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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments:
PNG
media_image1.png
578
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
80
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
410
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s responses: In this case, Kim’s paragraph [0146] recites “If a sensor that does not require rotation of the drum (130) for detecting the amount of laundry, such as an image sensor that photographs the inside of the drum (130) as a laundry weight sensor (173), is used, the process (1150) of determining whether there is a drying object inside the drum (130) may be performed prior to the process (810) of operating the fan (140) and/or the drum motor (135).”, BOLD and UNDERLINE emphasis added. The language “such as” indicates that the “image sensor” is one of the options for detecting a drying object inside the drum. Kim does not disclose or mention that the “image sensor” is used only in the dehumidification cycle. Furthermore, Kim’s paragraph [0200] recites “For example, the control unit (190) can identify whether an object exists inside the drum (130) using the electrode sensor (180). …”, BOLD and UNDERLINE emphasis added. The language “For example” indicates that the “electrode sensor (180)” is another one of the options for detecting a drying object inside the drum. Kim does not disclose or mention that the “electrode sensor (180)” is used only in the sterilization course. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Thus, Kim reads on the original rejected dependent claim 2 and still reads on the amended independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR20210087388 A; hereinafter Kim).
PNG
media_image4.png
380
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
536
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
422
348
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim shows a dryer appliance (100, fig. 1), comprising:
a cabinet (101, fig. 1);
a drum (130, fig. 2) rotatably mounted within the cabinet (101, fig. 1), the drum (130, fig. 2) defining a chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2) for receipt of clothes for drying;
an air handler (140, fig. 2) for selectively urging a flow of air through the chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2);
a heating assembly (155, fig. 2) for selectively heating the flow of air;
a camera assembly (“an image sensor that photographs inside of the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]) mounted within view of the chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2); and
a controller (190, fig. 4) operably coupled to the air handler (140, fig. 2), the heating assembly (155, fig. 2), and the camera assembly (“an image sensor that photographs inside of the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]), the controller (190, fig. 4) being configured to:
determine that a self-clean condition is satisfied (“The control unit (190) can identify whether an object exists inside the drum (130) before initiating an operation included in the sterilization course….”, [0198]) (another option is using “an image sensor that photographs inside of the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]);
determine that the chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2) is empty (“When it is identified that no object exists inside the drum (130), the control unit (190) can operate the fan (140) along with operating the heater (155).”, [0213]) (another option is using “an image sensor that photographs inside of the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]), wherein determining that the chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2) is empty comprises obtaining an image (“an image sensor that photographs inside of the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]) of the chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2) using the camera assembly (“an image sensor that photographs inside of the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]) and analyzing the image using an image recognition process (“the process (1150) of determining whether there is a drying object inside the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]) to determine that the chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2) is empty (“absence of a drying target in the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]); and
operate the air handler (140, fig. 2) and the heating assembly (155, fig. 2) to perform a self-clean cycle (“the sterilization course”, [0198], [0197-0213]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim shows wherein operating the air handler (140, fig. 2) and the heating assembly (155, fig. 2) to perform the self-clean cycle (“the sterilization course”, [0198], [0197-0213]) comprises:
circulating the flow of air using the air handler (140, fig. 2) while operating the heating assembly (155, fig. 2) to heat the flow of air to a self-clean temperature (“the temperature inside the drum (130) in the sterilization course”, [0198]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim shows wherein the self-clean temperature (“the temperature inside the drum (130) in the sterilization course”, [0198]) is elevated relative to a standard operating temperature (“the temperature inside the drum (130) in the drying course”, [0198]) (“the temperature inside the drum (130) in the sterilization course is higher than the temperature inside the drum (130) in the drying course”, [0198]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim shows wherein operating the air handler (140, fig. 2) and the heating assembly (155, fig. 2) to perform the self-clean cycle (“the sterilization course”, [0198], [0197-0213]) comprises:
maintaining the flow of air (“However, for high-temperature sterilization inside the drum (130) and inside the duct (150), the control unit (190) can continue to operate the heater (155) and fan (140).”, [0254]) at the self-clean temperature (“the temperature inside the drum (130) in the sterilization course”, [0198]) for a predetermined self-clean time (a user-selectable “sterilization time”, [0261]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim shows wherein the self-clean temperature (“the temperature inside the drum (130) in the sterilization course”, [0198]) is greater than or equal to 160°F (80 degrees Celsius = 176 degrees Fahrenheit, [0261]) and the predetermined self-clean time (a user-selectable “sterilization time”, [0261]) is greater than or equal to 20 minutes (140 minutes or 230 minutes, [0261]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim shows further comprising: a temperature sensor (71, fig. 4) positioned within the flow of air for detecting an air temperature of the flow of air (Kim recites “The first temperature sensor (171) can measure the temperature of the air in the drum (130). For example, the first temperature sensor (171) can be installed at the outlet (105b) of the front frame (105) and can measure the temperature of air discharged from the drum (130) to the duct (150)”, [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim shows wherein the temperature sensor (71, fig. 4) is an outlet thermistor (thermistor, [0066]) positioned within a trap duct (150, fig. 2) of the dryer appliance (100, fig. 1) (Kim recites “The first temperature sensor (171) can measure the temperature of the air in the drum (130). For example, the first temperature sensor (171) can be installed at the outlet (105b) of the front frame (105) and can measure the temperature of air discharged from the drum (130) to the duct (150)”, [0064], UNDERLINE emphasis added; furthermore, Fig. 2 of Kim shows that the outlet 105b is positioned within a trap duct 150; thus, the temperature sensor or thermistor 71 of Kim is also position within the trap duct 150).
Regarding claim 14, Kim shows wherein determining that the self-clean condition is satisfied (“The control unit (190) can identify whether an object exists inside the drum (130) before initiating an operation included in the sterilization course….”, [0198]) comprises:
determining that a predetermined amount of time or a predetermined number of cycles (“preset number of times”, [0186]) has passed (“greater than or equal to a preset number of times”, [0186]) since performing a prior self-clean cycle (“drying process”, [0186]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim shows wherein determining that the self-clean condition is satisfied (“The control unit (190) can identify whether an object exists inside the drum (130) before initiating an operation included in the sterilization course….”, [0198]) comprises:
receiving a user input (“The control panel (110) can obtain user input regarding the sterilization course from the user”, [0195]) to perform the self-clean cycle (“the sterilization course”, [0198], [0197-0213]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim shows wherein the dryer appliance (100, fig. 1) is one of a vented dryer appliance, a non-vented dryer appliance, a condenser dryer appliance, a heat pump dryer appliance (160, fig. 1), or a combination washer/dryer appliance.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Gagas et al. (US 2006/0049172; hereinafter Gagas).
PNG
media_image7.png
284
532
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
224
528
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
306
468
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
304
414
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the controller (190, fig. 4) is in operative communication with a device (521, [0207]), and wherein determining that the chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2) is empty comprises:
obtaining an image (“an image sensor that photographs inside of the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]) of the chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2); and
analyzing the image using an image recognition process (“the process (1150) of determining whether there is a drying object inside the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]) to determine that the chamber (interior space of item 130, fig. 2) is empty (“absence of a drying target in the drum (130)”, [0146-0147]).
Kim does not disclose the controller is in operative communication with a remote device; and
obtaining an image of the chamber from the remote device.
Gagas teaches the controller (Gagas, 60, figs. 3-5, [0062]) is in operative communication with a remote device (Gagas, “User interface 40 is shown to include a display device 49”, fig. 19, [0062]; “remote-controlled”, [0083]); and
obtaining an image (Gagas, graphic image, [0083]) of the chamber (Gagas, chamber of item 10, fig. 19) from the remote device (Gagas, “User interface 40 is shown to include a display device 49”, fig. 19, [0062]; “remote-controlled”, [0083]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the dryer appliance of Kim with the controller being in operative communication with a remote device; and obtaining an image of the chamber from the remote device, as taught by Gagas, for providing a greater flexibility of controlling the dryer appliance at a further distance which would result in promoting a user’s satisfaction. Thus, the dryer appliance is a more user-friendly and thus benefits the consumer.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Yeom et al. (US 2022/0162795; hereinafter Yeom) and Johansson et al. (US 2022/0195649; hereinafter Johansson).
PNG
media_image11.png
578
480
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
638
478
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
430
430
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
522
556
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the limitations of the dryer appliance of claim 1 above, but does not disclose further comprising a weight sensor mounted to the drum, wherein the controller is in operative communication with the weight sensor, and wherein determining that the chamber is empty comprises:
obtaining a drum weight using the weight sensor; and
determining that the drum weight exceeds a predetermined weight associated with an empty drum.
Yeom teaches a weight sensor (Yeom, 420a, fig. 19), wherein the controller (Yeom, 400, fig. 19) is in operative communication with the weight sensor (Yeom, 420a, fig. 19), and wherein determining that the chamber (Yeom, 23, fig. 1) is empty comprises:
obtaining a drum weight using the weight sensor (Yeom, 420a, fig. 19) (Yeom recites “For example, in response to the weight detection sensor 420a detecting a weight exceeding a weight of the empty drum 20 or a predetermined reference value, it may be recognized or determined (e.g., by controller 400) that there is an object to be dried inside the drum 20.”, [0150], UNDERLINE emphasis added); and
determining that the drum weight exceeds a predetermined weight associated with an empty drum (Yeom recites “For example, in response to the weight detection sensor 420a detecting a weight exceeding a weight of the empty drum 20 or a predetermined reference value, it may be recognized or determined (e.g., by controller 400) that there is an object to be dried inside the drum 20.”, [0150], UNDERLINE emphasis added).
It is noted that there are a limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for providing an empty drum sensor type. In this regard, it is noted that Yeom teaches a weight sensor, wherein the controller is in operative communication with the weight sensor, and wherein determining that the chamber is empty comprises: obtaining a drum weight using the weight sensor; and determining that the drum weight exceeds a predetermined weight associated with an empty drum.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to try the empty drum sensor of Yeom to the dryer appliance of Kim, since this is simply another empty drum sensor type for detecting a present of an object in the drum.
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to try the empty drum sensor of Yeom to the dryer appliance of Kim, since this is simply another empty drum sensor type for detecting a present of an object in the drum.
Furthermore, well-known in the art, Johansson teaches a weight sensor (Johansson, 54, fig. 3) mounted to the drum (Johansson, 30, fig. 3; item 54 mount to item 30 via item 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the dryer appliance of Kim with the weight sensor mounted to the drum, as taught by Johansson, for effectively measuring a total weight of the drum and the objects inside the drum which would result in accurately determining that there is no object remaining inside the drum and thus the remained object inside the drum is prevented from getting overheat or burn during the self-cleaning operation. Thus, the dryer appliance is a more user-friendly and thus benefits the consumer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Giacomini et al. (EP4092176 A1; hereinafter Giacomini).
PNG
media_image15.png
796
542
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses further comprising:
a door (102, figs. 1, 2) rotatably mounted to the cabinet (101, fig. 1) for providing selective access to the drum (130, fig. 2); and
a door lock (104, fig. 1) operably coupled to the door (102, figs. 1, 2) for selectively locking or unlocking the door (102, figs. 1, 2), wherein the controller (190, fig. 4) is further configured to:
lock the door (102, figs. 1, 2) in a closed position (as shown in fig. 2) using the door lock (104, fig. 1) and determining that the self-clean condition is satisfied (“The control unit (190) can identify whether an object exists inside the drum (130) before initiating an operation included in the sterilization course….”, [0198]) and that the drum (130, fig. 2) is empty (“When it is identified that no object exists inside the drum (130), the control unit (190) can operate the fan (140) along with operating the heater (155).”, [0213]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose locking the door in a closed position using the door lock “in response to” determining that the self-clean condition is satisfied (present, or exists) and that the drum is empty. Kim does, however, disclose throughout the translation that the controller (190) sends a signal to the door lock to lock the door but is silent to if the door is specifically locked in the order as claimed.
Giacomini teaches locking a sanitization compartment (122) in a closed position using a door lock in response to determining that a sanitization cycle is satisfied (present, exists) (Giacomini recites “… In an example where a door lock is provided, the controller 106 can also operate the door lock to prevent opening of the sanitizing compartment 122 during a sanitizing cycle, including during operation of an ionizing light source.”, paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the dryer appliance of Kim by applying the teachings of Giacomini to Kim, i.e. modifying Kim’s controller (190) to specifically lock the door when it’s determined that the self-clean condition is satisfied (present or exists) and the drum is empty, for the predictable benefit of preventing the door from opening so that Kim’s self-clean cycle (sanitization operation) isn’t unintentionally interrupted, and/or for user safety (e.g. preventing dangerous heat exposure to a child).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Wesloski (US 2023/0059093).
PNG
media_image16.png
470
656
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the limitations of the dryer appliance of claim 1 above, but does not disclose further comprising a steam supply nozzle for selectively spraying liquid into the flow of air, wherein the controller is further configured to:
operate the steam supply nozzle to inject the liquid during the self-clean cycle.
Wesloski teaches a steam supply nozzle (Wesloski, 206, fig. 7, [0054]) for selectively spraying liquid (Wesloski, 201, fig. 7) into the flow of air, wherein the controller (Wesloski, 90, fig. 4) is further configured to:
operate the steam supply nozzle (Wesloski, 206, fig. 7, [0054]) to inject the liquid (Wesloski, 201, fig. 7) during the self-clean cycle (Wesloski, sanitizing feature, [0054], [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate the steam supply nozzle for selectively spraying liquid into the flow of air, wherein the controller is further configured to: operate the steam supply nozzle to inject the liquid during the self-clean cycle, as taught by Wesloski, into the dryer appliance of Kim for effectively removing bacteria and/or other microorganisms adhering inside the interior components of the dryer appliance which would result in effectively preventing the objects to be dried such as clothes, towels, or etc. … from being contaminating during a drying process. Thus, the dryer appliance is safely to use and thus benefits the consumer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the dryer appliance of claim 5, wherein operating the air handler and the heating assembly to perform the self-clean cycle comprises:
determining that the self-clean temperature has been reached by monitoring a rate of temperature change of the flow of air after the heating assembly has been turned off.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations. Although Kim discloses “The dryer appliance of claim 5”. However, Kim does not disclose the limitations of “wherein operating the air handler and the heating assembly to perform the self-clean cycle comprises: determining that the self-clean temperature has been reached by monitoring a rate of temperature change of the flow of air after the heating assembly has been turned off”.
Therefore, allowance of claim 9 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein operating the air handler and the heating assembly to perform the self-clean cycle comprises: determining that the self-clean temperature has been reached by monitoring a rate of temperature change of the flow of air after the heating assembly has been turned off” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 BAO D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 at 5712726460. 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.
/BAO D NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights