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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 15, 19-21, 27-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 recites a broader fluid system and claims 29, 37 recite a broader fluid handling system. These broader limitations are not supported by the originally filed specification. The originally filed specification discloses the invention is for dryer exhaust ducts. The originally filed specification does not support the broader claimed fluid system that includes the system other than dryer exhaust gas, for example, liquid or water system.
Claim 15 also recites a split capacitor electric motor in line 8. This limitation is also not supported by the originally filed specification. The originally filed specification only discloses a permanent split capacitor motor.
Claim 40 recites electromagnetic signals. This limitation is not supported by the originally filed specification. Paragraph [0044] of the specification only discloses “WIFI or other signal”. WIFI is a type of electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal is a broader term than WIFI. The specification does not disclose that the other signal is electromagnetic signal.
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 15, 28 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 15 recites the limitation "the permanent split capacitor electric motor" in 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites “a control signal” in line 2. It is unclear the recited control signal in claim 28 is same as “a control signal” recited in claim 15, line 22 or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham (US 8,955,232) in view of Ribeiro (FR 2753847 A1) and Yamada (JP-2009228923 A).
Cunningham discloses a system comprising a fluid handling device 1 (a clothes dryer is considered as fluid handling device) having a passage 3 coupled thereto (a dryer exhaust duct 3 is considered as a passage) which is sized configured, and positioned for moving fluid from inside the fluid handling device 1 (i.e., exhausting air from inside the clothes dryer 1, see Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 59-64); a fluid movement inducing element 5 is disposed in said passage 3 (Fig. 1), at an intermediate location between said fluid handling device 1 and a distal portion 4 of said passage 3 (Fig. 1); an electric motor (col. 9, lines 60-63) coupled to said fluid movement inducing element 5, a means for measuring pressure 26 (a pressure sensor, col. 9, lines 34-43) in the passage 3 for measuring pressure in the passage 3. However, Cunningham does not disclose a voltage detection system, configured to detect a first voltage on a main winding of said electric motor and a second voltage on an auxiliary winding of the electric motor; where a voltage difference in said first voltage on the main winding and the second voltage on the auxiliary winding varies based on motor load conditions that are representative of a fluid pressure characteristic in said passage. Ribeiro discloses a system 7, 31 comprising: a system 7, configured to be coupled to and detect a first voltage on a main winding 4 (by 8) and to a second voltage on a auxiliary winding 6 (by 8’); where a voltage difference in said first voltage on the main winding 4 and the second voltage on the auxiliary winding 6 varies based on motor load conditions that are representative of an internal air (i.e. fluid) pressure characteristic in said passage (inherent characteristic, evidenced by Yamada (JP-2009228923 A), see Fig. 7 of Yamada and corresponding description). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Cunningham to substitute the pressure detecting device of Ribeiro for the pressure sensor 26 of Cunningham in order to allow efficient and low-cost control by monitoring the internal air pressure of the exhaust duct via the voltage difference between the main and auxiliary windings of the electric motor and to make it possible to avoid operation of the motor beyond given limits due to the blockage of the exhaust duct. With regard to claims 38-41, see Cunningham, col. 7, lines 54-55, col. 11, lines 4-28). The modified system of Cunningham would result in the system does not include a dedicated pressure sensor disposed in said passage for directly measuring fluid pressure in said passage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to 112(a) rejection applied to claim 15, given broadest reasonable interpretation, fluid system includes system other than dryer exhaust gas, for example, liquid or water system. The express statement of alternative application of radon mitigation in the original specification only demonstrates possession of the broader “gas system” but not the claimed “fluid system” which includes liquid or water system. With regard to claim 40, the originally filed specification only discloses “WIFI or other signal”. WIFI is a type of electromagnetic signal. The electromagnetic signal is a broader term than WIFI. The specification does not disclose that the other signal is electromagnetic signal such as Bluetooth, Cellular, Zigbee, Z-Wave etc.
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 JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 G HOANG can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights