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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “support part”, “pressing part”, “fastening part”, “body coupling part” and “body moving part” in claim 1; “fastening part” in claim 2; “support part”, in claims 3 and 5; “fixing part” in claim 8; “pressing part” and “support part” in claims 9 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20120091799 (hereinafter KR’799) in view of Park (US 2015/0020419).
Regarding claim 1, KR’799 teaches a laundry treating apparatus (fig. 1, apparatus 100) comprising:
a cabinet (fig. 1) having an accommodation space (fig. 1, unit 1) for accommodating laundry;
a door (fig. 1, door 3) configured to open and close the accommodation space;
a support part (fig. 7, support part 911); the support part being configured to support one surface of the laundry;
a pressing part (fig. 7, pressing plate 931) configured to press the laundry towards the support part (machine translation, para. [0130]);
a shaft (fig. 7, shaft 917) configured to rotate the pressing part (fig. 7, machine translation, para. [0140], [0146], shaft 917 is coupled to hinge 951 to rotate the pressing part toward the support part) to a position where the pressing part faces the support part while being spaced apart from the support part by a predetermined distance (machine translation, para. [0143], as the pressing plate body 931 can be moved by the slot 9513 provided in the detachable hinge 951, the pressing plate is spaced apart from the support part to prevent the wrinkles from being damaged);
a fastening part (annotated fig. 7 below, extension part of support part 911) provided in the door or the support part to couple the shaft to the door or the support part (machine translation, para. [0132], [0140], [0144], shaft 917 is rotated in the annotated fastening part);
a body coupling part (fig. 7, shaft 937) coupled to the pressing part; and
a body moving part (fig. 7, hinge 951) configured to connect the body coupling part to the shaft and to be rotatable towards the support part (machine translation, para. [0146]-[0147], when the attaching/ detaching hinge 951 equipped with hooks 971 is provided at both opposite ends of the presser plate body 931, the user can rotate the presser plate body 931 to the right or to the left towards the support part. Therefore, the body moving part is rotatable towards the support part together with the presser plate body 931),
wherein the pressing part is able to move toward the support part for laundry to be pressed between the pressing part and the support part (machine translation, para. [0140], [0146]).
KR’799 does not clearly teach the support part coupled to one surface of the accommodation space or to an inner surface of the door.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches the support part coupled to one surface of the accommodation space or to an inner surface of the door (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support part of KR’799 to be coupled to one surface of the accommodation space or to an inner surface of the door as suggested by Park for the benefit of saving space and energy in performing washing, drying, deodorization, wrinkle removal, and the like related to the laundry.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches the fastening part is configured to provide a space for the shaft to be rotatable (KR’799, machine translation, para. [0132], [0140], [0144]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches a first portion of the pressing part where the shaft is coupled to (KR’799, fig. 7, a right side of the pressing plate 931) and a second portion of the pressing part (KR’799, fig. 7, a left side of the pressing plate 931) that is an opposite side of the first portion are configured to move simultaneously towards the support part (KR’799, machine translation, para. [0143], it is possible to move the pressing plate body 931 in the direction of the supporting plate body 911 after alignment, thereby preventing the wrinkles of the clothes from being damaged as the pressing plate body 931 can be moved by the slot 9513 provided in the detachable hinge 951).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches the first portion of the pressing part is one of a left side and a right side of the pressing part, and the second portion of the pressing part is the other one of the left side and the right side of the pressing part (KR’799, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches the first portion and the second portion of the pressing part are configured to move simultaneously away from the support part (KR’799, machine translation, para. [0143], by slot 9513).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches a groove (KR’799, fig. 7, groove 913) provided in the support part in a height direction of the support part, wherein the groove extends from an upper end of the support part to a lower end of the support part (KR’799, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches a groove (KR’799, fig. 7, element 933) provided in the pressing part in a height direction of the pressing part.
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches a fixing part (KR’799, fig. 2, bar 53) provided in the accommodation space or the door and located above the support part to place the laundry on the accommodation space or the door.
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches a moisture supply part (KR’799, fig. 1, para. [0027], supply unit 2 having a device for supplying air or water) configured to supply steam or mist to the laundry located between the pressing part and the support part (KR’799, machine translation, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches a through-hole (KR’799, fig. 7, element 933 is a through-hole) formed through the pressing part, wherein the moisture supply part is further configured to supply steam or mist to the accommodation space (KR’799, machine translation, para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches an air supply part (KR’799, fig. 1, para. [0027], supply unit 2 having a device for supplying air or water) configured to supply heated or unheated air to the laundry located between the pressing part and the support part (KR’799, machine translation, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure KR’799-Park teaches a through-hole (KR’799, fig. 7, element 933 is a through-hole) formed through the pressing part, and wherein the air supply configured to supply heated or unheated air to the accommodation space (KR’799, machine translation, para. [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on reasonings applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights