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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Oliviera Dias (US2019/0376229) (hereinafter US’229) in view of FR3092594 (hereinafter FR’594).
Regarding claim 1, US’229 teaches a household appliance comprising:
an iron (fig. 7, an iron 3), and
a base (fig. 7, a support device 8 coupled to the base 1) coupled to the iron by a lead (fig. 1, lead 2),
wherein the iron comprises:
a head (fig. 2, a body of the iron 3),
a soleplate (fig. 2, a soleplate 30) fitted and attached to the head, and
a handle (fig. 2, a handle 31) extending from the head, the handle being offset relative to the soleplate,
wherein the head and the handle form a concave supporting portion (fig. 5) and the base forms a convex docking portion (figs. 5-7, a portion 82 of the device 8) configured to accommodate the supporting portion of the iron, the docking portion of the base having an interlocking shape with the supporting portion of the iron (fig. 7), and
wherein when the supporting portion of the iron is positioned on the docking portion of the base, at least a portion of the soleplate projects out over the base (fig. 7, para. [0055], the surface 80 forms an angle of 150 with respect to the vertical plane; while in para. [0057], the soleplate 30 is oriented perpendicularly to the vertical plane of the ironing board 5 while being engaged on the support device 8; then there is a portion of the soleplate projects out over the base).
US’229 does not clearly teach the soleplate being free from any contact with the base and extending in the air beyond the base.
However, in the same field of endeavor, FR’594 teaches the soleplate being free from any contact with the base and extending in the air beyond the base (fig. 8, machine translation, the soleplate 3 is held at a distance from the base 80 so that a space results between the base 80 and the soleplate 30).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine US’229 with the soleplate being free from any contact with the base and extending in the air beyond the base as taught by FR’594 for the benefit of preventing the base from overheating under the effect of the heat released by the soleplate (FR’594, machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure US’229-FR’594 teaches the docking portion of the base forms a convex top and the supporting portion of the iron forms a concave hollow having an interlocking shape with the convex top of the docking portion of the base (US’229, figs. 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure US’229-FR’594 teaches wherein when viewed from a side, the docking portion of the base has a substantially triangular shape forming the convex top, and wherein the convex top has a cross-section that is substantially in an inverted U shape (annotated US’229 fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure US’229-FR’594 teaches a magnet configured to maintain the iron in position on the base when the supporting portion of the iron is seated on the docking portion of the base, the magnet housed in either the handle or the base (US’229, para. [0066], the magnet of the support device secures the position of the support device on the base 1, which further secures the iron on the base 1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure US’229-FR’594 teaches the docking portion of the base comprises a head recess (US’229, fig. 4, recess 80) configured to accommodate the head of the iron, and a handle recess (US’229, fig. 4, recess 82A) configured to accommodate the handle of the iron, the handle recess having a U-shaped cross section (US’229, fig. 4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Oliviera Dias (US2019/0376229) and FR3092594, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Longshaw (US 2020/0199808).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure US’229-FR’594 teaches a tank (US’229, fig. 2, reservoir 10) included in the base.
The modified structure US’229-FR’594 does not teach the tank having a capacity approximately between 300 and 500 ml.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Longshaw teaches the tank having a capacity approximately between 300 and 500 ml (para. [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the tank of the modified structure US’229-FR’594 with a capacity approximately between 300 and 500 ml as suggested by Longshaw for the benefit of providing enough steam for ironing garments.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Oliviera Dias (US2019/0376229), FR3092594 and Longshaw (US 2020/0199808), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of D’Oliviera Dias (US 2019/0376227)(hereinafter US’227).
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure US’229-FR’594-Longshaw does not teach a tank fill opening defined in the tank near the convex top of the base.
However, in the same field of endeavor, US’227 teaches a tank fill opening (fig. 6, a cavity 103 with an orifice 102) defined in the tank near the convex top of the base.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure US’229-FR’594-Longshaw with a tank fill opening defined in the tank near the convex top of the base as taught by US’227 so that the user can access to the opening for refilling the reservoir.
Claims 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Oliviera Dias (US2019/0376229) and FR3092594, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2016/0122937).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure US’229-FR’594 teaches the handle extends at least partially along a longitudinal gripping direction and the soleplate extends at least partially along an ironing direction forming an acute angle (US’229, fig. 5).
The modified structure US’229-FR’594 does not teach the angle approximately between 300 and 400.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches the angle approximately between 300 and 400 (para. [0043], [0075] and annotated fig. 1 below, the angle between the soleplate and the handle is equal to the angle of 30 degrees between the rest position and the operation position of the iron).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure US’229-FR’594 with the angle approximately between 300 and 400 as suggested by Lee for the benefit of providing a comfortable gripping effect in using the device.
PNG
media_image2.png
478
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure US’229-FR’594 does not teach the base has a length that is shorter than or equal to a length of the iron.
However, Lee teaches the base has a length that is shorter than or equal to a length of the iron (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure US’229-FR’594 with the teaching that the base has a length that is shorter than or equal to a length of the iron as suggested by Lee for the benefit of providing aesthetically pleasing features to the ironing device.
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure US’229-FR’594-Lee does not teach the angle formed between the longitudinal gripping direction and the ironing direction is 350.
However, Lee teaches the angle formed between the longitudinal gripping direction and the ironing direction is 350 (para. [0043], [0075]and annotated fig. 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure US’229-FR’594-Lee with the angle is 350 as suggested by Lee for the benefit of providing a comfortable gripping effect in using the device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Oliviera Dias (US2019/0376229) and FR3092594, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP3294946 (hereinafter EP’946).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure US’229-FR’594 teaches the head of the iron comprises a stand and the handle comprises a beveled free end (annotated US’229 fig. 5 below).
The modified structure US’229-FR’594 does not clearly teach the iron is configured to be set down on the beveled free end of the handle and the stand of the head.
However, in the same field of endeavor, EP’946 teaches the rear surface 12A of the handle 12 allows the handle to rest substantially flat on the plane H, which improves the stability of the iron in the position by providing a stable support on the ironing board (machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure US’229-FR’594 with the teaching that the iron is configured to be set down on the beveled free end of the handle and the stand of the head as suggested by EP’946 for the benefit of providing stability for the iron to rest on the ironing board.
PNG
media_image3.png
336
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Oliviera Dias (US2019/0376229) and FR3092594, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fung (US 2015/0252518).
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure US’229-FR’594 does not teach a side tab fitted and attached to a side of the base so as to accommodate a power cord on the base or a lead connecting the iron to the base in a space between the side tab and a side wall of the base.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fung teaches a side tab fitted and attached to a side of the base so as to accommodate a power cord on the base or a lead connecting the iron to the base in a space between the side tab and a side wall of the base (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure US’229-FR’594 with a side tab as taught by Fung for the benefit of attaching the power cord to the side wall of the device (Fung, fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
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 UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights