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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10590592 (Lee hereinafter) in view of US 2020/0362500 (Abbott hereinafter) and further in view of CN 111174260 (Wang hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a clothes dryer (Column 1 Lines 16-18) that discloses a cabinet defining an internal cavity and an orifice (Figures 1 and 3 with cabinet 10 and orifice at 161), wherein the orifice establishes fluid communication between the internal cavity and an exterior of the cabinet (Evident from Figure 3); a drum disposed within the internal cavity and configured to receive clothing articles (Inherent of drum 31); a heat exchanger disposed within the internal cavity and configured heat the internal cavity to dry the clothing articles (Heat pump 60 as known in the art); and a fan to direct airflow (Fan 54 in Figure 3).
Lee is silent with respect to a fan configured to exhaust air from the internal cavity to the exterior of the cabinet via the orifice.
However, Abbott teaches a clothes treatment device that discloses a fan configured to exhaust air from the internal cavity to the exterior of the cabinet via the orifice (Figures 2 and 5 with the fan 228 along path 200 and fan 198 along path 190).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air handling network of Lee with the allow for air to be effectively exhausted from the interior of the cabinet by a dedicated fan to assist in heat reduction when required.
Lee is silent with respect to a sound blocking sheet (i) disposed within the internal cavity and (ii) configured to unwind from and wind about a roller between a first position and a second position, respectively, wherein (a) in the first position the sound blocking sheet is unwound from the roller and is disposed over the orifice to obstruct fluid communication between the internal cavity and the exterior of the cabinet and to reduce noise emitted from the internal cavity to the exterior of the cabinet via the orifice, and (b) in the second position the sound blocking sheet is wound about the roller and is retracted away from the orifice to allow fluid communication between the internal cavity and the exterior of the cabinet via the orifice.
However, Wang teaches an air handling system that discloses a sound blocking sheet disposed within an internal cavity (Figures 1, 4, and 7 with the sound blocking sheet formed by 44 within the cabinet 2) and configured to unwind from and wind about a roller between a first position and a second position (First position in Figure 4 and second position in Figure 7 with the roller being the drive mechanism 42 and screw rods 451/461 as seen in Figure 5), respectively, wherein in the first position the sound blocking sheet is unwound from the roller and is disposed over the orifice to obstruct fluid communication between the internal cavity and the exterior of the cabinet and to reduce noise emitted from the internal cavity to the exterior of the cabinet via the orifice (Figure 4, the position of 44 is blocking the sound from passing out of the equivalent orifice of the cabinet 2), and in the second position the sound blocking sheet is wound about the roller and is retracted away from the orifice to allow fluid communication between the internal cavity and the exterior of the cabinet via the orifice (Figure 7 shows the open position of 44 and therefore allowing sound to pass through).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the opening of Lee/Abbott with the sound blocking structure of Wang to allow for sound pollution from the fan and dryer of Lee to be lessened and not as noticeable by a user.
Regarding claim 2, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Abbott, and Wang would further disclose that the sound blocking sheet is adjacent to and not spaced apart from the orifice when in the first position (Evident of the combination would the sound blocking sheet of Wang to be adjacent to the outlet of Lee when in the closed position to prevent noise from passing).
Regarding claim 4, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Abbott, and Wang would further disclose a cord engaging and configured to rotate the roller to unwind and wind the sound blocking sheet from and about the roller (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the power cord for the motor driving the screws 451/461 of Lee does engage the roller and are configured to house power transfer to wind and unwind the screws and therefore the sound blocking sheets).
Regarding claim 7, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Abbott, and Wang would further disclose a sound proofing material is disposed on interior side of the sound blocking sheet on an opposing side of the orifice (Abbott Figure 5 with 220 per ¶ 54 as applied to the surfaces of Wang).
Regarding claim 14, Lee’s modified teachings are described below in claim 8 but are silent with respect to a sound proofing material is disposed on interior side of the sound blocker on an opposing side of the orifice.
However, Abbott teaches an airflow blocking device of a dry to mitigate noise that discloses a sound proofing material is disposed on interior side of the sound blocking sheet on an opposing side of the orifice (Abbott Figure 5 with 220 per ¶ 54 as applied to the surfaces of Wang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surface of Lee/Wang with the sound proofing material of Abbott to further mitigate sound being expelled form Lee.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a clothes dryer (Column 1 Lines 16-18) that discloses a cabinet defining an internal cavity and an orifice (Figures 1 and 3 with cabinet 10 and orifice at 161); and a fan to direct airflow through the internal cavity (Fan 54 in Figure 3).
Lee is silent with respect to a fan configured to exhaust air from the internal cavity via the orifice.
However, Abbott teaches a clothes treatment device that discloses a fan configured to exhaust air from the internal cavity to the exterior of the cabinet via the orifice (Figures 2 and 5 with the fan 228 along path 200 and fan 198 along path 190).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air handling network of Lee with the allow for air to be effectively exhausted from the interior of the cabinet by a dedicated fan to assist in heat reduction when required.
Lee is silent with respect to a sound blocker (i) disposed within the internal cavity and over the orifice, (ii) having a first perforated plate, (iii) having a second perforated plate concentric with and configured to rotate relative to the first perforated plate between first and second positions, wherein (a) in the first position perforations of the first and second perforated plates are misaligned to obstruct the fluid communication between the internal cavity and an exterior of the housing via the orifice and to reduce noise emitted through the orifice, and (b) in the second position the perforations of the first and second perforated plates are aligned to allow fluid communication between the internal cavity and the exterior of the housing via the orifice and the aligned perforations of the first and second perforated plates.
However, Wang teaches an air handling system that discloses a sound blocker disposed within the internal cavity and over the orifice (Figures 1, 4, and 7 with the sound blocking sheet formed by 44 within the cabinet 2), (ii) having a first perforated plate, (iii) having a second perforated plate concentric with and configured to rotate relative to the first perforated plate between first and second positions (Second plate 433 and first plate 443 where the roller being the drive mechanism 42 and screw rods 451/461 as seen in Figure 5 causes a rotation and the motion is then translated to the first sheet 433 between a closed position in Figure 4 and an open position in Figure 7), wherein (a) in the first position perforations of the first and second perforated plates are misaligned to obstruct the fluid communication between the internal cavity and an exterior of the housing via the orifice and to reduce noise emitted through the orifice (Perforations of 433 are not aligned with the perforations 443 per “when the first air volume control plate (431) and the second air flow control plate 432 in the closed state (the minimum distance or close), the inlet 313 is closed, the noise-reducing plate (441) and the air volume control plate assembly 43 tightly, and the first holes 433 and the second holes 443 are staggered, so as to prevent the oil smoke enters the noise reduction plate assembly 44”), and (b) in the second position the perforations of the first and second perforated plates are aligned to allow fluid communication between the internal cavity and the exterior of the housing via the orifice and the aligned perforations of the first and second perforated plates (A portion of the perforations 433 and 443 will be aligned in Figure 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the opening of Lee/Abbott with the sound blocking structure of Wang to allow for sound pollution from the fan and dryer of Lee to be lessened and not as noticeable by a user.
Regarding claim 16, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Lee, Abbott, and Wang would further disclose that the sound blocking sheet is adjacent to and not spaced apart from the orifice when in the first position (Evident of the combination would the sound blocking sheet of Wang to be adjacent to the outlet of Lee when in the closed position to prevent noise from passing).
Regarding claim 18, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Lee, Abbott, and Wang would further disclose a sound proofing material is disposed on interior side of the sound blocking sheet on an opposing side of the orifice (Abbott Figure 5 with 220 per ¶ 54 as applied to the surfaces of Wang).
Regarding claim 19, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Lee, Abbott, and Wang would further disclose an actuator configured to transition the second perforated plate between the first and second positions (Wang’s drive mechanism 42 and screw rods 451/461 as seen in Figure 5).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10590592 (Lee) in view of US 2020/0362500 (Abbott) in view of CN 111174260 (Wang) and further in view of WO 2015/176047 (Fleischman hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a spring engaging the roller and configured to bias the sound blocking sheet toward the second position.
