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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group II and Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/23/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/12/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The IDS of 04/12/23 lists an NPL directed to a Written Opinion of the ISA for PCT/KR2022/012932. A copy of this document has been provided by the Applicant, but it is entirely in the Korean language.
Per MPEP 609.04(a), Section III, (emphasis added) “Where the information listed is not in the English language, but was cited in a search report or other action by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, the requirement for a concise explanation of relevance can be satisfied by submitting an English-language version of the search report or action which indicates the degree of relevance found by the foreign office.”
An English translation for the above Written Opinion should be provided as a concise explanation of this document’s relevance.
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 Anderson et al. (US 2015/0368854; hereinafter Anderson).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
698
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
584
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
512
326
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
506
304
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Anderson shows a dryer (10, fig. 1), comprising:
at least one sensor (100, figs. 2, 5-7, [0030]) to sense an internal humidity of the dryer (10, fig. 1);
a memory (“... one or more memory elements such as e.g., electrically erasable, programmable read only memory (EEPROM)”, [0027]) configured to store at least one instruction; and a processor (82, fig. 1, [0027]) connected with the memory (one or more memory elements, [0027]) and configured to control the dryer (10, fig. 1), wherein the processor (82, fig. 1, [0027]) is configured to:
obtain, based on executing the at least one instruction, the internal humidity of the dryer (10, fig. 1) through the at least one sensor (100, figs. 2, 5-7, [0030]);
identify an external humidity of the dryer (10, fig. 1) based on the obtained internal humidity (Anderson recites “Dryer appliance 10 may thus include a humidity sensor 100 and a valve 102, both of which may be in communication with and thus operable by the controller 82. Humidity sensor 100 may be positioned within the vent duct 66, such as within the exhaust portion 72 of the vent duct 66. Valve 102 may be selectively operable to flow external air (which is generally ambient air from external to the dryer appliance 10) to the vent duct 66, such as to the exhaust portion 72, from external to the cabinet 12. The humidity sensor 100 may operate to sense humidity of air within the vent duct 66. Accordingly, as discussed herein, selective operation of the valve 102 during a dry cycle may cause the humidity sensor 100 to alternately sense internal air humidity values and external air humidity values. These values can be utilized to evaluate a dryness level of articles being dried in chamber 25. Advantageously, the dry cycle operation can be discontinued based on these values, and in particular based on changes in the value differential, resulting in properly dried articles. Instances of over-drying and/or under-drying are thus reduced or eliminated.”, [0030]; thus, in other words, based on a measurement or a sense of an internal air humidity value is finished or obtained, the humidity sensor 100 is then sensed or identified an external air humidity value; and thus, further in other words, the controller 82 is configured to identify an external humidity of the dryer 10 based on the obtained internal humidity) (fig. 9)
obtain, based on a change in the internal humidity and a change in the external humidity, information on an amount of moisture of an object placed in the dryer (10, fig. 1) to be dried (Anderson recites “… The humidity sensor 100 may operate to sense humidity of air within the vent duct 66. Accordingly, as discussed herein, selective operation of the valve 102 during a dry cycle may cause the humidity sensor 100 to alternately sense internal air humidity values and external air humidity values. These values can be utilized to evaluate a dryness level of articles being dried in chamber 25. Advantageously, the dry cycle operation can be discontinued based on these values, and in particular based on changes in the value differential, resulting in properly dried articles. Instances of over-drying and/or under-drying are thus reduced or eliminated.”, [0030], UNDERLINE emphasis added); and
identify whether a drying operation is complete by comparing the information on the amount of moisture of the object with a threshold value (Anderson recites “In exemplary embodiments, the changes in the sums may be utilized to determine whether articles are considered dry. The changes in the sums as provided by step 248 for example may equate to changes in a difference between humidity values of the internal air and sequential humidity values of the external air. As this change decreases, the internal air humidity values are approaching the external air humidity values. Once this change is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold level, the dryness level of the articles may be considered sufficient (and not over- or under-dried) such that the dry cycle can be discontinued. Accordingly, method 200 may include the step 250 of discontinuing operation of the dryer appliance 10 when a change in a difference between humidity values of the internal air and sequential humidity values of the external air is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold level. Operation may be discontinued by, for example, de-actuating the motor 31, fan 49, valve 102, etc. Advantageously, such operation of the dryer appliance 10 results in efficient and effective drying of articles, and reduces or eliminates instances of over-drying and/or under-drying.”, [0039], [0030], fig. 9).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Dalla Rosa et al. (EP3239390 A1; hereinafter Dalla Rosa).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses the limitations of the dryer of claim 1 above, but does not disclose wherein the threshold value is set differently according to a characteristic of the object.
