites, “the intake port or ports extend along at least one straight or covered intake line”. In order to avoid confusion and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, please replace this recitation with “the at least one intake port extends along at least one straight or curved intake line”. If the applicant wants the intake port of claim 8 to be plural (intake ports), claim 8 would needs to be dependent from one of claims 5 and claim 6 or such language should be introduced within the claim.
Within the last two lines of claim 15, the applicant recites, “a plurality of intake ports”. It appears that the applicant is trying to further define the “at least one intake port” as introduced within claim 1. In order to avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, the examiner suggests stating something like “a plurality of intake ports of the at least one intake port”.
Within the last two lines of claim 16, the applicant recites, “a plurality of intake ports”. It appears that the applicant is trying to further define the “at least one intake port” as introduced within claim 1. In order to avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, the examiner suggests stating something like “a plurality of intake ports of the at least one intake port”.
Within the two lines of claim 17, the applicant recites, “at least one intake port”. In order to avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, the examiner suggests the recitation with something like “at least one of the plurality of intake ports”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al. (CN 113186698 A) in view of ZHU (CN 213476404 U).
Regarding claims 1-3, 11 and 14, LI discloses a smoothing appliance comprising: a portable housing having a baseplate (bottom end of 200), a handle (200) and a smoothing head (100) connected to the handle (200), the smoothing head (100) surmounting the handle (200) and the baseplate (bottom end of 200) being in an extension of the handle (200) on an opposite side of the smoothing head (100) (Figures 1, 3 and 5), the appliance further comprising: a steam circuit (170, 130, 211, 300) comprising a steam generator (130) (Figures 1, 3 and 5-7); an air intake circuit (170, 120, 300) comprising a fan (120; note that “the suction device 120 is a suction fan”) configured to be inherently rotated by a motor (it appears that the suction device 120 of LI, as shown in the figures, is a package comprising both a fan/propellers and a motor; regardless, note that the fan/propellers of LI are controlled electronically and therefore must have some form of “motor” to provide rotation), the fan and the motor being disposed in the smoothing head (100) (Figures 1, 3 and 5-7); and wherein the smoothing head (100) comprises a treatment side (around 110) configured to be moved opposite a fabric item (clothes 400; Fig. 4) to be smoothed and a rear side (around 100c) opposite the treatment side, the smoothing head (100) extending in a longitudinal direction between the treatment side and the rear side, the treatment side comprising at least one steam vent (112) connected to the steam circuit and at least one intake port (111) connected to the air intake circuit (Figures 1-7). However, LI fails to disclose wherein an outer plane orthogonal to the longitudinal direction and running through an outermost point of the treatment side relative to the longitudinal direction is spaced at least 1 mm apart from an inner plane parallel to the outer plane and running through the at least one intake port of the treatment side.
ZHU discloses a smoothing appliance comprising a smoothing head (16) with a treatment side wherein an inner plane defined on a surface thereof runs through a plurality of intake ports (12) (Figures 2 and 3). ZHU further discloses the treatment side comprising an outer plane defined by an outer surface of an extended soleplate (steam panel 8) wherein the soleplate (8) includes steam vents (11) disposed thereon in order to diffuse steam and prevent a user from being scolded (by air released from air outlet 13) (Figures 2 and 3). ZHU discloses the outer plane being parallel and spaced from the inner plate (Fig 3); however, ZHU fails to disclose a specific dimension of the spacing. It is considered old and known in the art for a soleplate to have a thickness greater than 4 mm (and thus the spacing to be 4 mm or greater) in order to provide better heat retention, provide better heat/steam distribution and/or provide more efficient wrinkle removal (weight) (for support please note US 8,756,840 B2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the treatment side of the smoothing head of LI with a soleplate having the at least one stem vent disposed therewithin such that an outer plane orthogonal to the longitudinal direction and running through an outermost point of the treatment side relative to the longitudinal direction is spaced at least 4 mm apart from an inner plane parallel to the outer plane and running through the at least one intake port of the treatment side, in light of the teachings of ZHU and common knowledge in the art, in order to evenly diffuse steam, prevent user injuries and more efficiently remove wrinkles.
Regarding claims 4-6, LI discloses a plurality of intake ports (111) positioned around (close to) an edge of the treatment side (110), the intake ports (111) being grouped around two peripheral areas (left and right areas as shown in figure 2) of the treatment side (110) opposite one another (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, LI discloses the at least one intake port (111) being slit-shaped and extending along at least one straight line (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, LI in view of ZHU teaches a smoothing appliance as discussed above. Note that the at least one intake port (111) of LI is separated from the at least one steam vent (112) by a distance in a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2). However, neither LI nor ZHU disclose specific dimensions as it relates to the distance between the at least one steam vent and the at least one intake port. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the distance between the at least one intake port and the at least one steam vent be at least 10 mm because it has been held that the determination of a result-effective variable or a workable/optimum range involves only routine skill in the art (through experimentation) and thus is not a patentable distinguishable feature from the prior art (MPEP 2144.05). Note that the distance between the at least one steam vent and the at least one intake port is a result-effective variable because the distance effects the ability to effectively hold the clothing for proper steaming. Additionally, note that ZHU hints that a healthy, but still functional distance between the intake ports (12) and steam vents (11) aids to prevent injury to a user by reducing the temperature of the air released from the outlet (13) (Fig. 2) (throughout spec).
Regarding claims 12-13, LI in view of ZHU teaches a smoothing appliance comprising an air intake circuit as discussed above. However, LI in view of ZHU fails to disclose specific allowable flow rates of the air intake circuit. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have configured the air intake circuit of LI in view of ZHU for an air intake flow rate greater than 30 m3/hr and less than 50 m3/hr because it has been held that the determination of a result-effective variable or a workable/optimum range involves only routine skill in the art (through experimentation) and thus is not a patentable distinguishable feature from the prior art (MPEP 2144.05). Note that the air intake flow rate would be a result-effective variable because the amount of air intake effects the suction power thereof and thus the ability to hold the clothing to be ironed.
Regarding claim 15, LI discloses the treatment side (110) having a substantially rectangular shape and comprising a plurality of intake ports (111) disposed along two long sides of the rectangular shape (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 16-17, LI in view of ZHU teaches a smoothing appliance comprising a treatment side as discussed above. However, LI in view of ZHU fails to teach the treatment side having a substantially triangular shape. Applicant has not disclosed that having a triangular shaped treatment side further solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose besides personal preference. Note that LI discloses the treatment side (110) having a substantially rectangular shape with a plurality of intake ports (111) disposed along two long sides of the rectangular shape (Fig. 2). Moreover, it appears that the treatment side having a substantially rectangular shape, as taught by LI, would perform equally well for holding and steaming clothing items. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the treatment side of LI in view of ZHU with a triangular shape because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over LI and ZHU.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al. (CN 113186698 A) in view of ZHU (CN 213476404 U) and in further view of GELUS (WO 2021/185572 A1).
LI in view of ZHU teaches a smoothing appliance comprising a treatment side as discussed above. However, LI in view of ZHU fails to disclose the treatment side comprising a curved profile. GELUS discloses a smoothing appliance comprising a treatment side comprising a curved profile (“slightly convex”; note treatment surface 5 as shown in figure 3) wherein one with ordinary skill in the art can see that a curved profile would be beneficial in providing a smoother movement of a clothes item thereon. According, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the treatment side of the smoothing appliance of LI in view of ZHU with a curved profile, in light of the teachings of GELUS, in order for a clothing item to more easily slid with respect thereto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, as cited on attached PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. As discussed within the prior art rejection above, ADKINS et al. (US 8,756,840 B2) discloses that it is common for a sole plate to be 4.0 mm or greater in thickness (Summary Section).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights