DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims that require a different interpretation of the cited prior art. However, it is noted that the controller fixing plate 23 of Cho can reasonably be interpreted to be part of the control panel as applied to the present claims.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 11-15 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 6 and 11-15 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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 1-6 and 8-15 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 1 recites a cabinet that includes a front panel having an opening in line 2, but also recites that the cabinet includes a front panel having the opening in line 10. It is assumed that the limitation was repeated in error.
Remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR100793763B1 by Cho.
As to claim 1, Cho teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet including a front panel with an opening in the front (fig. 3, para. 32); a tub in the cabinet, a drum in the tub, and a driver coupled to the tub (not explicitly disclosed in the inventive embodiment but would be inherent, as shown in the conventional washing machine of fig. 1); a controller to control the driver and a control panel coupled to the cabinet to receive a command to control the controller or display information (fig. 3, note controller fixing plate 23 and display 31; see also discussion of conventional controller operation, paras. 14-19), wherein the cabinet includes a front panel 20 having the opening (fig. 3), wherein the front panel 20 is formed in a casing shape accommodating at least a portion of the control panel (fig. 3).
Cho does not explicitly teach that the controller fixing plate 23 portion of its control panel is fixed in surface contact with at least a portion of a rear surface of the front panel. However, it does teach that a side of the controller fixing plate 23 is concave and formed with a detergent container installation portion 22 (para. 32). Based on this teaching and depiction in fig. 3 one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that the controller fixing plate 23 is installed at least in part behind the front panel and fixed thereto in order to fix the remainder of the control panel assembly to the front panel.
As to claim 2, Cho teaches that the front panel 20 includes a front plate with the opening; and an upper plate extending from a top of the front plate to be parallel to an upper end of the cabinet, wherein the upper plate shields at least a portion of a top of the control panel (figs. 3, 5a).
As to claim 3, Cho teaches that a length of the upper plate is greater than a thickness of the control panel (fig. 5a).
As to claim 4, Cho teaches that the front panel 20 includes a side plate extending from a side of the front plate to be parallel to a side of the cabinet, wherein the side plate shields at least a portion of a side of the control panel (figs. 3, 5a).
As to claim 5, Cho teaches that a length of the side plate is greater than a thickness of the control panel (figs. 3, 5a).
As to claim 8, Cho teaches that the front plate has a display hole above the opening to expose the control panel (fig. 3).
As to claim 9, Cho teaches that the control panel includes an installation panel 23 fixed to the rear of the front plate and a display panel 31 coupled to the installation panel (figs. 4, 5a).
As to claim 10, while Cho is silent as to the means in which the installation panel is fixed to the front plate, it does teach a fixing piece 50 fixed to the installation panel 23 with an adhesive (para. 36). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use an adhesive to fix the installation panel to the front plate based on its establish use in the art and expected success based on the teachings of Cho.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR100793763B1 by Cho in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210022495 by Bockos.
As to claim 6, Cho does not teach the manner in which the upper and side plates are coupled. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to couple the plates by welding. It was known and conventional for laundry appliance cabinets to be formed by folding and welding sheet metal (see Bockos, para. 32). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized welding the upper and side plates to have been obvious since it was a conventional method that was well-known in the art and would have produced expected results. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR100793763B1 by Cho in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220151084 by Feser et al.
As to claim 11, Cho teaches that the installation panel includes an attachment plate that may be fixed to the front plate with an adhesive (see discussion above in regard to claim 10) and various other mounting and supporting structures that include a display through-hole, and further teaches a display panel 31 coupled to the installation panel (fig. 5a). Cho does not explicitly teach a mounting plate and support rib as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an attachment plate with a support rib at a bottom and a mounting plate with a display through-hole. Feser teaches an appliance having a plate 20 with a display through-hole, a display panel coupled to the plate (fig. 1). Feser also teaches supporting ribs for the display and a plate fixed to a rear of a front panel with an adhesive (fig. 7, para. 68). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an attachment plate fixed to the front plate with an adhesive, as taught by Cho; a mounting plate with a display through-hole as taught by Feser; and a support rib on a bottom of the attachment plate of Cho based on teachings of supporting ribs for a display by both Cho and Feser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the claimed structural arrangement would be an obvious rearrangement of known parts and components of a control panel and would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR100793763B1 by Cho in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220151084 by Feser et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130255327 by Park.
As to claims 12, 13, and 15, Cho teaches a fastening protrusion 41 and other coupling fixers (fig. 5a). Cho does not explicitly teach a coupling fixer on an attachment plate or support rib, the fixer including protruding hooks on both sides of a display through-hole, a fixer including a hook protruding upwards from a support rib. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the fixing hooks for the display, the hooks arranged on sides of a display hole and also protruding upwards to prevent deviation of the display. Park teaches well-known fixing hooks 132 and protrusions 135 to couple an electronic board of a control panel (fig. 6, paras. 109-110). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use fixing hooks at sides of a display hole for the purpose of supporting the display, and also protruding upward from a bottom support rib, for the known and established purpose of preventing deviation and providing support to secure a display, as evidenced by the teachings of Park. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 14, Cho teaches a cover panel 40 coupled to the rear of its display panel and fixed to the installation panel (fig. 5a). Based on the teachings of Park, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use a fixing hook extending through the cover panel to fix the panel for the known and established purpose of a fixing hook within a control panel assembly of an appliance, in particular to fix components of the assembly.
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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights