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
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a dryer” in line 2. Please amend to --- the dryer ---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the conduit” in line 3. Please amend to --- the exhaust air conduit ---.
Claims 2-11 and 19-20 recite the limitation “The system” in line 1. Please amend to --- The vent system ---.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the air conduit” in lines 1-2. Please amend to --- the exhaust air conduit ---.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the conduit” in line 2. Please amend to --- the exhaust air conduit ---.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the conduit” in line 2. Please amend to --- the exhaust air conduit ---.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a dryer” in line 2. Please amend to --- the dryer ---.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the conduit” in line 3. Please amend to --- the exhaust air conduit ---.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the conduit” in line 4. Please amend to --- the exhaust air conduit ---.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the conduit” in line 2. Please amend to --- the exhaust air conduit ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haried (US 4,549,362).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
626
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Haried shows a vent system for a dryer (fig. 5), comprising:
an exhaust air conduit (38, fig. 6) configured to provide an airstream (airstream inside item 38, fig. 6) to a dryer (fig. 5);
a sensor (166, 170, fig. 6) within the conduit (38, fig. 6) and configured to measure the airstream (airstream inside item 38, fig. 6); and
a controller (160, fig. 6) configured to receive sensor data from the sensor (166, 170, fig. 6) and determine an airflow (airflow from item 14 flowing inside item 38, fig. 6; step 180, fig. 9; col. 10, lines 44-48).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haried as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Krula (US 2018/0190093).
PNG
media_image3.png
396
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Haried discloses the limitations of the system of claim 1 above, but does not disclose wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor.
Krula teaches wherein the sensor (Krula, 114, fig. 1) is a pressure sensor (Krula, Inlet Pressure Sensor, fig. 1).
It is noted that there are a limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for providing a sensor type. In this regard, it is noted that Krula teaches wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor.
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 sensor of Krula to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
“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 sensor of Krula to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haried as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Wakizaka et al. (US 2014/0366397; hereinafter Wakizaka).
PNG
media_image4.png
524
514
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Haried discloses the limitations of the system of claim 1 above, but does not disclose wherein the sensor is a velocity sensor.
Wakizaka teaches wherein the sensor (Wakizaka, 107, fig. 1) is a velocity sensor (Wakizaka, flow velocity sensor, [0119]).
It is noted that there are a limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for providing a sensor type. In this regard, it is noted that Wakizaka teaches wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor.
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 sensor of Wakizaka to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
“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 sensor of Wakizaka to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haried as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Poulsen (US 3,762,211).
PNG
media_image5.png
308
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Haried discloses wherein the sensor (166, 170, fig. 6) is an anemometer configured to detect a temperature of a wire (wire of item 166, 170 which sticks inside item 38 as shown in fig. 1) heated by a dryer heater (42, fig. 1).
Haried does not disclose the sensor is a hot wire anemometer.
Poulsen teaches the sensor (Poulsen, 49, fig. 4) is a hot wire anemometer (Poulsen, hot wire anemometer, col. 10, lines 42-46).
It is noted that there are a limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for providing a sensor type. In this regard, it is noted that Poulsen teaches wherein the sensor is a hot wire anemometer.
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 sensor of Poulsen to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
“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 sensor of Poulsen to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
Regarding claim 5, Haried as modified wherein the temperature (the measured temperature of item 166, 170, fig. 6) (Poulsen, the measured temperature of item 49, fig. 4) corresponds to an amount of heat of the airflow (the measured temperature of item 166, 170 in view of item 49 of Pousen would correspond to an amount of heat of airflow inside item 38, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Haried as modified further comprising a damper (172, 174, fig. 6, col. 11, lines 4-8) arranged in the air conduit (38, fig. 6) and configured to adjust the airflow (airflow from item 14 flowing inside item 38, fig. 6) within the conduit (38, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Haried as modified wherein the controller (160, fig. 6) is further configured to adjust the damper (172, 174, fig. 6, col. 11, lines 4-8) (step 186, fig. 9) based on the temperature of the wire (the measured temperature of item 166, 170, fig. 6) (Poulsen, the measured temperature of item 49, fig. 4) to adjust the airflow (airflow from item 14 flowing inside item 38, fig. 6) (step 186, fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Haried as modified wherein the controller (160, fig. 6) is further configured to adjust the position of the damper (172, 174, fig. 6, col. 11, lines 4-8) until a predefined temperature is exceeded (Haried recites “… Once the desired ratio of temperatures is achieved for that particular step in phase III, the motor is de-energized….”, col. 21, line 54 through col. 22, line 12).
Regarding claim 9, Haried as modified wherein the controller (160, fig. 6) is further configured to adjust the position of the damper (172, 174, fig. 6, col. 11, lines 4-8) (step 190, fig. 9) until a predefined time is exceeded (predefined time of item 180, fig. 6) (step 192, fig. 9) (step 198, fig. 9).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haried as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Scolari (US 2018/0279639).
PNG
media_image6.png
436
702
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Haried discloses wherein the sensor (166, 170, fig. 6) is a temperature sensor (temperature sensor, col. 12, lines 60-63) configured to detect temperature to provide a continuous airflow reading based on the detected temperature (the measured temperature of item 166, 170, fig. 6).
Haried does not disclose the sensor is a whistle sensor configured to detect sounds outside of human audible range.
Scolari teaches the sensor (Scolari, 16, fig. 1) is a whistle sensor (Scolari, sound sensor, [0052]) configured to detect sounds outside of human audible range (Scolari, ultrasound frequencies; well-known in the art, ultrasound frequencies are higher than human ear audible frequencies).
It is noted that there are a limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for providing a sensor type. In this regard, it is noted that Scolari teaches that the sensor is a whistle sensor configured to detect sounds outside of human audible range.
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 sensor of Scolari to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
“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 sensor of Scolari to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haried as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Kim et al. (KR20210087388 A; hereinafter Kim).
PNG
media_image7.png
654
484
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Haried discloses the limitations of the system of claim 1 above, but does not disclose wherein the sensor is a camera sensor configured to monitor particles within a dryer vent receiving the airstream from the conduit.
Kim teaches the sensor (Kim, image sensor, [0146]) is a camera sensor (Kim, image sensor that photographs the inside of the drum (130), [0146]) configured to monitor particles (Kim, drying object, [0146]) within a drum (Kim, 130, fig. 2, [0146]) receiving the airstream (Kim, airstream inside item 150, fig. 2) from the conduit (Kim, 150, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify vent system of Kim with the sensor being a camera sensor configured to monitor particles within a drum receiving the airstream from the conduit, as taught by Kim, for monitoring a condition, such as clogging condition or etc. …, of the exhaust air conduit during a drying process which would result in preventing the dryer from getting overheat or fires. Thus, the vent system for the dryer is safely to use and thus benefits the consumer.
Claim 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haried (US 4,549,362) in view of Scolari (US 2018/0279639).
Regarding claim 18, Haried discloses a vent system for a dryer (fig. 6), comprising:
an exhaust air conduit (38, fig. 6) configured to provide an airstream (airstream inside item 38, fig. 6) to a dryer (fig. 6);
a sensor (166, 170, fig. 6) within the conduit (38, fig. 6) and configured to measure the airstream (airstream inside item 38, fig. 6), wherein the sensor (166, 170, fig. 6) is a temperature sensor (temperature sensor, col. 12, lines 60-63) configured to detect temperature within the conduit (38, fig. 6) to provide a continuous airflow reading based on the detected temperature (the measured temperature of item 166, 170, fig. 6); and
a controller (160, fig. 6) configured to receive sensor data from the whistle sensor indicative of airflow of the airstream (airstream inside item 38, fig. 6).
Haried does not disclose the sensor is a whistle sensor configured to detect sounds within the conduit outside of human audible range.
Scolari teaches the sensor (Scolari, 16, fig. 1) is a whistle sensor (Scolari, sound sensor, [0052]) configured to detect sounds within the conduit (Scolari, 10, fig. 1) outside of human audible range (Scolari, ultrasound frequencies; well-known in the art, ultrasound frequencies are higher than human ear audible frequencies).
It is noted that there are a limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for providing a sensor type. In this regard, it is noted that Scolari teaches that the sensor is a whistle sensor configured to detect sounds within the conduit outside of human audible range.
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 sensor of Scolari to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
“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 sensor of Scolari to the vent system of Haried, since this is simply another sensor type for detecting a parameter of the air inside the exhaust air duct.
Regarding claim 19, Haried as modified discloses further comprising a damper (172, 174, fig. 6, col. 11, lines 4-8) arranged in the air conduit (38, fig. 6) and configured to adjust the airflow (airflow from item 14 flowing inside item 38, fig. 6) within the conduit (38, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Haried as modified discloses wherein the controller (160, fig. 6) is further configured to adjust the damper (172, 174, fig. 6, col. 11, lines 4-8) (step 186, fig. 9) based on the sensor data (the measured temperature of item 166, 170, fig. 6).
Conclusion
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