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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on March 5th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16, and 18-31 remain pending in the application. Claim 17 has been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 11-14, 19-23, 25-26, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO Patent No. 2019156526) in view of Lee (US Patent No. 20050223583)
Regarding Claim 11, Park teaches a clothing management apparatus comprising: a cabinet (Figure 2, Cabinet 10); a drum rotatably disposed in the cabinet (Figure 2, Drum 30 disposed in Cabinet 10); an induction heater that is configured to heat the drum (Paragraph 86 and Figure 3, Induction heater 70 that heats the drum) and includes a coil and a housing that accommodates the coil (Paragraph 96, Induction Heater 70 includes Coil 71 with a heater cover 72), the housing being disposed inside the cabinet and outside the drum (Figure 2-3, Heater Cover 72 is inside the Cabinet 10 and outside the Drum 30); a first duct that is disposed outside the drum and defines an inlet in fluid communication with an inner space of the drum (Figure 6A, Duct 120 with an inlet 60h that draws fluid from inner space of the Drum 30); a chamber disposed outside the drum, the chamber defining (Figure 6A, Heat exchanger 100 acting as a chamber outside the Drum 30): a first inlet in fluid communication with an outlet of the first duct (Figure 6A, Heat exchanger 100 has an inlet in communication with outlet of the first Duct 120), a first outlet in fluid communication with the inner space of the drum (Figure 6A, Heat exchanger 100 has an outlet in communication with inner space of Drum 30), a first flow path that connects the first inlet to the first outlet (Figure 6A, the flow path connects from inlet of Heat exchanger 100 to outlet of Heat exchanger 100), a second inlet in fluid communication with an outer space of the drum (Paragraph 186, When the cooling fan 101 is driven, air outside the washing machine, and therefore outside the drum, is supplied to the heat exchanger 100, reads as having an inlet), a second outlet in fluid communication with the housing (Paragraph 186, The air that has cooled the heat exchanger passes through the cooling fan (101) to cool the inside of the induction heater, reads as having an outlet to the housing that the induction heater is in), and a second flow path that connects the second inlet to the second outlet (Paragraph 186, The air travels through the heat exchanger to the induction heater, reads as having a flow path); a first impeller disposed in a first space that is in fluid communication with the first flow path (Figure 6A, Air Blower 90 is in a space where the first flow path pass through); and a second impeller disposed in a second space that is in fluid communication with the second flow path (Paragraph 185 and Figure 8, Fan 101 is between the Induction heater and the Heat exchanger 100 therefore it’s in the flow path).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate a first inlet defined at a first surface of the chamber facing the drum, a first outlet defined at the first surface, a second inlet defined at a second surface of the chamber facing opposite to the first surface, and a second outlet defined at the first surface. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Park fails to teach a partition wall that is disposed in the chamber and separates the first flow path and the second flow path from each other.
Lee taches a drying unit for washing machines (Abstract, Laundry Apparatus) where a partition wall (Figure 6, Disposed fins 270 act as a wall) that is disposed in the chamber (Figure 6, Duct 250 and 260 act as the chamber) and separates the first flow path and the second flow path from each other (Figure 6, Showcases two flow paths separated by the Disposed fins 270).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate a partition wall as stated in Lee. The disposed fins can facilitate heat exchange between the two different airflows (Paragraph 78, Partition wall).
Regarding Claim 12, Park in view of Lee teaches a tub that is disposed in the cabinet and accommodates the drum, wherein the drum comprises a cylindrical body having a hole defined therein (Park: Figure 2, Tub 20 is inside cabinet 10. Figure 1-3, drum 30 with a cylindrical body and a hole).
Regarding Claim 13, Park in view of Lee teaches that the drum has an elongated cylindrical shape, and wherein the chamber extends in a radial direction of the drum (Figure 2, drum 30 has an elongated cylindrical shape and is extended in the radial direction).
Regarding Claim 14, Park fails to teach that the partition wall extends in a longitudinal direction of the chamber.
Lee teaches a drying unit for washing machines (Abstract, Laundry Apparatus) where the partition wall extends in a longitudinal direction of the chamber (Figure 6, Disposed fins 270 act as a wall, extends longitudinal direction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the arrangement of having the partition wall extends in a longitudinal direction of the chamber as stated in Lee. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, therefore it is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 19, Park in view of Lee teaches that the first duct extends in a longitudinal direction of the drum (Park: Figure 6A, Duct 120 extends in longitudinal direction of the drum 30).
Regarding Claim 20, Park in view of Lee teaches that the induction heater is positioned at an outside of the drum (Park: Figure 2-3, Induction heater 70 is outside Drum 30), and wherein the first duct and the induction heater are arranged along a circumferential direction of the drum (Park: Figure 3 and 6A Induction heater and Duct 120 are arranged along the circumferential direction of the drum).
Regarding Claim 21, Park in view of Lee teaches that the first impeller is configured to blow air from the first duct to the chamber (Park: Figure 6A, Air Blower 90 blows air from Duct 120 into Heat Exchanger 100), and wherein the second impeller is configured to blow air from the chamber to the housing (Park: Paragraph 186, fan 101 blows air from heat exchanger to induction heater which has is covered by the housing 72).
Regarding Claim 22, Park teaches a blower that comprises the first impeller (Figure 6A, Air Blower 90 blows), the second impeller (Paragraph 186, fan 101).
Park fails to teach a blower motor configured to rotate the first impeller and the second impeller.
Lee teaches a drying unit for washing machines (Abstract, Laundry Apparatus) where a blower motor configured to rotate the first impeller and the second impeller (Paragraph 24, Motor rotates bot the air-cooling fan and the drying fan).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate a blower motor as stated in Lee. The motor and the heater work together to provide hot air into the tub of the apparatus for drying purposes (Paragraph 37, Blower Motor).
Regarding Claim 23, Park fails to teach a blower rotating shaft that connects the first impeller and the second impeller to blower motor.
Lee teaches a drying unit for washing machines (Abstract, Laundry Apparatus) where a blower rotating shaft that connects the first impeller and the second impeller to blower motor (Figure 4, Showcase that Motor 120 is connected to both air cooling fan 134 and the drying fan 125 by a rotating shaft).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the arrangement of having a blower rotating shaft that connects the first impeller and the second impeller to blower motor as stated in Lee. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, therefore it is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 25, Park fails to teach that the chamber extends in a longitudinal direction that is parallel to the blower rotating shaft, and wherein the partition wall extends in the longitudinal direction of the chamber.
Lee teaches a drying unit for washing machines (Abstract, Laundry Apparatus) where the chamber extends in a longitudinal direction that is parallel to the blower rotating shaft (Figure 3-4, The circulating duct 110, acting as the chamber, extends in a longitudinal direction and parallel to rotating shaft), and wherein the partition wall extends in the longitudinal direction of the chamber (Figure 3-4 and 6, disposed fins 270 extends in a longitudinal direction of The circulating duct 110).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the arrangement of having the chamber extends in a longitudinal direction that is parallel to the blower rotating shaft, and wherein the partition wall extends in the longitudinal direction of the chamber. as stated in Lee. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, therefore it is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 26, Park in view of Lee teaches a first blowing housing that accommodates the first impeller (Park; Figure 7b, Showcases the housing of Fan 90) and defines the first space in fluid communication with the first flow path (Park: Figure 6b and 7b, the housing defines the first space in fluid communication with the first flow path); and a second blowing housing that accommodates the second impeller and defines the second space in fluid communication with the second flow path (Park: Figure 8, Showcases the second housing that houses the fan 101 defines the second space in fluid communication with the second flow path), wherein the first blowing housing and the second blowing housing are spaced apart from each other (Park: Figure 6b-8, Housings of both fans are spaced apart from each other).
Regarding Claim 29, Park fails to teach that the chamber extends in a vertical direction with respect to a bottom of the cabinet, wherein the first inlet is defined above the first outlet, and wherein the second inlet is defined below the second outlet.
Lee teaches a drying unit for washing machines (Abstract, Laundry Apparatus) where the chamber extends in a vertical direction with respect to a bottom of the cabinet (Figure 3 and 6, Duct 112 and 132 extend vertically with respect to the bottom of the cabinet), wherein the first inlet is defined above the first outlet (Figure 3 and 6, Duct 260 has its inlet above its outlet, as seen by the arrows that define the air flow), and wherein the second inlet is defined below the second outlet (Figure 3 and 6, Duct 250 has its inlet below its outlet, as seen by the arrows that define the air flow).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the arrangement the first and second inlets and the first and second outlets as stated in Lee. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, therefore it is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 30, Park in view of Lee teaches that the first flow path and the second flow path are configured to guide air in opposite directions along the partition wall (Park: Figure 6a-6b, Showcase that the first flow path is reversable, therefore its capable of going in the opposite direction of the second flow path that cools the induction module).
Regarding Claim 31, Park in view of Lee teaches the second inlet (Park: Paragraph 186, When the cooling fan 101 is driven, air outside the washing machine, and therefore outside the drum, is supplied to the heat exchanger 100, reads as having an inlet) and the second outlet (Park: Paragraph 186, The air that has cooled the heat exchanger passes through the cooling fan (101) to cool the inside of the induction heater, reads as having an outlet to the housing that the induction heater is in), and first inlet (Park: Figure 6A, Heat exchanger 100 has an inlet in communication with outlet of the first Duct 120).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate a second inlet and the second outlet are spaced apart from each other in the longitudinal direction, and first inlet is defined at a position between the second inlet and the second outlet in the longitudinal direction. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO Patent No. 2019156526) in view of Lee (US Patent No. 20050223583) and further in view of Kim (US Patent No. 20180057995).
Regarding Claim 18, Park in view of Lee teaches that the drum has a front surface that is open (Park: Figure 6A, Drum 30 has a side with an opening).
Park in view of Lee fails to teach that the chamber is positioned at a rear surface of the drum opposite to the front surface of the drum.
Kim (US Patent No. 20180057995) teaches a laundry apparatus (Abstract, Laundry apparatus) where the chamber is positioned at a rear surface of the drum opposite to the front surface of the drum (Figure 3 and 6, Heat exchanger 823 is on the opposite side of Drum 30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park in view of Lee to incorporate having the chamber positioned at a rear surface of the drum opposite to the front surface of the drum as stated in Kim (US Patent No. 20180057995). The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, therefore it is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO Patent No. 2019156526) in view of Lee (US Patent No. 20050223583) and further in view of Kim (US Patent No. 20190048516).
Regarding Claim 27, Park in view of Lee fails to teach that a first cooling duct that extends from the second blowing housing to the housing of the induction heater.
Kim (US Patent No. 20190048516) teaches a laundry treatment apparatus (Abstract, Laundry apparatus) where a first cooling duct that extends from the second blowing housing to the housing of the induction heater (Figure 3 and Paragraph 78-79, Cooling path 95 extends from Fan 450 to induction module housing 400).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park in view of Lee to incorporate a first cooling duct as stated in Kim (US Patent No. 20190048516). The heated outer circumferential surface of the tub may also be cooled by the air discharged from the cooling path 95 (Paragraph 83, Cooling path).
Regarding Claim 28, Park in view of Lee fails to teach a module controller is configured to drive the induction heater; and a second cooling duct that extends from the second blowing housing to the module controller.
Kim (US Patent No. 20190048516) teaches a laundry treatment apparatus (Abstract, Laundry apparatus) where module controller is configured to drive the induction heater (Paragraph 23, Module control unit controls the induction module); and a second cooling duct that extends from the second blowing housing to the module controller (Paragraph 86-90, The module control unit 80 may include a housing 85, in which an air flow path 87 is formed and extends from Cooling path 95 and Fan 450).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park in view of Lee to incorporate a second cooling duct as stated in Kim (US Patent No. 20190048516). The structure of the housing provides more efficient cooling as the air flow path is only applied to parts that generate the most heat (Paragraph 83, Air Flow path).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 24 are allowed.
Claims 15-16 would be allowable as they relate to the internal structure of the chamber. The length portion and the width portions that separate the alternating inlets and outlets of the structure for different air flow paths were not found in the any prior art.
Claims 24 would be allowable as they relate to the structure and arrangement of the impellers, blower rotating shaft, and blower motor within the apparatus. The specific structures were not found in the any prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 5th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the arrangement of the inlets and outlets of the chamber provides improvement in heat exchange efficiency and prevents overheating. However, the applicants merely states these advantages but fails to provide evidence to support their statement and relies on reference Kim (US Patent No. 20180057995) which was not used in the rejection. The rearrangement is proper as it teaches the desired function of providing both cool and heated air to the drum of the apparatus. There is no evidence that this rearrangement is less effective than the claimed arraignment.
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 HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights