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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claim 1, it is unclear whether the first and second wall surfaces are part of the cabinet or “in the cabinet” as claimed and not part of the cabinet.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as they depend from Claim 1 without curing the deficiency.
Re Claims 2-4, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “a bending structure” is. It is unclear whether this is a bent portion, or something that bends other parts. Re Claim 4, it is further unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim is regarding “the bending structure is formed through bending of the plate-like structure twice in opposite directions” given that this is an apparatus claim and not a product by process or a method claim.
Re Claims 6 and 10, it is unclear what the “two ends” are and whether there are more than two ends as claimed.
Re Claim 12, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “the outer drum is sleeved an outer ring of the inner drum” is.
Claims 15-17 are rejected as they depend from Claim 12 without curing the deficiency.
Re Claim 13, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “close to the first drum” is.
Claims 14 and 18-19 are rejected as they depend from Claim 13 without curing the deficiency.
Re Claims 4 and 20, it is unclear what a “plate-like” structure is, whether it is a plate or something else. It is also unclear what qualifies as a plate.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al. (US 2006/0225466).
Re Claim 1, LEE et al. teaches a drum washing machine comprising: a machine body comprising a cabinet 31/housing 10; a suspension beam assembly 70 comprising a first reinforcement piece (60, left side); a second reinforcement piece (60, right side), a suspension crossbeam 70, the first reinforcement piece is connected to a first wall surface 31 (left side) and the second reinforcement piece is connected to a second wall surface 31 (right side), and the two ends of the suspension crossbeam are respectively connected to the reinforcement pieces, and the wall surfaces are two opposite wall surfaces in the cabinet; and a first drum 11 connected (at least indirectly) to the suspension crossbeam.
Re Claims 2-3, the cross bean has a bend (on the left and right sides).
Re Claim 4, the part where 70 points to is “plate-like” and has two bends at the side/opposite sides.
Re Claim 9, it is expected that the cabinet has a higher stiffness than the suspension crossbeam, given the structure as shown. One would be able to bend 70 by pressing down on it much more easily than on the side of the cabinet such as 31.
Further examination on the merits is precluded in view of the unascertainable claim scope in light of the 112 rejections made above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y KO whose telephone number is (571)270-7451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-6:00.
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 571-270-1414. 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.
JASON Y. KO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/JASON Y KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711