DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 05/15/2023. Claim(s) 1–20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more processors further configured to: determine that the clog exists in the dryer duct by inputting (i) the airflow level; and (ii) the operation status signal into a trained dryer duct clog determining artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: train the dryer duct clog determining AI algorithm by inputting (i) historical airflow levels; and (ii) historical operation status signals into the dryer duct clog determining AI algorithm” in claims 9–10 & 12, which have been interpreted to mean a microprocessor preprogramed with code to implement the claimed process steps. However, see the § 112(b) rejection below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 3 is 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. Specifically, the phrase “air entry area to a house” is not understood. The phrase could mean at least one of: 1) a duct that brings in ambient air from outside the house into the dryer; or 2) an exhaust duct of the dryer that exhausts air into a house. Appropriate action is necessary.
Claims 9–10 & 12 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. Specifically, Claim limitation “processor for [process steps]” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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, 8–10, 13–16, & 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0061728 to Reede et al in view of US 6,158,148 to Krausch.
With regard to claims 1, 16, & 19, Reede discloses a system for improving dryer safety (abstract), comprising: an airflow sensor (20) configured to measure airflow in a dryer duct (¶¶ 0028–0029); and one or more processors (22) configured to determine an airflow level based upon an airflow signal received from the airflow sensor (20) (¶¶ 0028–0029, 0039); and determine that a clog exists in the dryer duct based upon the airflow level (¶¶ 0028–0029, 0039).
Reede fails to explicitly disclose one or more processors configured to receive an operation status signal of the dryer or determine that a clog exists in the dryer duct based upon the operation status signal (although it does appear inherent that a processor would not be able to detect blockage in a dryer in non-operational status, so the operational status is a given when air flow is expected). Krausch teaches one or more processors configured to receive an operation status signal of the dryer (Col. 5, lines 44–52) and determine that a clog exists in the dryer duct based upon the operation status signal (Col. 5, lines 44–52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer system of Reede with the operational status indicator of Krausch because such a combination would have had the added benefit of ensuring the dryer was operational before trying to determine if the airflow velocity is correct.
With regard to claim 8, Reede further discloses the one or more processors (22) are further configured to stop operation of the dryer upon a determination that the clog exists in the dryer duct (¶ 0039).
With regard to claim 9, Reede further discloses the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the clog exists in the dryer duct by inputting (i) the airflow level (¶ 0039).
Reede fails to disclose (ii) the operation status signal into a trained dryer duct clog determining artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. However, using trained AI algorithms as the programming for processors is old and well-known. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer of Reede with AI algorithms because such a combination would have had the added benefit of being able to claim the device is powered by AI, which is all the rage at the present moment, and would have been one of a limited number of ways to program the processor to determine whether a blockage was present.
With regard to claim 10, Reede as previously modified in claim 9 further discloses the one or more processors are further configured to: train the dryer duct clog determining AI algorithm by inputting (i) historical airflow levels; and (ii) historical operation status signals into the dryer duct clog determining AI algorithm (as is old and well-known in the art, AI algorithms operate by inputting large amounts of data to determine which decision is to be made).
With regard to claims 13, 18, & 20, Reede fails to disclose the one or more processors are further configured to: upon determination that the clog exists, activate a robotic component to clean the dryer duct. However, dryer duct cleaning implements, such as mechanical brushes or the use of an air compressor or mechanical blower are old and well-known in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a processor to, upon determination that a clog exists, automatically activate a cleaning component, since it has been held that automating a previously-known manual activity involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
With regard to claim 14, Reede fails to disclose the robotic component is configured to: insert a blowing mechanism into an interior portion of the dryer duct; and activate the blowing mechanism upon insertion into the interior portion of the dryer duct. However, dryer duct cleaning implements, such as the use of an air compressor or mechanical blower are old and well-known in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a processor to, upon determination that a clog exists, automatically activate a cleaning component, since it has been held that automating a previously-known manual activity involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
With regard to claim 15, Reede fails to disclose the robotic component: comprises a cleaning arm configured to move along an interior portion of the dryer duct. However, dryer duct cleaning implements, such as the use of an air compressor or mechanical blower are old and well-known in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a processor to, upon determination that a clog exists, automatically activate a cleaning component, since it has been held that automating a previously-known manual activity involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
Claims 2–4 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reede in view of Krausch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0292716 to Yu et al.
With regard to claims 2 & 17, Reede fails to disclose a pressure sensor, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a pressure level based upon a pressure signal received from the pressure sensor; and determine that the clog exists further based upon the pressure level. Yu teaches a pressure sensor (106) (¶ 0029), and wherein the one or more processors (84) are further configured to: determine a pressure level based upon a pressure signal received from the pressure sensor (¶¶ 0029, 0033); and determine that the clog exists further based upon the pressure level (¶¶ 0029, 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer system of Reede with the pressure sensors of Yu because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing a redundant clog detection system which increases the likelihood it will be detected.
With regard to claim 3, Reede as previously combined with Yu further discloses the airflow sensor (Reede: 20) is attached to the dryer duct (Reede: ¶¶ 0028–0029); and the pressure sensor (Yu: 106) is attached to the dryer duct at a dryer attachment area (¶¶ 0029, 0033).
Reede fails to disclose the airflow sensor is attached to the dryer duct at an air entry area to a house. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to attach the airflow sensor to the dryer duct at an air entry area to the house, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claim 4, Reede as previously combined with Yu further discloses the airflow sensor (Reede: 20) and the pressure sensor (Yu: 106, 112, 116) are both disposed on an interior portion of the dryer duct (Reede: 18; Yu: 62) (Reede: Figs. 3 & 5; ¶ 0030; Yu: Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0029, 0031).
Claims 5–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reede in view of Krausch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0279601 to Bellinger et al.
With regard to claim 5, Reede fails to disclose a temperature sensor, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a temperature level based upon a temperature signal received from the temperature sensor; and determine that the clog exists further based upon the temperature level. Bellinger teaches a temperature sensor (50) (¶ 0048), and wherein the one or more processors (14) are further configured to: determine a temperature level based upon a temperature signal received from the temperature sensor (50) (¶ 0048); and determine that the clog exists further based upon the temperature level (¶ 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer system of Reede with the temperature sensors of Bellinger because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing an alternative/complimentary means of detecting a blockage in the exhaust vent.
With regard to claim 6, Reede as previously combined with Bellinger further discloses the temperature sensor (Bellinger: 50) is attached to an exterior of the dryer duct (Bellinger: ¶ 0048; Figs. 2 & 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 & 11–12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
January 21, 2026