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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and corresponding arguments, filed 4/16/2026, have been reviewed and considered. Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 12-13 have been amended therefore, claims 1-13 are currently pending.
In response to the previous Office Action, the applicant amended independent claim 1 to include “the film being configured to press the pants toward the press plate by using the bending rigidity of the film”. Accordingly, the applicant argues that neither LIM et al (US 2015/0159315 A1) nor HANADA et al. (US 5,359,792) disclose this [functional] feature. In relation to HANADA, it appears that the applicant is arguing that the film (26) is being pressed toward the press plate (1) only by the rotation connection (27, 35, 36) and not by the film itself. The examiner respectively disagrees and notes that the film (26) of HANADA is fully capable of providing the claimed function. Based on paragraph 0063 of the applicant’s specification, the phrase, “bending rigidity” is being interpreted as the rigidity to prevent bending. As discussed within page 7 of the previous Office Action and above, HANADA discloses a film (26) disposed between the press plate (1) and the press door (5) wherein the film is fully capable of functioning to press the laundry/pants towards the press plate (1) (Figures 1-5 and 15-17). The film (26) of HANADA comprises a bending rigidity as provided thereto based on the reinforcement portions (28) located along the side ends thereof (col. 6, lines 11-21). If a pair of pants has a thickness at least slightly bigger than the gap (34) between the film (26) and pressing plate (1) as shown in figures 3, 16 and 17 of HANADA, the bending rigidity of the film (26) would be considered fully capable of functioning to press the pants toward the press plate (when in closed position), especially considering that the film and press plate are held together by a holder (31; 32, 33). Accordingly, the prior art rejection of the previous Office Action is deemed proper and still stands. Additionally, the double patenting rejection of the previous Office Action still stands because the amendment to independent claim 1 only recites further function that is not distinguishable from US 12,276,061. This Office Action is a Final Rejection.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 15-16 and 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,061.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Because the patent claims are much more specific than the application claims, the patent claims are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of the application claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, regarding the functional recitations that the film “is configured to press the pants towards the press plate by using the bending rigidity of the film” (claim 1) and “is configured to press at least one of a left side of the pants and a right side of the pants towards the press plate” (claim 2), note that the film (between the press plate and the press door) within the first claim of the patent is considered fully capable of providing this function and therefore these functional recitations are not patentably distinct features. Additionally, note the function limitations as found within claim 20 of the patent.
Claims 12-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,061 in view of LIM et al. (US 2015/0159315 A1).
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 of the application are not patentably distinct from claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 15-18 and 20-22 of the patent for the reasons as addressed above. However, the claims of the patent do not disclose a pants hanger and a clip as recited within claims 12-13 of the application. LIM discloses a clothes treatment apparatus (100) comprising a pants hanger (5 and/or hanger H) that is provided on a door (11) located above a pants crease management device (9) and a clip (85) that is provided on the door (11) located under the pants crease management device (9) in order to hold laundry/pants to be pressed (Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the claimed clothes treatment apparatus of the patent with both a pants hanger and a clip as recited within claims 12-13 of the application, in light of the teachings of LIM, in order to hold laundry/pants to be pressed.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bending rigidity" in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent form a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (US 2015/0159315 A1) in view of HANADA et al. (US 5,359,792).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10 and 11, LIM discloses a clothes treatment apparatus (100) comprising: a case (1) including a treatment chamber (31); a door (11) configured to open or close the treatment chamber (31); and a pants crease management apparatus (9) provided on a side of the door (11) facing the treatment chamber (31) (Figures 1-4). LIM discloses the pants crease management apparatus (9) including a press plate (91; 911) disposed at the door (11) such that pants are in contact therewith and a press door (93; 931) configured to be movable relative to the press plate (91; 911) (Figures 1 and 3). However, LIM fails to disclose the pants crease management apparatus comprising a film disposed between the press plate and the press door.
HANADA discloses a pants crease management apparatus comprising a press plate (1) and a press door (5) movable relative to the press plate (1) (Figures 1-4 and 16). HANADA discloses the pants crease management apparatus further comprising a film (26) (made from a flexible plastic; col. 6, lines 6-10) (note that the plastic itself is “flexible” even though the elements 28, 28 are added to prevent flexing in particular directions) disposed between the press plate (1) and the press door (5) in order to prevent the clothes being pressed from moving disorderly (note first paragraph of summary section) (Figures 1-4 and 15-17). Note that the film of HANADA is fully capable of functioning to press the laundry/pants (at least one of the left side and right side thereof depending on how the laundry/pants are positioned) towards the press plate based on the bending rigidity (col. 6, lines 11-21) of the film (please refer to response section above) (Figures 3-4 and 16-18). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the pants crease management apparatus of LIM with a film disposed between the press plate and the press door, in light of the teachings of HANADA, in order to prevent the clothes/pants being pressed from moving disorderly.
Regarding claim 3, HANADA discloses the film (26) provided on the press plate (1) based on the rotational connection thereto (Figures 1-4 and 16-17). Additionally note that the top of the film (26) is “provided on” the press plate (1) by the upper portion being in contact with the press plate (1) as shown in figure 16.
Regarding claim 4, the film (26) of HANADA is considered fully capable of contacting the press door (5) when the press door (5) presses the laundry/pants toward the press plate (1) based on the rotational connection (27, 6; 35, 36) between the press door (5), the film (26) and the press plate (1) (Figures 1-5 and 16-17; specifically note figure 16).
Regarding claim 5, HANADA discloses the film (26) includes a first film portion (28 on one side thereof) and a second film portion (28 on the opposite side thereof) that are provided on the press plate (1) (based on the rotational attachment thereto or the top of the film, including both film portions, being in contact directly therewith), and the second film portion is disposed on an opposite side of the first film portion (Figures 1-4 and 15-17).
Regarding claim 6, HANADA discloses wherein the first film portion (28 on one side thereof) and the second film portion (28 on the opposite side thereof) are located to be spaced apart from each other (those specific portions of the film 26) by a predetermined distance (Figures 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, HANADA discloses both a first film fixing portion (end of film attached to one side of connection between press plate 1 and press door 5 by being rotatably arranged on shaft 27) and a second film fixing portion (31; 32, 33) configured to couple the film (including both the first film portion and the second film portion) to the press plate (1) (Figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 12, LIM discloses a pants hanger (5 and/or hanger H) that is provided on the door (11) to hang pants on the door and located above the pants crease management apparatus (9) (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, LIM discloses a clip (85) that is provided on the door (11) to press pants hanging from the pants hanger (5 and/or hanger H) towards the door (11) and located under the pants crease management apparatus (9) (Figures 1, 3 and 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additionally, note that claim 7 has also NOT been rejected using prior art; however, claim 7 has been rejected under both the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above and the double patenting rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights