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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berger et al. (US 3,401,052).
With regard to claim 1, Berger et al. discloses a laundry appliance, comprising: a cabinet 6 that defines an opening (Figs. 1-2, at 13), a rotating drum 18 accessible via the opening and operably coupled to the cabinet 6; a fluid emitting feature 122 proximate the rotating drum 18, wherein the fluid emitting feature 122 is configured to dispense a fluid into the rotating drum 18, and wherein the fluid is configured to contact foreign particulates in the rotating drum 18; and a housing 81 proximate the rotating drum 18 and including a foreign particulate filter 84 configured to collect the foreign particulates (Fig. 1), wherein the fluid and rotation of the rotating drum 18 direct the foreign particulates toward the foreign particulate filter (Fig. 1, see flow arrows).
With regard to claims 4-5, Berger et al. discloses a controller (Fig. 5, control system) communicatively coupled to the fluid emitting feature 122, wherein the controller is configured to actuate the fluid emitting feature 122; wherein the controller activates the fluid emitting feature 122 to deliver the fluid at an initial phase of a selected drying cycle(col 8, lines 64-73).
With regard to claim 7, Berger et al. discloses wherein the fluid includes at least one of gas and an anti-static solution (col. 3, lines 39-40 disclose treating of fibrous articles with water, water is considered as anti-static solution).
With regard to claim 9, Berger et al. discloses wherein operation of the fluid emitting feature 122 occurs within a pre-programmed laundry cycle (col. 8, line 36 - col. 9, line 28).
With regard to claim 10, Berger et al. discloses wherein the fluid emitting feature 122 is activated upon selection through an interactive portion 191 of a user interface 11 (Fig. 2).
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 2-3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US 3,401,052) in view of Bae et al. (US 2011/0162224 A1) .
With regard to claims 2-3, 6, Berger et al. further discloses a fluid container 156, wherein the fluid is delivered into the rotating drum 18 via the fluid emitting feature 122; a fluid supply conduit 124 that extends between he fluid container 156 and the fluid emitting feature 122 (col. 7, line 54- col. 8, line 3). However, Berger et al. does not explicit the fluid container disposed within the cabinet. Berger et al. also does not disclose wherein the fluid container includes a plurality of reservoirs that each contain a dedicated fluid, and wherein the plurality of reservoirs each include a dedicated fluid supply conduit that is in communication with the fluid emitting feature. Bae et al. disclose a laundry appliance comprising a fluid container 100 disposed within the cabinet 11 (Fig. 4); wherein the fluid container includes a plurality of reservoirs 110, 120 that each contain a dedicated fluid, and wherein the plurality of reservoirs 110, 120 each include a dedicated fluid supply conduit 113, 123 that is in communication with the fluid emitting feature 140 (Figs. 5-6). 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 appliance of Berger et al. to dispose the fluid container within the cabinet and to include a plurality of reservoirs that each contain a dedicated fluid, and wherein the plurality of reservoirs each include a dedicated fluid supply conduit that is in communication with the fluid emitting feature as taught by Bae et al. in order to provide a compact laundry appliance and to treat laundry with different treating solutions.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US 3,401,052) in view of Olofsson (US 2013/0319448 A1).
The laundry appliance of Berger et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 8 except for the anti-static solution is a water-vinegar mixture. Olofsson teaches a concept of using water-vinegar mixture as anti-static solution (abstract). 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 appliance of Berger et al. to use water-vinegar mixture as anti-static solution as taught by Olofsson in order to obtain a predictable anti-static treating result by the water-vinegar mixture solution.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US 3,401,052) in view of Pasad et al. (US 5,461,742).
For claims 11-14, Berger et al. further discloses bursts of gas are directed into the rotating drum (see gas flow arrows in Fig. 1); wherein the bursts of gas are configured to dislodge the foreign particulates from clothing items contained within the rotating drum 18; wherein the bursts of gas are generally directed toward the foreign particulate filter 84 for capturing foreign particulates (Fig. 1). The laundry appliance of Berger et al. as above includes all that is recited in claims 11-14 except for wherein the fluid emitting feature includes an air emitting nozzle that directs bursts of gas into the rotating drum, wherein the gas and the anti-static solution are delivered into the rotating drum via dedicated nozzles, and wherein the anti-static solution is dispensed into the rotating drum before the gas is dispensed into the rotating drum; wherein the anti-static solution and the gas are delivered simultaneously as an anti-static mist. Pasad et al. discloses a laundry appliance 104 comprising the fluid emitting feature includes an air emitting nozzle 128, 138 that directs bursts of gas into the rotating drum 112 (Fig. 3), wherein the gas 105, 129 and the anti-static solution 106, 130 are delivered into the rotating drum 112 via dedicated nozzles 128, 138 (Fig. 3, by controlling opening/closing of valves 109, 111, 131, 132), and wherein the anti-static solution is dispensed into the rotating drum before the gas is dispensed into the rotating drum (Fig. 3, by controlling opening/closing of valves 109, 111, 131, 132); wherein the anti-static solution and the gas are delivered simultaneously as an anti-static mist (Fig. 3, by controlling opening/closing of valves 109, 111, 131, 132). 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 appliance of Berger et al. to provide the fluid emitting feature with an air emitting nozzle that directs bursts of gas into the rotating drum, wherein the gas and the anti-static solution are delivered into the rotating drum via dedicated nozzles, and wherein the anti-static solution is dispensed into the rotating drum before the gas is dispensed into the rotating drum; wherein the anti-static solution and the gas are delivered simultaneously as an anti-static mist as taught by Pasad et al. in order to efficiently treat the laundry. As to the limitations, “wherein the bursts of gas are configured to dislodge the foreign particulates from clothing items contained within the rotating drum”, “wherein the anti-static solution is dispensed into the rotating drum before the gas is dispensed into the rotating drum”; and “wherein the anti-static solution and the gas are delivered simultaneously as an anti-static mist”,
they are viewed as functional or intended use limitations. As MPEP 2114 states, “[a] claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. In this case, the limitations above do not add any structural limitations to the claims and the laundry appliance of Berger et al. as modified Pasad et al. discloses all the structural limitations. Additionally while not disclosed, the laundry appliance of Berger et al. as modified by Pasad et al. is capable of being used for perform above claimed functions.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US 3,401,052) in view of Kim et al. (US 7,325,330 B2).
The laundry appliance of Berger et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 15 except for wherein the anti-static solution is delivered to the rotating drum as steam. Kim et al. discloses a laundry appliance comprising an anti-static solution (Fig. 3 discloses supply water, water is considered an anti-static solution), wherein the anti-static solution is delivered to the rotating drum as steam (Fig. 2, water is supplied from pipe 24 to a steam generating device 30, spray nozzle 35 sprays steam from the outlet of the steam supply pipe 33 into the rotating drum 70 (Fig. 2). 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 appliance of Berger et al. to deliver the anti-static solution to the rotating drum as steam as taught by Kim et al. in order to improve the laundry treating efficiency.
Conclusion
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