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 statements (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2025 and 05/14/2025, are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 11/20/2024 is acknowledge, however, foreign documents KP 1020050096555 and KP2019960001851 are not considered by the examiner because the country codes are not correct. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar (US 2018/0030646).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar teaches a heat press (fig. 2A, apparatus 100) comprising:
a body (fig. 2A, body of the apparatus 100) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end;
a heat plate (fig. 2B, ironing bottom) located at the first end of the body; and
a handle (fig. 2A, handle of the apparatus 100) forming a portion of the second end of the body, the second end of the body defining a concave depression over and across which the handle extends (fig. 2A);
wherein;
a perimeter of the concave depression comprises a first lateral edge, a second lateral edge opposite the first lateral edge, a front edge, and a rear edge opposite the front edge (annotated fig. 2C below);
the perimeter of the concave depression comprises the first lateral edge connected to the front edge connected to the second lateral edge connected to the rear edge connected to the first lateral edge (fig. 2C);
the handle extends in a lateral direction between the first lateral edge of the perimeter of the concave depression and the second lateral edge of the perimeter of the concave depression (figs. 2B-2C); and
at least one of a display and controls (fig. 2A, display interface 131; fig. 2C, input interface 129) is situated adjacent the front edge of the perimeter of the concave depression (figs. 2A, 2C).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
389
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kumar teaches the concave depression comprises a curved surface that extends downward from the perimeter of the concave depression toward the first end of the body (fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar teaches the curved surface is curved about more than a single axis (annotated fig. 2A and fig. 2C below).
PNG
media_image3.png
326
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
305
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kumar teaches the at least one of the display and the controls face away from the first end of the body (fig. 2C, input interface 129 faces away from the first end).
Regarding claim 7, Kumar teaches a control compartment within the body (fig. 2A, control unit 103 is positioned in the control compartment within the body), wherein the at least one of the display and the controls are coupled to the control compartment (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar teaches the control compartment and the at least one of the display and the controls coupled to the control compartment are not located on the handle and are not located in the concave depression (fig. 2A, 2C).
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2018/0030646), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whitney (US 2015/0225889).
Regarding claim 5, Kumar does not clearly teach an insulation portion positioned between the first end of the body and the concave depression.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Whitney teaches an insulation portion (fig. 1, insulating shell 16) positioned between the first end of the body (fig. 1, plate 20) and the concave depression (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kumar with an insulation portion positioned between the first end of the body and the concave depression as taught by Whitney for the benefit of providing user from burning when the components heat up during operation of the iron (Whitney, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure Kumar-Whitney does not clearly teach the insulation portion is positioned within the body between the heat plate and the concave depression.
However, Whitney teaches the insulation portion is positioned within the body between the heat plate and the concave depression (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kumar with the insulation portion positioned within the body between the first end of the body and the concave depression as taught by Whitney for the benefit of providing user from burning when the components heat up during operation of the iron (Whitney, para. [0042]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12152338. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for instance, the difference between the patented claim 4 and the instant claim 1 are minor and obvious from each other. The instant claim 1 is a broader version of the patented claim (i.e. the instant claim 1 does not include the limitations “the heat plate comprising a plurality of pressure receiving points”, and “when a downward force is applied to the handle forming the portion of the second end of the body, the downward force transfers through the plurality of pressure receiving points to the heat plate” as in the patented claim. Therefore, the patented claim 4 would read on the instant claim 1. Furthermore, in the instant claim 1, the claimed limitations can be found in the patented claim 4. Any infringement over the patented claim 4 would also infringe over the instant claim 1. Hence, the instant claim does not differ from the scope of the patented claim 4
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12152338 for the same reason.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12152338 in view of Kumar (US 2018/0030646).
Regarding claim 1, the patented claim 1 teaches all the limitations except wherein a perimeter of the concave depression comprises a first lateral edge, a second lateral edge opposite the first lateral edge, a front edge, and a rear edge opposite the front edge; the perimeter of the concave depression comprises the first lateral edge connected to the front edge connected to the second lateral edge connected to the rear edge connected to the first lateral edge; the handle extends in a lateral direction between the first lateral edge of the perimeter of the concave depression and the second lateral edge of the perimeter of the concave depression. However, Kumar teaches a perimeter of the concave depression comprises a first lateral edge, a second lateral edge opposite the first lateral edge, a front edge, and a rear edge opposite the front edge; the perimeter of the concave depression comprises the first lateral edge connected to the front edge connected to the second lateral edge connected to the rear edge connected to the first lateral edge; the handle extends in a lateral direction between the first lateral edge of the perimeter of the concave depression and the second lateral edge of the perimeter of the concave depression (annotated figs. 2A, 2C above). 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 patented claim 1 with a shape of the concave depression as taught by Kumar for the benefit of providing aesthetic pleasing features to the device, saving material and making device lighter in use.
For the same reason, the claims more specifically correlate as below:
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12152338 in view of Kumar (US 2018/0030646).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12152338 in view of Kumar (US 2018/0030646).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12152338 in view of Kumar (US 2018/0030646).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12152338 in view of Kumar (US 2018/0030646).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12152338 in view of Kumar (US 2018/0030646).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12152338 in view of Kumar (US 2018/0030646).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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