However, Fleischman teaches a sound mitigating barrier that discloses a rolled sound blocking sheet that is deployable between a closed first position and an open first position (Figure 2, when the wall 26 is drawn closed and then open and not covering a gap between 20/22); and a spring engaging the roller and configured to bias the sound blocking sheet toward the second position (Figure 2, idler 56 is described as spring loaded to roll-up the acoustic blocking wall 26). The resultant combination would modify the screw mechanism of Lee/Wang with the roller mechanism to allow for the sound attenuating wall to be rolled up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sound-attenuating structure of Lee/Wang with the spring-biased rolled structure of Fleischman to minimize the required surrounding space for the sound blocking sheet to occupy when displaced from the orifice.
Regarding claim 17, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 but are silent with respect to a spring configured to bias the second perforated plate toward the second position.
However, Fleischman teaches a sound mitigating barrier that discloses a rolled sound blocking sheet that is deployable between a closed first position and an open first position (Figure 2, when the wall 26 is drawn closed and then open and not covering a gap between 20/22); and a spring engaging the roller and configured to bias the sound blocking sheet toward the second position (Figure 2, idler 56 is described as spring loaded to roll-up the acoustic blocking wall 26). The resultant combination would modify the screw mechanism of Lee/Wang with the roller mechanism to allow for the sound attenuating wall to be rolled up and a spring configured to bias the second perforated plate toward the second position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sound-attenuating structure of Lee/Wang with the spring-biased rolled structure of Fleischman to minimize the required surrounding space for the sound blocking sheet to occupy when displaced from the orifice.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10590592 (Lee) in view of US 2020/0362500 (Abbott) in view of CN 111174260 (Wang) and further in view of US 2018/0223595 (Anthony hereinafter)
Regarding claim 4, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a cord engaging and configured to rotate the roller to unwind and wind the sound blocking sheet from and about the roller.
However, Anthony teaches a sound mitigating barrier that discloses a rolled sound blocking sheet that is deployable between a closed first position and an open first position (¶ 38 details extending and retracting a covering via roller tube); and a cord engaging and configured to rotate the roller to unwind and wind the sound blocking sheet from and about the roller (Cord per ¶ 38 with the motor disclosed). The resultant combination would modify the screw mechanism of Lee/Wang with the roller mechanism to allow for the sound attenuating wall to be rolled up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sound-attenuating structure of Lee/Wang with the spring-biased rolled structure of Anthony to minimize the required surrounding space for the sound blocking sheet to occupy when displaced from the orifice.
Regarding claim 5, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 4 where the combination of Lee, Abbott, Wang, and Anthony would further disclose an actuator engaging the cord and configured to rotate the cord to rotate the roller to unwind and wind the sound blocking sheet from and about the roller (¶ 38 of Anthony).
Claims 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10590592 (Lee) in view of CN 111174260 (Wang).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches a clothes dryer (Column 1 Lines 16-18) that discloses a cabinet defining an internal cavity and an orifice (Figures 1 and 3 with cabinet 10 and orifice at 161); and a fan to direct airflow through the internal cavity (Fan 54 in Figure 3).
Lee is silent with respect to a sound blocker (i) disposed within the internal cavity and (ii) configured to unwind and wind between a first position and a second position, respectively, wherein (a) in the first position the sound blocker is unwound and disposed over the orifice to obstruct fluid communication between the internal cavity and an exterior of the housing via the orifice and to reduce noise emitted through the orifice, and (b) in the second position the sound blocker is wound and retracted away from the orifice to allow fluid communication between the internal cavity and the exterior of the housing via the orifice.
