DETAILED ACTION
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 hot air supplier configured to supply hot air to the drum in claim 1.
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 (see pgpub for citations) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
hot air supplier [Wingdings font/0xE0] heat exchanger or heat pump (paras. 155, 186)
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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20200010998 A1) in view of Vaidyanathan (US 20050011233 A1), and Hong (US 20060123853 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising:
a drum (drum/washing tub) having a laundry inlet (the inlet is not explicitly disclosed but the drum must inherently have one) and configured to accommodate laundry through the laundry inlet (para. 41);
a motor configured to rotate the drum (paras. 40, 41); and
a decelerator (Fig. 5, 20) that comprises a decelerator housing (Fig. 6: outer surfaces of the decelerator 20, including coupling housing 21 and shaft receiver 232a) and that is (i) disposed between the motor and the drum and (ii) configured to change a rotational speed of the motor (para. 40),
wherein the decelerator housing comprises a fastening part (either the lever 300 or the teeth 214 can be considered the fastening part) to which the motor is coupled (paras. 45, 70), and
wherein, based on the motor being coupled to the fastening part, the motor is fixed to the decelerator (the lever 300 directly fixes the stator of the motor to the decelerator; also, the rotor teeth 46 of the motor interlocks with the teeth 214, thereby fixing the two in the circumferential and radial directions)
Jang fails to explicitly disclose:
a hot air supplier configured to supply hot air to the drum; and
wherein the decelerator is configured to change a torque of the motor.
Hong teaches a washing machined combined with a dryer having a hot air supplier (Fig. 2, heater 242) configured to supply hot air to the drum (200). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Jang to be a combined washer and dryer having a hot air supplier configured to supply hot air to the drum. The modification provides increased convenience for the user since the user does not have to transfer clothes from one machine to another. A combined washer-dryer also saves space.
Vaidyanthan teaches a decelerator transforming high-RPM low torque of the motor into low-RPM high torque of the drum (para. 23). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Jang wherein the decelerator is configured to change a torque of the motor. The motivation to combine is so that drum can be operated at a low-RPM high torque mode without the motor burning out. If the decelerator could not convert the high-speed of the motor into a low speed- high torque, then the motor would quickly overheat and be destroyed. Moreover, the drum would be more responsive with more torque, resulting in better agitation/cleaning of the clothes.
Regarding claim 2, Jang discloses wherein the motor includes:
a stator (Fig. 5, 30) configured to generate a rotating magnetic field;
a rotor (40) configured to be rotated by the rotating magnetic field; and
a driving shaft (Fig. 15, 112+432) coupled (indirectly or directly coupled) to the rotor and inserted into the decelerator,
wherein the stator is coupled to the fastening part to thereby fix a position of the driving shaft disposed in the decelerator (the stator is coupled to a lever unit 300, and the lever unit is coupled to the decelerator 20, to fix a position of the decelerator along the shaft; para. 45).
Regarding claim 3, Jang discloses wherein the stator is coupled and fixed to the fastening part to fix the position of the driving shaft disposed in the decelerator and maintain a distance between the stator and the rotor (the lever spaces the rotor from the stator since the rotor and decelerator are fixed together, as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and the decelerator is spaced apart from the stator via the lever; see paras. 58, 70).
Regarding claim 4, Jang discloses wherein the decelerator housing accommodates the driving shaft therein and rotatably supports the driving shaft (Fig. 15);
wherein the decelerator includes:
a gearbox (Fig. 8, 233) disposed inside the decelerator housing and engaged with the driving shaft, the gearbox configured to change a rotational speed of the driving shaft (para. 40); and
a rotation shaft (Fig. 5, shaft 11, not including the driving shaft portion) extending from the gearbox and being coupled to the drum (para. 46).
Regarding claim 5, Jang discloses wherein the decelerator housing supports the rotation shaft and maintains alignment between the rotation shaft and the driving shaft (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 6, Jang discloses wherein the decelerator housing includes a shaft support (Fig. 15, 232a) extending in a longitudinal direction of the rotation shaft and rotatably supporting the rotation shaft to thereby restrict distortion of the rotation shaft.
Regarding claim 7, Jang discloses wherein the motor includes:
a stator (Fig. 5, 30) coupled to the fastening part (see rejection of claim 2) and configured to generate a rotating magnetic field;
a rotor (40) configured to be rotated by the rotating magnetic field; and
a driving shaft (Fig. 15, 112+432) coupled to the rotor and inserted into the decelerator, wherein the stator and the driving shaft are configured to tilt together with the decelerator or vibrate together with the decelerator (if the appliance is tilted then all the components would be tilted along with it).
Regarding claim 8, Jang discloses wherein the decelerator housing accommodates the driving shaft therein and rotatably supports the driving shaft (Fig. 15);
wherein the decelerator includes:
a gearbox (Fig. 8, 233) disposed inside the decelerator housing and engaged with the driving shaft, the gearbox configured to change a rotational speed of the driving shaft (para. 40); and
a rotation shaft (Fig. 5, shaft 11, not including the driving shaft portion) extending from the gearbox and being coupled to the drum (para. 46), wherein the rotation shaft and the driving shaft are configured to tilt together with the decelerator housing or vibrate together with the decelerator housing (if the appliance is tilted then all the components would be tilted along with it).
Regarding claim 9, Jang discloses wherein the motor includes:
a stator (Fig. 5, 30) coupled to the fastening part (see rejection of claim 2) and configured to generate a rotating magnetic field;
a rotor (40) configured to be rotated by the rotating magnetic field; and
a driving shaft (Fig. 15, 112+432) coupled to the rotor and inserted into the decelerator,
wherein the stator accommodates at least a portion of the decelerator therein and is coupled to the decelerator (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 10, Jang discloses wherein at least a portion of the driving shaft is disposed inside the stator (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 11, Jang discloses wherein a portion of the decelerator is disposed inside the rotor (Fig. 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Please see the rejection of claim 1 discussing how the new claim limitation is interpreted in light of the Jang reference.
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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762