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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3,402,576 to Krupsky in view of US Patent 11,015,281 to Grider.
In Reference to Claim 1
Krupsky discloses a laundry appliance comprising: a drum (Fig. 3, 9) that rotates about a rotational axis and defines a processing space for drying articles therein; a blower (Fig. 3, 81) that delivers process air through an airflow path that includes the processing space; a heater (Fig. 3, 46) in thermal communication with the airflow path, wherein the heater operates to deliver thermal energy to the process air; and a controller (item 144) in communication with the drum, the blower, and the heater; and a moisture sensor (Col. 26, Line 40-45, a humidistat), wherein the controller is in communication with the moisture sensor
Krupsky discloses the dryer. Krupsky does not teach to maintain a moisture level at the particulate collector.
Grider teaches where during operation of a laundry cycle, the heater, the drum and the blower cooperatively operate a particulate removal phase that maintains the articles in a damp state for a predetermined period of time, wherein the controller, in response to moisture measurements from the moisture sensor, operates the heater to maintain the articles in the damp state during the particulate removal phase, and wherein the damp state of the articles prevents accumulation of an electrostatic charge within the articles and a surface of the drum, and further allows the process air to separate particulate matter from the articles. (Col. 11, Grider teaches “It is also contemplated that the removed lint 216 can be combined with various amounts of moisture to assist in compaction of removed lint 216 into the compressed lint pellets 218.”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Grider into the design of Krupsky. Doing so, would result in the control method of Grider being incorporated into the design of Krupsky. Both inventions of Krupsky and Grider using lint collector during a drying process. Grider teaches that keep an amount of moisture would assist the remove of the lint. Therefore, this is an user friendly method.
In Reference to Claim 2
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 2 teaches that the humidity of the lint is controlled.
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 2 does not teach the heater operating at approximately 50% power.
The Office considers “operating at approximately 50% power" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since the process is controlled to keep various humidity levels of lint, obviously, the controller will control the operation of heater to deliver the power consumption which meets the functional limitation based on the working load.
In Reference to Claims 6
Krupsky discloses a fluid delivery system (Fig. 3, 45/79/81/82) that directs a flow of process fluid into the processing space, wherein the fluid delivery system is in communication with the controller and the moisture sensor (Col. 26, Line 40-45, a humidistat).
In Reference to Claim 7
Krupsky discloses the fluid delivery system.
The Office considers “maintain the processing space within a desired moisture range" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since the process is controlled to keep various humidity levels of lint, obviously, the controller will control the operation of heater to deliver the power consumption which meets the functional limitation based on the working load.
In Reference to Claim 8
Krupsky discloses the process fluid is one of a fluid mist and steam. (Abstract of Krupsky)
In Reference to Claim 9
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 9 discloses the particulate removal phase with desired moisture of the particulate.
The Office considers “the particulate removal phase is initiated at the beginning of the laundry cycle" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since the process is controlled to keep various humidity levels of lint, obviously, the controller will control the operation of heater to deliver the power consumption which meets the functional limitation based on the working load.
In Reference to Claim 13
Krupsky discloses the particulate removal phase is conducted after a rinse phase of the laundry cycle. (It is established that by utilizing steam, prior to the ironing of clothes, the clothes are in a more receptive condition to be ironed, Steam suppliers, due to its deep penetration, a means for retention and increase of the natural moisture which is normally associated with the fibers of clothes. Obviously, the steam is intruded after the rinse cycle, since the cloth has been dried already).
In Reference to Claim 16
Krupsky discloses a laundry appliance comprising: a blower (Fig. 3, 81) that delivers process air through an airflow path that includes a processing space; a heater (Fig. 3, 46) in thermal communication with the airflow path, wherein the heater operates to deliver thermal energy to the process air; a fluid delivery system (Fig. 3, 45/ 79/ 81 /82) that selectively directs a flow of process fluid into the processing space; a moisture sensor (Col. 26, 40-45 the humidistat) that monitors a moisture content present within the processing space,
Krupsky discloses the dryer. Krupsky does not teach to maintain a moisture level at the particulate collector.
Grider teaches the moisture sensor measures a moisture content within the processing space that is below a desired moisture range indicative of a damp state for a particulate removal phase; and a controller in communication at least with the heater, the fluid delivery system and the moisture sensor, wherein during operation of a laundry cycle, the heater, the blower, the moisture sensor, and the fluid delivery system cooperatively operate the particulate removal phase that maintains articles in the damp state for a predetermined period of time, wherein the damp state of the articles is monitored by the moisture sensor and prevents accumulation of an electrostatic charge within the processing space, and further allows the process air to separate particulate matter from the articles, andwherein upon completion of the particulate removal phase, the heater operates at a conventional state that operates to dry the articles. .(Col. 11, Grider teaches “It is also contemplated that the removed lint 216 can be combined with various amounts of moisture to assist in compaction of removed lint 216 into the compressed lint pellets 218.”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Grider into the design of Krupsky. Doing so, would result in the control method of Grider being incorporated into the design of Krupsky. Both inventions of Krupsky and Grider using lint collector during a drying process. Grider teaches that keep an amount of moisture would assist the remove of the lint. Therefore, this is an user friendly method.
In Reference to Claim 17
Krupsky discloses the process fluid is one of a fluid mist and steam. (Abstract of Krupsky)
In Reference to Claim 18
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 18 discloses the particulate removal phase with desired moisture of the particulate.
The Office considers “the particulate removal phase is initiated at the beginning of the laundry cycle" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since the process is controlled to keep various humidity levels of lint, obviously, the controller will control the operation of heater to deliver the power consumption which meets the functional limitation based on the working load.
In Reference to Claims 19 and 20
Krupsky discloses a method for separating particulate from articles being dried, the method comprising the steps of: saturating articles within a processing space (Fig. 3, 9/10) with process fluid to achieve a desired moisture range within the processing space (Since Krypsky discloses a humidistat, obviously, the moisture range in the working space is monitored); activating at least one of a blower (Fig. 3, 81) and a heater (Fig. 3, 46) to deliver process air through the processing space to define a particulate removal phase; monitoring a moisture content within the processing space using a moisture sensor (Col. 26, 40-45, humidistat);
Krupsky does not teach maintain a moisture content at lint filter
Grider teaches maintaining the moisture content within the processing space to be within desired moisture range; separating the particulate matter from the articles using the heated process air and the unheated process air while the moisture content is within the desired moisture range; and activating a conventional drying operation to dry the articles. (Col. 11, Grider teaches “It is also contemplated that the removed lint 216 can be combined with various amounts of moisture to assist in compaction of removed lint 216 into the compressed lint pellets 218.”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Grider into the design of Krupsky. Doing so, would result in the control method of Grider being incorporated into the design of Krupsky. Both inventions of Krupsky and Grider using lint collector during a drying process. Grider teaches that keep an amount of moisture would assist the remove of the lint. Therefore, this is an user friendly method.
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 19 does not teach “to prevent accumulation of electrostatic charges between particulate matter and the articles within the processing space”
The Office considers “prevent accumulation of electrostatic charges" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since the process is controlled to keep various humidity levels of lint, obviously, the controller will control the operation of heater to deliver the power consumption which meets the functional limitation based on the working load.
In Reference to Claim 21
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 18 teaches that the humidity of the lint is controlled.
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 18 does not teach the heater operating at approximately 50% power.
The Office considers “operating at approximately 50% power" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since the process is controlled to keep various humidity levels of lint, obviously, the controller will control the operation of heater to deliver the power consumption which meets the functional limitation based on the working load.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 1, further in view of US Patent 7,565,822 to Park.
In Reference to Claim 4
Krupsky discloses the particulate removal phase.
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the controller prompts a user to initiate one of a following step.
Park teaches a control panel prompting a user interface to operate processing steps.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Park in the combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 4. Doing so, would result in an user interface to operate the processing step being used in the design of Krupsky. According to MPEP, the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result in not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kruspky and Grider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102018219361 to Mielke.
In Reference to Claim 10
Krupsky discloses the step of removing lint.
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 10 teaches the moisture sensor.
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 10 does not teach conductivity sensor.
Mieke teaches the conductivity type sensor is used to measure the moisture (Tumble dryer according to one of the claims 1 to 4, characterized that the control device is set up to determine a laundry moisture content and or loading of the drum with item of laundry on the basis of the sensor signals measured by the conductivity sensor (24,25)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Mieke into the combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 10. Doing so, would result in a conductivity sensor being used in the dryer of Krupsky as the moisture sensor. Both inventions of Krupsky and Mielke are in the same field of endeavor, Mielke provide a design with a predictable result of success.
Claims 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 2020023202 to Renz.
In Reference to Claims 11 and 12
Krupsky discloses a filter (Fig. 1, 34), the moisture sensor and the controller.
The combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 1 does not teach a particulate sensor.
Renz teaches a particulate filer (Fig. 3, 112) having a particulate sensor (Fig. 3, 134)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Renz into the combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in a filter screen with a particulate sensor being implemented into the design of Krupsky. Both inventions of Krypsky and Renz are in the same field of endeavor, Renz teaches a method of detecting magnitude thickness presence or other quantitative or qualitative values of collected lint on filter medium to determine when a fresh section of filter medium is required.
Once the particulate sensor being integrated in the combination of Krupsky and Grider as applied to Claim 1, It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send the feedback from the particulate sensor as well as other sensors to the controller to control the operation of system such as blower and the heater, since the objective is the effective dry the object in the dryer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 12/31/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under USC 103 Claim Rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grider.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 1/21/26