Dalla Rosa teaches wherein the threshold value is set differently according to a characteristic of the object (Dalla Rosa recites “… there are at least two different threshold values that are applicable for different (ranges of) amounts or weights of laundry.”, [0011], [0008-0009]).
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 of Anderson with wherein the threshold value is set differently according to a characteristic of the object, as taught by Dalla Rosa, for effectively controlling the operations of the dryer at different loads of the object to be dried such as clothe(s), hat(s), etc. … which would result in effectively drying the object(s) to be dried within an appropriate drying time. Thus, the dryer operates more efficiently and thus benefits the consumer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the dryer of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to identify a change rate in the internal humidity, and identify the external humidity based on the identified change rate.
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 Anderson discloses “A dryer of claim 1”, and Wakaeya et al. (US 5,050,313) discloses “wherein the processor (Wakaeya, 53, fig. 11) is configured to identify a change rate in the internal humidity (Wakaeya, 61, fig. 11, col. 16, lines 35-48), …”. However, Anderson in view of Wakaeya et al. does not disclose “… identify the external humidity based on the identified change rate.”
Therefore, allowance of claims 2-3 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “… identify the external humidity based on the identified change rate.” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claims 2-3.
As to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the dryer of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify a value of the internal humidity compared to the external humidity as the amount of moisture of the object;
identify a ratio value of the identified amount of moisture of the object with respect to a maximum value of the amount of moisture of the object; and
identify the drying operation as complete based on the ratio value being less than or equal to the threshold value.
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 Anderson discloses “wherein the processor (82, fig. 1, [0027]) is configured to: identify a value of the internal humidity compared to the external humidity as the amount of moisture of the object (Anderson recites “The external air humidity values 136 and internal air humidity values 134 can be compared and advantageously utilized to determine the dryness of articles being dried in a dry cycle. …”, [0035]); ....” However, Anderson does not disclose “wherein the processor is configured to: … identify a ratio value of the identified amount of moisture of the object with respect to a maximum value of the amount of moisture of the object; and identify the drying operation as complete based on the ratio value being less than or equal to the threshold value.”
Therefore, allowance of claim 4 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the processor is configured to: … identify a ratio value of the identified amount of moisture of the object with respect to a maximum value of the amount of moisture of the object; and identify the drying operation as complete based on the ratio value being less than or equal to the threshold value” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 4.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the dryer of claim 5, wherein the characteristic of the object comprises at least one from among a maximum value of the amount of moisture of the object and a time spent on drying.
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 Anderson in view of Dalla Rosa discloses “The dryer of claim 5”. However, Anderson does not disclose “wherein the characteristic of the object comprises at least one from among a maximum value of the amount of moisture of the object and a time spent on drying.”
Therefore, allowance of claim 6 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the characteristic of the object comprises at least one from among a maximum value of the amount of moisture of the object and a time spent on drying” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 6.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the dryer of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify a change pattern in the internal humidity;
predict a drying complete time point based on the identified change pattern; and
provide the predicted drying complete time point.
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 Anderson discloses “The dryer of claim 1”. However, Anderson does not disclose “wherein the processor is configured to: identify a change pattern in the internal humidity; predict a drying complete time point based on the identified change pattern; and provide the predicted drying complete time point.”
Therefore, allowance of claim 7 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the processor is configured to: identify a change pattern in the internal humidity; predict a drying complete time point based on the identified change pattern; and provide the predicted drying complete time point” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 7.
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
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