CTNF 19/034,002 CTNF 90933 DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190301074 by Kessler et al . As to claim 1, Kessler discloses a detergent supply device 10 for a laundry treating apparatus, the device comprising a housing (fig. 1); a storage container 14 in the housing to store detergent (fig. 2); and a detecting unit 20 at the container to detect an amount of the detergent, wherein the detecting unit comprises electrodes 22 installed to one surface of the container and configured to contact the detergent in the container (fig. 2, para. 97). As to claim 2, Kessler discloses that at least a portion of the electrodes 22 are located on the one surface of the container (fig. 2). As to claim 4, Kessler discloses that at least a portion of the electrodes 22 are exposed to an inside of the container (fig. 2) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100071777 by Smith et al . As to claim 1, Smith discloses a detergent supply device for a laundry treating apparatus, the device comprising a housing (fig. 3); a storage container 50 in the housing to store detergent (fig. 3); and a detecting unit at the container to detect an amount of the detergent, wherein the detecting unit comprises electrodes (at 92, 94) installed to one surface of the container and configured to contact the detergent in the container (fig. 28, para. 83). As to claim 2, Smith discloses that at least a portion of the electrodes are located on the one surface of the container (fig. 28). As to claim 4, Smith discloses that at least a portion of the electrodes are exposed to an inside of the container (fig. 28). As to claim 9, Smith discloses a support bracket coupled to the one surface of the container that defines a portion of the surface (fig. 28; paras. 74-75; fluid extracting element 92, vent tube 94, and/or supporting structures of the container function as a support bracket). As to claim 10, Smith discloses that the container comprises a coupling portion at the one surface, and the bracket is installed at the coupling portion (see figs. 8-10). As to claim 11, Smith discloses that the electrodes are installed to the support bracket and a portion of the electrode is exposed to an inside of the container (fig. 10) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100071777 by Smith et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20090288453 by Lee et al . As to claim 3, Smith does not teach a detergent blocking rib protruding from the one surface of the container and has a shape surrounding one side of the electrode. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the detergent supply device taught by Smith to have a blocking rib based on the teachings of Lee. Lee teaches detergent blocking ribs that function to block detergent from contacting electrodes of a detecting unit, the ribs serving to prevent a false detergent level reading (para. 32-33). Based on the teachings of Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a detergent blocking rib in the device of Smith, and would have further recognized as obvious to structure the rib such that it protrudes from the one surface and surrounds one side of an electrode in order to provide sufficient blocking function. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date. As to claim 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a blocking portion to protrude from the one surface that is above the expose portion of the electrode in order to block detergent a prevent a false detergent level reading in view of the teachings of Lee as discussed above. As to claim 7, Smith teaches electrodes that have different heights from a lower surface of the container (fig. 28). As to claim 8, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have respective blocking portion above the electrodes based on the teachings of Lee discussed above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100071777 by Smith et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170191205 by Jung et al . As to claim 12, Smith does not teach that the exposed portion of its electrodes extend downwardly from the bracket. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the electrodes to extend downwardly. Jung teaches electrodes 270, 290 of a detergent detecting unit that extend downward into a storage volume (figs. 8 and 9, para. 49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the electrodes of Smith to be downwardly extending based on Jung’s teachings of success and suitability of such known configuration. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date. As to claim 13, Jung teaches that its electrodes have a horizontal portion (at terminals 275, 277) and a vertical portion extending from the horizontal portion to an inside of a storage container (fig. 8). As to claim 14, Jung teaches that free ends of the electrodes are exposed to the inside of the container (fig. 8); Smith likewise teaches that free ends are exposed to the inside of its container (fig. 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that exposing a free end in the container would be necessary for proper operation . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6, 15, and 16 are 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach the specific structure and function of the blocking portion recited in claim 6, in combination with the structures and functions recited in claim 4. As to claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach a support bracket that comprises a blocking portion as claimed. As to claim 16, the prior art of record does not teach a blocking rib that protrudes from a support bracket as claimed . Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 19/034,002 Page 2 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/034,002 Page 4 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/034,002 Page 5 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/034,002 Page 6 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/034,002 Page 7 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/034,002 Page 8 Art Unit: 1711
Prosecution Insights