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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites a shell as does claim 7. However, line 5 recites the outer shell. The claims should recite the same term to avoid ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term tank is misspelled as tang in line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the inner tank (11) is referred to as the liner (11). The claims should recite the same term to avoid ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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. Claim 10 recites the handle can be engaged with the flange. However examiner notes the cover engages with the flange, not the handle. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim to correlate with the disclosure illustrated in fig. 4.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (CN114672961A) in view Zhao (CN17645569U) and in view of Shikamori (US 5,012,658).
As for claim 1, Hong discloses a towel heating barrel, comprising a barrel body composed of an inner tank (511, fig. 6) and a shell (521, fig. 6) sleeved outside the inner tank (511), a cover matched with the inner tank (6, fig. 6), a warm air assembly arranged between the inner tank and the outer shell (4, fig. 6), and a heating circuit (electrical circuit powering the warm air assembly), wherein further comprising an air duct bracket (7, fig. 6) arranged inside the inner tank to guide warm air (towel over bracket guides warm air) blown out by the warm air assembly from an air outlet to outside of the inner tank (521, fig. 5, air flows up through the top).
Hong discloses the claimed invention except for a heating wire arranged on an outer wall of the inner tank. Zhao teaches a heating wire arranged on an outer wall of the inner tank (2, fig. 2) in order to provide even heating within the unit. Hong would benefit equally from providing even heating within the unit. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Hong with a heating wire arranged on an outer wall of the inner tank as taught by Zhao in order to provide even heating within the unit.
Hong discloses the claimed invention except for and a weight micro switch elastic head connected in series with the heating circuit and cooperates with the cover to realize the on-off of the heating circuit. Shikamori teaches and a weight micro switch elastic head connected in series with the heating circuit and cooperates with the cover to realize the on-off of the heating circuit (9:8-12) in order to prevent the machine from operating the heater without the cover closed. Hong would benefit equally from preventing the machine from operating the heater without the cover closed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Hong with and a weight micro switch elastic head connected in series with the heating circuit and cooperates with the cover to realize the on-off of the heating circuit as taught by Shikamori in order to prevent the machine from operating the heater without the cover closed.
As for claim 7, Hong discloses a top of the inner tank extends outward to form a flange, the shell is engaged with an outside of the liner and the flange, and the cover covers on the flange (fig. 4, flange illustrated where the leader for 511 terminates).
As for claim 10, Hong discloses the claimed invention except for a handle is provided on the cover, and the handle can be engaged with the flange. Zhao teaches a handle is provided on the cover, and the handle can be engaged with the flange (14, fig. 1) in order to facilitate easier opening of the cover. Hong would benefit equally from facilitating easier opening of the cover. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Hong with a handle is provided on the cover, and the handle can be engaged with the flange as taught by Zhao in order to facilitate easier opening of the cover.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8 and 9 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 2 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the air duct bracket comprises a tower-shaped pipe group, connecting shafts arranged on the tower-shaped pipe group, and crossbars, wherein the crossbar can be rotated along the connecting shaft to be accommodated inside the tower-shaped pipe group and placed on the tower pipe group after being stretched and rotated to form a placement part with all of the limitations of independent claim 1. Examiner notes that tower-shaped pipe group towel warmers are known, such as a towel warmer circulating heated water. However, prior art could not be found to disclose the limitation of claim 2 in a dryer with a cover as required by independent claim 1.
Claim 6 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose an anti-blocking wind groove is provided on the inner wall of the inner tank with all of the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the weight micro switch elastic head cooperates with the limiting portion to realize the on and off of the heating circuit with all of the limitations of independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762