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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the first and second covers” lack a positive antecedent basis in the plural form. Since claims 5-9 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency. Claim 9 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the respective opening” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 20 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the actuation” lacks a positive antecedent basis.
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 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Djerekarov et al. (US 11,060,236). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Djerekarov as teaching:
a laundry appliance (see title and abstract), comprising:
a cabinet 12 having a front and back connected by sides and a top and a bottom for housing a drum 26 configured to receive laundry items and treat the laundry items during a treatment cycle (shown in figure 1 and disclosed at column 3 lines 50-64);
a door 33 configured to move between open and closed positions to selectively allow access to the drum;
at least one air conduit 41 configured to supply air to a drum of the appliance (shown in figure 3);
at least one vent cover 54 configured to selectively vent air from the air conduit; and
a processor 56 configured to instruct the vent cover to open in response to the door being closed and the appliance not performing a treatment cycle (disclosed at column 5 line 56 through column 6 line 7 wherein the disclosed exit meets the structure and function of the claimed vent cover because both close air flow to an appliance when not performing a treatment cycle). Djerekarov also discloses the claim 19 feature where the processor is configured to instruct a motor of the at least one vent cover to actuate to open the vent cover (disclosed at column 5 lines 34-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claim 19 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.
Claims 4-9 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this action may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting. References A, B, C, N, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, cited with this action teach laundry appliances.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Friday, December 12, 2025
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753