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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2026 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: “press part” in claim 1, “locking structure” in claim 10; “laundry-fixing member” in claims 12, 13.
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 1-2 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2015/0020419) in view of KR20120091799 (hereinafter KR’799).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a laundry treatment apparatus (fig. 1, apparatus 100) comprising:
a cabinet (fig. 1, cabinet 1) having an accommodation space therein to accommodate laundry; and
a presser (fig. 1, presser 9) configured to apply pressure to laundry to remove wrinkles from laundry,
wherein the presser comprises:
a support part (fig. 3A, element 91) having a support body (fig. 3B, surface of door 11), and a support plate (fig. 3B, plates 91 and 915) disposed in front of the support body to provide a space for supporting laundry; and
a press part (fig. 3A, press part 93) configured to press the laundry towards the support plate,
wherein the support plate is configured such that a middle portion is secured to the support body (fig. 3B below, para. [0048]) and both lateral sides of the support plate are located forward than the middle portion of the support plate (annotated fig. 3B below).
Park does not clearly teach the support body removably mounted in the accommodation space.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KR’799 teaches the support body removably mounted in the accommodation space (figs. 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Park with the teaching that the support body removably mounted in the accommodation space as taught by KR’799 by making the presser to be a removable unit so that the presser can be provided at any position in the accommodating space of the cabinet (Park, para. [0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure Park-KR’799 teaches the distance between the support plate and the support body gradually increases from the middle portion to both lateral sides of the support plate (Park, as annotated fig. 3B above, as the element 915 is curved up, the distance gradually increases from the middle portion to two sides).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure Park-KR’799 teaches a support body recess (annotated Park fig. 3A below) formed concavely along a height direction of the press part.
PNG
media_image2.png
321
665
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Park-KR’799 teaches the support body recess is formed by a height difference between the middle portion and the both lateral sides of the support plate (Park, annotated fig. 3A above).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure Park-KR’799 teaches the press part comprises a press body ( Park, fig. 3A, body 931) that is hingedly connected to the support body (Park, fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure Park-KR’799 teaches a press body through-hole (Park, fig. 3A, para. [0047], hole 935) which is formed through the press body.
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure Park-KR’799 teaches a locking structure (Park, fig. 1, elements 971, 973) to secure the press body to the support body.
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure Park-KR’799 does not teach the presser further comprises: a support spring provided between the support body and the support plate to apply elastic force to the support plate.
However, Park teaches a support spring (fig. 5A, elements 9153) provided between two surfaces of the presser (para. [0053]); the support spring can be used in combination with other adjustable links (fig. 5B, links 9157)(para. [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Park-KR’799 with a support spring provided between the support body and the support plate to apply elastic force to the support plate as suggested by Park for the benefit of preventing wrinkles or creases from being formed on the laundry.
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure Park-KR’799 teaches a laundry-fixing member (Park, fig. 1, fixing device) to fix laundry to the support body.
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure Park-KR’799 does not teach an extension portion coupled at an upper side of the support body, and wherein the laundry-fixing member is provided on the extension portion.
However, KR’799 teaches an extension portion (fig. 3, elements 6 and 79) coupled at an upper side of the support body, and wherein the laundry-fixing member (fig. 3, element 793) is provided on the extension portion.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Park-KR’799 with the extension portion as taught by KR’799 for the benefit of securing the presser in the accommodating space of the cabinet.
Regarding claim 14, the modified structure Park-KR’799 does not teach a hanger hook for the support body to be removably mounted in the accommodation space.
However, KR’799 teaches a hanger hook (fig. 3, element 61) for the support body to be removably mounted in the accommodation space.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Park-KR’799 with a hanger hook of KR’799 so that the presser can be provided at any position in the accommodating space of the cabinet (Park, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 15, the modified structure Park-KR’799 does not teach an extension portion coupled at an upper side of the support body, and wherein the hanger hook is provided on the extension portion.
However, KR’799 teaches an extension portion (fig. 3, elements 6 and 79) coupled at an upper side of the support body, and wherein the hanger hook is provided on the extension portion (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Park-KR’799 with the teaching that an extension portion coupled at an upper side of the support body, and wherein the hanger hook is provided on the extension portion as taught by KR’799 so that the presser can be provided at any position in the accommodating space of the cabinet (Park, para. [0042]).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2015/0020419) in view of KR20120091799, as applied to claim 1above, and further in view of Lim (US 2015/0159315).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Park-KR’799 teaches a support plate seat portion (fig. 3B, the middle portion of the surface of the door 11) formed in the support body, wherein the support plate is seated in the support plate seat portion
The modified structure Park-KR’799 does not teach the support plate seat portion is concavely formed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches a support plate seat portion concavely formed (fig. 4b) in the support body, wherein the support plate (fig. 4b, support plate 911) is seated in the support plate seat portion.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Park-KR’799 with a concavely formed support plate seat portion as taught by Lim for the benefit of providing aesthetics to the apparatus and facilitate in cleaning the door after uses.
PNG
media_image3.png
451
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Park-KR’799-Lim teaches the middle portion of the support plate is fixed on the support plate seat portion (Park, fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure Park-KR’799-Lim teaches a distance between the support plate and the support plate seat portion gradually increases from the middle portion to both lateral sides of the support plate (Park, as annotated fig. 3B above, as the element 915 is curved up, the distance gradually increases from the middle portion to two sides).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, dated 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 03/02/2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered, however, they are not persuasive. As “press part” in claim 1, “locking structure” in claim 10, and “laundry-fixing member” in claims 12-13 use 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, the claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See MPEP 2181.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the Office Action incorrectly corresponds the support plate of the claimed invention with the elastic part (915) of Park as the elastic part of Park serves as a means for fixing the spaces (911, 913), where pants are supported, to the door (remarks, page 8).
In response, the Office Action states that the support plate of Park includes plates 91 and 915 (see fig. 3B), not only elastic part 915. The support plate of Park is disposed in front of the support body (see fig. 1 surface S) to provide a space for supporting laundry (see fig. 4, the pants are supported by plates 91 and elastic part 915), which satisfies with the claim limitations.
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 UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3732