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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Within the ninth line of claim 22, please delete “be” after “detachably”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,408. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because. 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). Note that the use of different terminology for the same parts also does not distinguish the application claim from the patent claims.
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) 11, 12 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (US 2015/0159315 A1) in view of KIM et al. (US 8,850,855 B2).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, LIM discloses a laundry treating apparatus (100) comprising: a cabinet (1) having an opening in a front direction (Fig. 1); a door assembly (11) configured to open or close the opening (Fig. 1); a first laundry treating chamber (31) provided inside the cabinet (1) to provide a space for accommodating laundry and communicated with an outside of the cabinet through the opening (Fig. 1); a machine chamber (7) communicated with the first laundry treating chamber (31) to arrange at least one of a steam supply unit (at least 37, 727 of 72) configured to supply steam to the first laundry treating chamber (31) and an air supply unit (71) configured to circulate the air (Figures 1 and 2); and a press unit (9) provided in the door assembly (11) and configured to press laundry (Fig. 1), wherein the press unit (9) comprises: a base plate (91) arranged at an inner side of the door assembly (11) to support the laundry (Fig. 1), and a press plate (93) provided to rotate toward to the base plate (91) to press the laundry (Fig. 1). However, LIM fails to disclose an auxiliary steam supply unit disposed at least one of the first laundry treating chamber, door assembly, and the press unit to supply steam to the laundry.
KIM discloses a laundry treatment apparatus comprising a cabinet (100), a door assembly (12), a first laundry treatment chamber (11; at least the top thereof), a machine chamber (wherein 20 and 40 are located at bottom of 11), a steam supply unit (21), an air supply unit (40, 41) and a press unit (supplemental cabinet 30 includes press 50) provided in the door assembly (12) (Figures 1-2). KIM further discloses an auxiliary steam supply unit (15, 51) disposed at least one of the first laundry treating chamber (11), door assembly (12), and the press unit (30; 50) in order to directly provide steam to the press unit (specifically, press 50) and thus better remove wrinkles from the laundry. Note that KIM discloses a steam generate unit (20) disposed in the machine chamber and providing steam to both the steam supply unit (21) and the auxiliary steam supply unit (15, 51) (Figures 1 and 2). 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 laundry treatment apparatus of KIM with an auxiliary steam supply unit, in light of the teachings of KIM, in order to directly provide steam to the press unit (specifically, the press plate) and thus better remove wrinkles from the laundry.
Regarding claim 12, LIM discloses the base plate (91) and the press plate (93) forming a second laundry treating chamber (therebetween) to remove a crease of the laundry by applying a pressure to inside (Figures 1, 3 and 4). Additionally, since the combination of LIM and KIM teaches the auxiliary steam supply unit being provided to supply steam generated from the steam generate unit to the press plate, as discussed above, the steam will also be supplied to “the second laundry treatment chamber” as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-22 and 24-26 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, as cited on attached PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that US 2011/0005279 A1 disclose a laundry treatment machine (100) comprising multiple steam supply units (a plurality of steam spraying units 50) (additionally, note a second steam spraying unit 55 which sprays steam into the circulation duct 26) to a laundry treatment chamber (10) which would include providing steam to an inside surface of the door (60) (Fig. 1).
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