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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The other document listed in the information disclosure statement filed 1/7/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the reference dryness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0171537 A1) in view of Lee et al. (EP 2691567 B1).
Lee et al. (‘537) discloses a method for controlling a laundry treating apparatus 110, wherein the laundry treating apparatus comprises: a drum 120 having a laundry storage space defined therein; a duct 140, 150 defining a channel for supplying air discharged from the drum 120 back to the drum 120 (Fig. 2); a fan 131 to move air along the duct (Fig. 2); a heat-absorber 187 for removing moisture from air introduced into the duct; a heat-emitter 183 disposed inside the duct to heat air passing through the heat-absorber 187 (Fig. 2); a water collector 172 for storing therein water discharged from air passing through the heat-absorber 187 (Fig. 13); a filter assembly 210a, 310 disposed in the duct to filter air moving to the heat-absorber 187 (Fig. 4); a water discharger 174 having a water storage space defined therein (Fig. 11); a water discharger supply pipe for supplying water stored in the water collector 172 to the water discharger 174 (Fig. 11, paragraph [0295]);; a water ejector 252 for ejecting water into the filter assembly 210a; a water ejector supply pipe 250 for supplying water stored in the water collector 172 to the water ejector 252; a water supply pipe constructed to connect the water discharger 174 and the water collector172 to each other; a water supply valve 280 for controlling opening and closing of the water supply pipe (Figs. 3, 11). wherein the method comprises: a drying operation in which the fan 131, the heat-absorber 187, and the heat- emitter 183 work to perform heat exchange between air and laundry in the drum 120 (paragraphs [0081]-[0083]). However, Lee et al. (‘537) does not disclose a water collector water-level sensor for measuring a water-level inside the water collector, a water-level sensing operation in which the water collector water-level sensor measures the water-level of the water collector during the drying operation. Lee (‘567) discloses a laundry treating apparatus and method comprising a water collector water-level sensor for measuring a water-level inside the water collector, a water-level sensing operation in which the water collector water-level sensor measures the water-level of the water collector during the drying operation (paragraph [0069]). 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 method of Lee et al. (‘537) to include a water collector water-level sensor for measuring a water-level inside the water collector, a water-level sensing operation in which the water collector water-level sensor measures the water-level of the water collector during the drying operation as taught by Lee (‘567) in order to improve the cleaning efficiency. As for the limitation “a cleaning water supply operation in which when the water-level of the water collector is lower than a predefined cleaning-related reference water-level, the water supply valve is controlled to supply water stored in the water discharger to the water collector; and a cleaning operation in which after completion of the cleaning water supply operation, water is supplied from the water collector to the water ejector to clean the filter assembly”, the claimed cleaning water supply operation is conditioned on the water-level of the water collector is lower than a predefined cleaning-related reference water-level and subsequently the cleaning operation is conditioned on the completion of the cleaning water supply operation, if the water-level of the water collector is equal to or higher than a predefined cleaning-related reference water-level, the cleaning water supply operation and the cleaning operation are not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
As for claim 2, the claimed limitation “each of the cleaning water supply operation and the cleaning operation is initiated” is conditioned on the dryness of laundry is equal to or greater than a predefined reference dryness, if the dryness of laundry is less than a predefined reference dryness, the initiating of the cleaning water supply operation and cleaning operation is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
As for claim 3, the claimed termination operation is conditioned on the dryness of the laundry measured by at least one of the humidity sensor or the electrode sensor reaches a target dryness higher than the reference dryness and the last water discharge operation is conditioned on the termination of the drying operation, if the dryness is equal to or less than the reference dryness, the termination operation and last water discharge operation are not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
As to claim 4, the claimed water discharge operation is condition on the water-level of the water collector measured after completion of the cleaning operation is greater than or equal to a predefined discharge-related reference water-level, since cleaning operation is not required in the previous claims 1-2, the water discharge operation is not required as well by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
As for claim 6, the claimed cleaning operation initiating is conditioned on after completion of the cleaning water supply operation, since cleaning water supply operation is not required in the previous claims 1-2, the cleaning operation initiating is not required as well by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
As for claim 7, the claimed notification operation or locking operation is conditioned on after completion of the cleaning water supply operation, since cleaning water supply operation is not required in the previous claims 1-2, the cleaning operation initiating is not required as well by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
As for claim 8, the claimed notification operation and connection operation are conditioned on after completion of the cleaning water supply operation, since cleaning water supply operation is not required in the previous claims 1-2, the cleaning operation initiating is not required as well by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
As for claim 9, the claimed notification operation or locking operation is conditioned on after completion of the connection operation, since connection operation is not required in the previous claim 8, the notification operation or locking operation are not required as well by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
As for claim 11, the claimed detergent input request operation and mixed liquid supply operation are conditioned on after completion of the last water discharge operation, since last water discharge operation is not required in the previous claim 3, the detergent input request operation and mixed liquid supply operation are not required as well by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
As for claim 12, the claimed filter assembly drying operation is conditioned on after completion of the mixed liquid discharge operation, since the mixed liquid discharge operation is not required in the previous claim 11, the filter assembly drying operation is not required as well by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (MPEP 2111.04, II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 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.
Claims 13-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for allowance of claim 5 is the inclusion of the limitation “water discharge operation in which when a dryness of air flowing from the drum to the duct is lower than the reference dryness, and the water-level of the water collector is greater than or equal to a predefined discharge-related reference water-level, water store in the water collector flows to the water discharger through the water discharger supply pipe” in claim 5 in combination with the remaining claimed elements.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for allowance of claim 10 is the inclusion of the limitation “a prediction a prediction operation which occurs before initiation of the drying operation and in which an amount of water collectible in the water collector until the reference dryness is satisfied is predicted based on an amount of laundry measured using a laundry amount sensor” in claim 10 in combination with the remaining claimed elements.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for allowance of claims 13-18 is the inclusion of the limitations “a water discharge valve to open and close the water discharge hole; a valve actuator to control the water discharge valve to open the water discharge hole when the water storage body is fixed to the cabinet; a water supply pipe for guiding water discharged from the water discharge hole to the water collector; and a water supply valve for controlling opening and closing of the water supply pipe” and “a controller configured to control the water supply valve to move water from the water storage body to the water collector when the water-level measured using the water collector water-level sensor is lower than a predefined cleaning-related reference water-level” in claim 13 in combination with the remaining claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grunert et al. (US 2010/0146809 A1) discloses a laundry dryer with water collector 17 and detachable water discharger 19 (Fig. 1).
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 at (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