However, Wang teaches an air handling system that discloses a sound blocking sheet disposed within an internal cavity (Figures 1, 4, and 7 with the sound blocking sheet formed by 44 within the cabinet 2) and configured to unwind from and wind about a roller between a first position and a second position (First position in Figure 4 and second position in Figure 7 with the roller being the drive mechanism 42 and screw rods 451/461 as seen in Figure 5), respectively, wherein in the first position the sound blocking sheet is unwound from the roller and is disposed over the orifice to obstruct fluid communication between the internal cavity and the exterior of the cabinet and to reduce noise emitted from the internal cavity to the exterior of the cabinet via the orifice (Figure 4, the position of 44 is blocking the sound from passing out of the equivalent orifice of the cabinet 2), and in the second position the sound blocking sheet is wound about the roller and is retracted away from the orifice to allow fluid communication between the internal cavity and the exterior of the cabinet via the orifice (Figure 7 shows the open position of 44 and therefore allowing sound to pass through).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the opening of Lee with the sound blocking structure of Wang to allow for sound pollution from the fan and dryer of Lee to be lessened and not as noticeable by a user.
Regarding claim 9, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Lee and Wang would further disclose that the sound blocking sheet is adjacent to and not spaced apart from the orifice when in the first position (Evident of the combination would the sound blocking sheet of Wang to be adjacent to the outlet of Lee when in the closed position to prevent noise from passing).
Regarding claim 12, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Lee and Wang would further disclose an actuator configured to transition the sound blocker between the first and second positions (Wang’s drive mechanism 42 and screw rods 451/461 as seen in Figure 5).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10590592 (Lee) in view of CN 111174260 (Wang) and further in view of WO 2015/176047 (Fleischman).
Regarding claim 10, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 but are silent with respect to a spring engaging the roller and configured to bias the sound blocking sheet toward the second position.
However, Fleischman teaches a sound mitigating barrier that discloses a rolled sound blocking sheet that is deployable between a closed first position and an open first position (Figure 2, when the wall 26 is drawn closed and then open and not covering a gap between 20/22); and a spring engaging the roller and configured to bias the sound blocking sheet toward the second position (Figure 2, idler 56 is described as spring loaded to roll-up the acoustic blocking wall 26). The resultant combination would modify the screw mechanism of Lee/Wang with the roller mechanism to allow for the sound attenuating wall to be rolled up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sound-attenuating structure of Lee/Wang with the spring-biased rolled structure of Fleischman to minimize the required surrounding space for the sound blocking sheet to occupy when displaced from the orifice.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10590592 (Lee) in view of CN 111174260 (Wang) and further in view of US 2018/0223595 (Anthony).
Regarding claim 11, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 but are silent with respect to a cord engaging and configured to rotate the roller to unwind and wind the sound blocking sheet from and about the roller.
However, Anthony teaches a sound mitigating barrier that discloses a rolled sound blocking sheet that is deployable between a closed first position and an open first position (¶ 38 details extending and retracting a covering via roller tube); and a cord engaging and configured to rotate the roller to unwind and wind the sound blocking sheet from and about the roller (Cord per ¶ 38 with the motor disclosed). The resultant combination would modify the screw mechanism of Lee/Wang with the roller mechanism to allow for the sound attenuating wall to be rolled up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sound-attenuating structure of Lee/Wang with the spring-biased rolled structure of Anthony to minimize the required surrounding space for the sound blocking sheet to occupy when displaced from the orifice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, and 20 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.
Claim 6 recites “a controller programmed to, in response to an absence of a command to vent air from the internal cavity, operate the actuator to transition the sound blocking sheet to the first position, and in response to the command to vent air from the internal cavity, operate the actuator to transition the sound blocking sheet to the second position.” The current relied upon combination of Lee, Abbott, Wang, and Anthony does disclose the use of a spring to bias the sound blocking wall however the sound blocking wall would be biased in the open position as opposed to the required closed position. A change of the structure already presented above in the modification would require hindsight rationale to reconstruct the claim and while adding significant structural changes and therefore is not found to be obvious to the Examiner. Claims 13 and 20 both recite similar claim language and are objected to for the same reason as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 (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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762