DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest a detecting unit disposed at a detergent storage container and at a position higher than a pump receiving portion. However, Smith ‘143 teaches that various types of detecting sensors may be used with its detachable detergent storage container 300 (para. 53), not just an ultrasonic fluid level sensor as described in para. 55. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, based on Smith ‘143’s suggestions, that a detecting unit may be located at the detergent storage container. Similarly, Smith ‘777 teaches a detecting unit at a detachable detergent storage container (fig. 30). While Smith ‘777’s detecting unit does not comprise a connection terminal portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Smith ‘143’s suggestion of detecting units at its container, combined with Smith ‘777’s teaching of a detecting unit, particular its location at a rear of its container, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to consider a detecting unit at and/or within the container that comprises a connection terminal portion to transmit detection readings to a controller. Notably, Smith ‘143 teaches a connection terminal portion that is above a pump receiving portion and is used to transmit detection readings to a controller. Considering the cited references as a whole, the claimed invention would have been obvious. The references teach the principle structural features recited in claim 1 and provide sufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the detecting unit and connection terminal portion.
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-15 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.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 § 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 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100161143 by Smith in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100071777 by Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith ‘777”).
As to claim 1, Smith teaches a detergent supply device for a laundry treating apparatus, the device comprising a housing 200 (fig. 1); a detachable detergent storage container 300 installed in the housing; a pump receiving portion at a surface (fig. 14); and a detecting unit at the container to detect an amount of detergent (para. 53).
Smith suggests that various types detecting units may be used but does not explicitly teach one in which a connection terminal portion is higher than the pump receiving portion. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a detecting unit configured as such. Smith ‘777 teaches a detecting unit having sensors disposed within the volume of a storage container (fig. 30, paras. 83, 85), which was readily known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Necessitating a means in which to provide an electrical connection to sensors within the volume of the container, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the teachings of Smith as a guide, noting that a connection terminal would necessarily be higher than the pump receiving portion since the pump receiving portion is at a lowest position of the container and that Smith teaches a connection terminal 360 at a higher position (fig. 14). Since Smith demonstrates functional success of having a structure of a connection terminal above a pump receiving portion, and Smith ‘777 teaches known level detection sensors that require an electrical connection, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a detecting unit connection terminal at a position higher than a pump receiving portion.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, upon the obvious modification discussed above, the connection terminal portion and the pump receiving portion would be arranged in a vertical direction of the one surface (see Smith, fig. 14).
As to claim 3, Smith teaches a connection terminal receiving member 358 inside the housing that faces the connection terminal portion (fig. 14). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to arrange a terminal receiving member for a detecting unit connection terminal in the same manner based on the guidance given by Smith.
As to claim 4, Smith ‘777 teaches a pump that may be outside of the housing and connected to the pump receiving portion (para. 74).
As to claim 6, Smith teaches that the container is inserted into the housing in one direction and the one surface of the container is a surface that faces the one direction (figs. 1, 14).
As to claim 7, Smith teaches a connection terminal receiving member 358 that connects to the connection terminal portion (fig. 14); one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to arrange a terminal receiving member for a detecting unit connection terminal in the same manner based on the guidance given by Smith. Also, Smith ‘777 teaches a pump connected to the pump receiving portion (para. 74), and the terminal receiving member and the pump would be positioned in one direction with respect to the one surface of the container (see Smith, fig. 14).
As to claim 8, upon the obvious modification discussed above, the connection terminal portion and the pump receiving portion would protrude in the one direction of the one surface of the container (see Smith, fig. 14).
As to claim 9, Smith teaches that the container is inserted into the housing rearwards (fig. 1), and the one surface of the container is a rear surface of the container that faces a rear of the housing (figs. 1, 14).
As to claim 10, Smith teaches a storage container frame to be mounted to the housing and that the storage container is mounted to the frame (fig. 5); Smith ‘777 also teaches a storage container frame (fig. 3).
As to claim 11, upon the obvious modification discussed above, the connection terminal portion and the pump receiving portion would protrude from the one surface of the container and pass through openings defined at a wall of the frame (see Smith, fig. 6).
As to claim 12, Smith teaches a partition member at the wall of the frame that partitions the openings (figs. 6, 19).
As to claim 13, upon the obvious modification discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a support bracket coupled to the surface of the container that defines a portion of the surface in order to support the detection unit (see Smith, fig. 14, noting that module 356 defines a portion of the container surface).
As to claim 14, upon the obvious modification discussed above, the pump receiving portion would be disposed lower than the support bracket, in particular since the pump receiving portion is at the lowermost portion of the container (see Smith, fig. 14).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100161143 by Smith in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100071777 by Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith ‘777”) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170191205 by Jung et al.
As to claim 15, neither Smith nor Smith ‘777 suggests a particular structure of a detecting unit having an electrode, and thus do not teach an electrode installed to a support bracket, the electrode having a portion exposed inside the container and another portion protruding to an outside of the container to be coupled to the connection terminal portion. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the claimed electrode structure in view of Jung. Jung teaches a detection unit having electrodes 270, each having a portion exposed within a detergent volume and another portion 275, 277 protruding to an outside to be coupled to a connection terminal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to structure electrodes of a detection unit as claimed based on the teachings of Jung that demonstrate success of the structure for its intended purpose. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 5 and 16, the prior art of record does not suggest a detergent supply device in which a detergent pump penetrates a housing and is connected to a connection terminal portion. Based on the teachings of Smith, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a connection terminal portion and pump receiving portion as two separate, distinct components on the rear surface of the container (fig. 14), and nothing in the present record suggests that it would have been obvious to have a detergent pump penetrating the housing and connected to both the connection terminal portion and the pump receiving portion.
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