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
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 1-7, 11 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 1 recites “a cleaning operation in which when the dryness of the laundry is higher than a first reference dryness lower than the target dryness, water is supplied from the water collector to the water ejector to clean at least one of the filter assembly or the heat-absorber” (see claim 1, lines 21-23). Claim 1 also recites “wherein the cleaning operation is not performed when the dryness of the laundry is greater than or equal to a second reference dryness higher than the first reference dryness” (see claim 1, lines 24-25). It is unclear the second reference dryness is higher or lower than the target dryness. If the second reference dryness is lower than the target dryness, it is unclear when the dryness of the laundry is higher than the second reference dryness and lower than the target dryness, the cleaning operation is performed or not performed.
Since claims 2-7 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bypass hole" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested the dependency of claim 11 to be changed from claim 8 to claim 10 since the bypass hole is claimed in claim 10.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0171537 A1) in view of Grunert et al. (US 2010/0146809 A1).
Lee et al. discloses a laundry treating apparatus 110 comprising: a cabinet 110 having a laundry inlet 112 and a filter insertion hole 118 defined in a front face thereof (Fig. 1), a drum 120 rotatably disposed inside the cabinet 110 and having a laundry storage space defined therein communicating with the laundry inlet 112; a duct 140, 150 disposed inside the cabinet, wherein the duct 140, 150 defines 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; a heat exchanger including a heat-absorber 187 to remove moisture from air introduced into the duct and a heat-emitter 183 disposed inside the duct to heat air passing through the heat-absorber 187 (Fig. 2); a water collector 172 constructed to communicate with the duct and to store therein water discharged from the water passing through the heat-absorber 287 (Fig. 13); a filter assembly including: a filter assembly body 310 attachable to or detachable from the duct and constructed to be extended from or retractable into the cabinet 110 through the filter insertion hole 118 (Figs. 1, 4, 13, 17, paragraph [0257]); a first filter 210a disposed in the filter assembly body to filter fluid moving to the heat- absorber 187 (Fig. 4); and a second filter 310 disposed in the filter assembly body to filter fluid moving to the water collector 172 (Fig. 4), wherein the second filter 310 is positioned below the first filter 210a (Fig. 4); a water discharger 174 disposed in the cabinet and having a water storage space defined therein (Fig. 11, paragraph [0295]); a water discharger supply pipe for supplying water stored in the water collector to the water discharger (paragraph [0295]); a water ejector 252 configured to eject water into the first filter 210a; and a water ejector supply pipe 250 for supplying water stored in the water collector to the water ejector (Figs. 3, 11, 13). However Lee et al. does not disclose the water discharger detachably disposed in the cabinet. Grunert et al. discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising a water collector 17 and a water discharger 19 detachably disposed in the cabinet (Fig. 1, paragraph [0071]). 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 laundry treating apparatus of Lee et al. to include a detachable water discharger as taught by Grunert et al. in order to dispose the condensate from the dryer after completing a drying cycle (Grunert et al. paragraph [0071]). With regard to claim 8, Lee et al. discloses wherein the second filter 310 is disposed on a bottom face of the filter assembly body extending from a bottom of the first filter toward the filter insertion hole (Figs. 1, 4, 13, 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for allowance of claims 10-13 is the inclusion of the limitations regarding a pass hole as claimed in claim 10 and a control panel including a display fixed to an insertion hole door as claimed in claim 12 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. Kim et al.(WO 2011/139097 A1) discloses a laundry treating apparatus and method comprising measuring the clothes dryness by humidity sensor, electrode sensor, or exhaust gas temperature sensor (paragraphs [0154], [0163]-[0167]). Lee et al. (EP 2691567 B1) discloses a clothes treating apparatus having water level sensor in the condensation water storage portion 134 as well as the condensation water collection portion 132 (paragraph [0069]).
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