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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first movement component” in claim 67; “a sliding device” in claim 72; “a damping device” in claim 74.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 67-82 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 67 recites the limitation "the pulling-out process." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 67 is indefinite because it uses the term “the gravity” in relation to the working component which is not understood because gravity is an attractive force between objects. For examination purposes, this term has been interpreted as the weight.
Claim 67 recites the limitation "the remaining part of the gravity." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is intended to refer to a remaining part of the weight of the working component not supported by the first movement component.
Claim 68 recites the limitation "both sides" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if the limitation should be interpreted as requiring two sides.
Claim 68 recites the limitation "the middle” and “the middle slideway." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 71 recites the limitation "the ground." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 73 recites the limitation "the side edges." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 67-82 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 45-61 of copending Application No. 19/099133 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter while being generally broader in scope and having only minor obvious differences or minor differences in language.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 67-72, 76, 81, and 82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonat (CH 692770; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 67, Bonat discloses a clothing treatment apparatus, comprising: a first movement component (Figures 1-3: 15), a second movement component (1), and a pull-out working component (machine translation, page 4, paragraph 1: “drawer” and element 12); the second movement component is provided with a groove (11); the working component is provided with a support component (13 or inner surface of 13), and the first movement component is provided on the working component (see 12 and 15); and the clothing treatment apparatus is arranged such that during the pulling-out process of the working component, the first movement component can drive the working component to move on the second movement component (Figure 1: see direction opposite the arrow at 18), and after the working component reaches a working position, the first movement component can move to the groove, so that the first movement component does not support the gravity of the working component or supports part of the gravity of the working component, and the support component supports the remaining part of the gravity of the working component (Figure 1: see direction of arrow 18 and elements 9, 10, 11, and 15).
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a clothing treatment apparatus” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claims 68-70, Bonat discloses wherein the second movement component is a sliding rail with protruding guide blocks arranged on both sides (1, see elements 7 and 8/9/10) and a slideway arranged in the middle (bottom surface at 4); the groove is arranged on the middle slideway (at 11), and the support component is arranged to be capable of abutting against the protruding guide blocks when the first movement component moves to the groove (see elements 7 and 8/9/10 and the inner surface of 13 which rests thereon); wherein an operating side of the clothing treatment apparatus is a front side (Figure 1, right side), and there is a height difference between front and rear sides of the second movement component (see 4, 7, 9, 11); wherein the first movement component is a rear roller, and correspondingly, the groove is arranged on a rear side of the slideway (11, 15).
Regarding claims 71-72, 76, 81, and 82, Bonat discloses wherein the clothing treatment apparatus further comprises a front roller, which is arranged on a front side of the working component and is arranged to be capable of abutting against the ground (5); wherein the first movement component is a sliding device, which is arranged to be capable of sliding into or out of the groove (15; note that rollers are considered to be capable of sliding); wherein the second movement component (1) is a sliding rail with a protruding guide block arranged on an outer side (8/9/10) and a slideway arranged on an inner side (4); the groove is arranged on the slideway on the inner side (11), and the support component is arranged to be capable of abutting against the protruding guide block when the first movement component moves to the groove (8/9/10, 13); wherein the support component is a support block (13); wherein a height of the rear side of the second movement component is higher than a height of the front side of the second movement component (8/9/10 and right side of 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 73 and 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonat (CH 692770; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 73, Bonat is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein the sliding device is a slider (15 is considered to be capable of sliding), but does not expressly disclose the slider has rounded corners on the side edges. Mere changes in shape has been shown to be obvious to a PHOSITA. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) – Changes in Shape. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the edges of the roller to be rounded and the results would be predictable.
Regarding claim 77, Bonat is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein the second movement component is a sliding rail with a protruding guide block (1, 8/9/10) and a slideway (Figures 1, 2: 4), and the support component is arranged to be capable of abutting against the protruding guide block when the first movement component moves to the groove (see elements 8/9/10, 11, 13, 15). Bonat does not expressly disclose the protruding guide block is arranged on an inner side and the slideway is arranged on an outer side; the groove is arranged on the slideway on the outer side. However, this is considered to be a mere rearrangement of parts which has been shown to be obvious to a PHOSITA. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) - Rearrangement of Parts. Bonat further discloses an embodiment (Figures 4-6) wherein the rear support skid (8) is located at the outer side and the flange 4 is located at the inner side of the rail assembly which suggests a rearrangement of parts as claimed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the locations of the protruding guide block, slideway and groove as claimed, and the results would be predictable.
Claim(s) 74-75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonat (CH 692770; cited by Applicant) in view of Rock et al. (US 5,356,207).
Regarding claims 74-75, Bonat is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a damping device is also provided on a rear side of the second movement component; wherein the damping device is a spring.
Rock discloses a braking device for drawers including a support rail (Fig. 7A-7B: 4), a U-shaped support (8) supporting brake shoes (6), and a pressure spring (9) that pushes the U-shaped support in a direction counter to the slide-in direction of a drawer (col. 2, lines 48-66). The braking device is for preventing the drawer from being pushed too strongly into a furniture body (col. 1, lines 17-22).
Because it is known in the art to have a drawer damping device as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, preventing the drawer from being pushed too strongly into a furniture body, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a damping device is also provided on a rear side of the second movement component; wherein the damping device is a spring.
Claim(s) 78-79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonat (CH 692770; cited by Applicant) in view of Kin et al. (US 2002/0056293).
Regarding claim 78, Bonat is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a sensor capable of detecting whether the first movement component has stopped in place is also provided on an inner side of the groove.
Kin discloses a drawer-type washing machine including a housing (Fig. 5: 2), a cabinet (50, 70), and sensor means (58, 68) to determine whether the cabinets are drawn out composed of limit switches which are pressed by rear sides of the cabinets (paragraphs 41-42).
Because it is known in the art to have a limit switch to be pushed by a portion of the drawer, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, sensing whether the drawer is open or closed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a limit switch at any position which can contact a part of the drawer assembly, yielding wherein a sensor capable of detecting whether the first movement component has stopped in place is also provided on an inner side of the groove.
Claim 79 is considered to be met by Bonat in view of Kim as applied above and which results in: wherein the first movement component is a structure that can be extended and retracted up and down, so that the sensor can be triggered when the first movement component moves to the groove (Bonat: see machine translation, page 4, paragraph 1 which indicates that the rail 12 passes over the skid 8 before the roller lies above the recess 11; since the rail passes over the skid at first, the roller must retract into the recess 11 at least to some degree).
Claim(s) 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonat (CH 692770; cited by Applicant) in view of Geer et al. (US 4,003,614).
Regarding claim 80, Bonat is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein an insertable buckle is also provided on the working component, and the clothing treatment apparatus also comprises a cabinet on which a slot matching with the buckle is provided; the buckle is arranged such that it can move toward the slot during the process of the working component entering the working position, and can be inserted into the slot after the working component enters the working position.
Geer discloses a sliding drawer (10) associated with a cabinet structure having cabinet sides (11), and a drawer handle assembly (13) includes a handle member (16) on the drawer and a hook member (19) operatively connected to the handle member (16), and the hook (19) extends through an opening (27) of the cabinet side forward wall (11’) to engage a keeper (26).
Because it is known in the art to have a buckle and slot as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known locking mechanism, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein an insertable buckle is also provided on the working component, and the clothing treatment apparatus also comprises a cabinet on which a slot matching with the buckle is provided; the buckle is arranged such that it can move toward the slot during the process of the working component entering the working position, and can be inserted into the slot after the working component enters the working position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 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) 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights