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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s responses, see section “Drawings” on pages 10-11 of “REMARK/ARGUMENTS”, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to Drawings Objection have been fully considered, but it is the Examiner’s position that these Drawing amendments contain new matter for the following reasons.
With regards to the air distribution 200 related to claim 11, Figure 2 has been amended to incorporate a labeled box 200 at the central bottom area of clothes dryer 1. This implies an air distribution system in this specific area of the clothes dryer 1, which the originally filed disclosure doesn’t have support for.
With regards to the PV panel 100, the same issue applies, i.e. originally filed disclosure doesn’t have support for the PV panel 100 being located in the clothes dryer 1, per se; and the specific location within the dryer 1.
The same issue applies with regards to the UV light source 300, i.e. specific positioning of the UV light source 300.
The same issue applies with regards to the ventilation feature 222 added to Figure 4, this feature is shown as a conduct that vertically extends from the bottom base of reservoir 22. The originally filed disclosure does not have support for these details as illustrated in amended Figure 4.
Applicant’s responses, see section “Claim Objections” on page 11 of “REMARK/ARGUMENTS”, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1-23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s responses, see section “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112” on page 11 of “REMARK/ARGUMENTS”, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to Claim Rejection 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 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 14-22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments:
PNG
media_image1.png
84
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
78
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
320
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
220
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
178
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
82
642
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
320
636
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
174
638
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
240
640
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
118
642
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
258
642
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s responses: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., A solar clothes dryer comprising: an outer housing comprising a double sidewall comprising an inner wall and an outer wall separated by a cavity; a solar powered air heater in the outer housing; a drying chamber within the outer housing to receive heated air from the solar powered air heater; and, a heat recovery system comprising a heat conductor within the cavity, and wherein the heat conductor defines a barrier between an outer heating conduit and an inner exhaust air duct within the cavity, configured such that the heat conductor conducts heat from air in the inner exhaust air duct to air within the outer heating conduit) were not recited in the rejected independent claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, it should be noticed that the claim languages are exceptionally broad. There is no requirement in the claim that the heat recover system cannot recirculate the air or exit air or exhaust air. Therefore, the references of Mangan and Judelson still read on the amended independent claims 1 and 23. See the updated rejections of the amended independent claims 1 and 23 below.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “an air distribution system” (claim 11), “at least one photovoltaic panel” (claim 13) and “a ultra violet light source” (claim 14) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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:
The limitation “an air distribution system” in claim 11.
The limitation “a solar powered air distribution system” in claim 12.
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.
With regards to the “air distribution system,” the originally filed Specification is not sufficiently clear in identifying what the corresponding structure of the air distribution system is, for carrying out the claimed function, i.e. “air distribution.”
For example, page 6 lines 18-19 (describing prior art/Fig. 1) states, “The heated air can then be directed downwards in the drying chamber 6 by an air distribution system (not shown).” Additionally, page 11, lines 14-16 does recite (emphasis added) “The PV panels can serve to power clothes dryer batteries, fans, and the like for use in driving air distribution systems and the like to direct air movements within the clothes dryer as required.” In other words, it’s understood that there is a source of power (i.e. PV panels) for batteries and fans (to direct air movement), but it’s not entirely clear what structure is “distributing” the air (e.g. conduits, ducts, etc.?). For example, Applicant’s supplemental drawings filed on 03/06/2026 amends Figure 2 and places an arbitrary box labeled 200 at the bottom of the clothes dryer device 1, but the written response doesn’t clarify what this box 200 is.
Therefore, it’s not clear what the corresponding structure to the claimed “air distribution system” is per a review of the originally filed disclosure. It’s additionally noted that claim 11 states, “further comprising” (emphasis added) with regards to the air distribution system. Claim 11 depends from claim 1 which at least requires the double sidewall (4) and exhaust air duct (17), and these features clearly illustrate discrete air distribution pathways as shown in Figure 2. Thus, it’s not clear what this additional (“further comprising”) air distribution pathway is.
This same issue applies with regards to the “a solar powered air distribution system” as recited in claim 12. While claim 12 does include the limitation “solar powered,” (i.e. corresponding to element 100/PV panels), it’s still not clear what the “air distribution system” is in the same context as to claim 11, outside of it being understood that it’s powered by PV panels 100.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this case, claim 11 recites “further comprising an air distribution system” and claim 12 recites “wherein the air distribution system is a solar powered air distribution system”. However, as explained above, Specification of the instant application does not disclose or define what “an air distribution system” and “a solar powered air distribution system” are. Therefore, the claims 11 and 12 contain subject matters which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art.
Examiner note: one option of overcome this rejection would be to amend claims 11 and 12 by removing the limitation “air distribution system” and replacing it with structural limitations that don’t invoke an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), and have adequate support within the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
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 2-12 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. In this case:
The amended independent claim 1 recites “… a heat recovery system comprising a heat conductor within the cavity, and wherein the heat conductor defines a barrier between an outer heating conduit and an inner exhaust air duct within the cavity, …”, BOLD emphasis added. However, the dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the heat recovery system comprises a heat exchanger” (BOLD emphasis added) and the dependent claim 7 recites “wherein the heat exchanger comprises a heated air conduit separated from an exhausted air duct by the heat conductor” (BOLD emphasis added). Figure 3 of the instant application shows that the heat conductor 15 and the heat exchanger 14 are calling out at the same feature. Thus, the heat conductor 15 is the heat exchanger 14. Furthermore, Specification of the instant application recites “Figure 3 is an enlarged cross-sectional view through the double walled sidewall of the clothes dryer showing the inward travelling or rising heated air conduit separated from the outward travelling humid exhausted air duct by a heat conductor in the sidewall to define a heat recovery system in the clothes dryer;” (page 8, lines 17-20, BOLD emphasis added). However, the Figure 3 of the instant application shows the outer heating conduit 16 and the inner exhaust air duct 17. Thus, the outer heating conduit 16 is the heated air conduit and the inner exhaust air duct 17 is the exhausted air duct. Therefore, it is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim in the dependent claim 2 and the dependent claim 7.
Claim 11 recites “further comprising an air distribution system” and claim 12 recites “wherein the air distribution system is a solar powered air distribution system”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, as explained above, 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.
Examiner note: one option of overcome this rejection would be to amend claims 11 and 12 by removing the limitation “air distribution system” and replacing it with structural limitations that don’t invoke an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), and have adequate support within the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangan et al. (US 2019/0100866; hereinafter Mangan) in view of Judelson (US 1,527,192).
PNG
media_image12.png
770
472
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
744
410
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
736
426
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
700
446
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
732
454
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
782
528
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-7 & 10, Mangan discloses a solar clothes dryer (10, fig. 4A) comprising:
an outer housing (23, fig. 4A) comprising a double sidewall (11, 15, fig. 4C) comprising an inner wall (15, fig. 4C) and an outer wall (11, fig. 4C) separated by a cavity (16, fig. 4C);
a solar powered air heater (11, 15, 16, figs 4C-E) in the housing (23, fig. 4A), and
a drying chamber (31, figs. 4C-F) within the housing (23, fig. 4A) to receive heated air from the solar powered air heater (11, 15, 16, figs 4C-E). (Application claim 1)
Mangan does not disclose comprising a heat conductor within the cavity, and
wherein the heat conductor defines a barrier between an outer heating conduit and an inner exhaust air duct within the cavity, configured such that the heat conductor conducts heat from air in the inner exhaust air duct to air within the outer heating conduit; (Application claim 1)
wherein the heat recovery system comprises a heat exchanger; (Application claim 2)
wherein the heat exchanger is in heat communication with the solar powered air heater; (Application claim 3)
wherein the heat exchanger is formed as part of the solar powered air heater (11, 15, 16, figs 4C-E); (Application claim 4)
wherein the heat exchanger is formed in the outer housing (23, fig. 4A); (Application claim 5)
wherein the heat exchanger is formed in a sidewall or top wall of the outer housing (23, fig. 4A); (Application claim 6)
wherein the heat exchanger comprises a heated air conduit separated from an exhausted air duct by the heat conductor; (Application claim 7) and
wherein the exhausted air duct comprises an exhausted air outlet. (Application claim 10)
Judelson teaches Judelson, 24, 21, 22, fig. 1) comprising a heat conductor (Judelson, wall thickness of side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) within the cavity (Judelson, cavity between item 34 and item 11, fig. 1), and
wherein the heat conductor (Judelson, wall thickness of side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) defines a barrier (Judelson, as shown in fig. 1) between an outer heating conduit (Judelson, 12, fig. 1) and an inner exhaust air duct (Judelson, 21, 22, fig. 1) within the cavity (Judelson, cavity between item 34 and item 11, fig. 1), configured such that the heat conductor (Judelson, wall thickness of side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) conducts heat from air in the inner exhaust air duct (Judelson, 22, fig. 1) to air within the outer heating conduit (Judelson, 12, fig. 1); (Application claim 1)
wherein the heat recovery system (Judelson, 24, 21, 22, fig. 1) comprises a heat exchanger (Judelson, side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1); (Application claim 2)
wherein the heat exchanger (Judelson, side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) is in heat communication with the powered air heater (Judelson, 12, 16, fig. 1); (Application claim 3)
wherein the heat exchanger (Judelson, side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) is formed as part of the powered air heater (Judelson, 12, 16, fig. 1); (Application claim 4)
wherein the heat exchanger (Judelson, side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) is formed in the outer housing (Judelson, outer housing of clothes dryer as shown in fig. 1); (Application claim 5)
wherein the heat exchanger (Judelson, side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) is formed in a sidewall or top wall of the outer housing (Judelson, outer housing of clothes dryer as shown in fig. 1); (Application claim 6)
wherein the heat exchanger (Judelson, side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) comprises a heated air conduit (Judelson, 12, fig. 1) separated from an exhausted air duct (Judelson, 21, 22, fig. 1) by the heat conductor (Judelson, wall thickness of side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1); (Application claim 7) and
wherein the exhausted air duct (Judelson, 21, 22, fig. 1) comprises an exhausted air outlet (Judelson, 33, figs. 1, 3). (Application claim 10)
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 solar clothes dryer of Mangan with a heat recovery system comprising a heat conductor within the cavity, and wherein the heat conductor defines a barrier between an outer heating conduit and an inner exhaust air duct within the cavity, configured such that the heat conductor conducts heat from air in the inner exhaust air duct to air within the outer heating conduit; (Application claim 1) wherein the heat recovery system comprises a heat exchanger; (Application claim 2) wherein the heat exchanger is in heat communication with the solar powered air heater; (Application claim 3) wherein the heat exchanger is formed as part of the solar powered air heater; (Application claim 4) wherein the heat exchanger is formed in the outer housing; (Application claim 5) wherein the heat exchanger is formed in a sidewall or top wall of the outer housing; (Application claim 6) wherein the heat exchanger comprises a heated air conduit separated from an exhausted air duct by the heat conductor; (Application claim 7) and wherein the exhausted air duct comprises an exhausted air outlet (Application claim 10), as taught by Judelson, for utilizing waste heat of exhaust air or recirculating air to heat a cool process drying air which would result in improving or increasing a temperature of the process drying air before being supplied to a drying chamber of the solar clothes dryer and thus the solar clothes dryer is effectively drying an object to be dried such as clothe(s), sock(s), glove(s), or etc.… within a shorter period of time. Thus, the solar clothes dryer operates in a more thermally efficient manner and thus benefits the consumer.
Regarding claim 9, Mangan as modified discloses wherein the heated air conduit (16, figs. 4C-E) (Judelson, 12, fig. 1) comprises a fresh air inlet (26, figs. 4C-E).
Regarding claim 11, Mangan as modified discloses further comprising an air distribution system (42, 39, figs. 4C, 4F).
Regarding claim 12, Mangan as modified discloses wherein the air distribution system (42, 39, figs. 4C, 4F) is a solar powered air distribution system (as shown in fig. 4C, the heating air of the items 42, 39 is heated by item 32 or sun light or solar light).
Regarding claim 13, Mangan as modified discloses wherein the solar clothes dryer (10, fig. 4A) further comprises at least one photovoltaic panel (13, figs. 4B-C, 4F, [0194]).
Regarding claim 14, Mangan as modified discloses further comprising a ultra violet light source (UV Light source, [0048]) configured to one or more of reduce, remove and eradicate harmful agents, on items positioned within the solar clothes dryer (10, fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 15, Mangan as modified discloses wherein the solar clothes dryer (10, fig. 4A) further comprises a solar powered radiator system (an electrical heater powered by a battery, solar cell, [0167]; battery 47, that can be recharged by the solar cell, [0181]; top-cap with solar cell 13, [0194]; solar cell 45, [0226]; figs. 4B-C, 4F; further, the electrical heater radiates heat, so the electrical heater is a heat radiator). (Application claim 15)
Regarding claim 21, Mangan as modified discloses wherein the solar powered radiator system (an electrical heater powered by a battery, solar cell, [0167]; battery 47, that can be recharged by the solar cell, [0181]; top-cap with solar cell 13, [0194]; solar cell 45, [0226]; figs. 4B-C, 4F; further, the electrical heater radiates heat, so the electrical heater is a heat radiator) is configured to run on demand (the solar powered radiator system of Mangan is run on demand when the solar clothes dryer 10 of Mangan is used or in demand for drying the clothes by placing the solar clothes dryer 10 outside under the sun; otherwise, the solar clothes dryer 10 of Mangan is placed inside when it is not used or not in demand; thus, the solar powered radiator system of Mangan is not run when it is not on demand). (Application claim 21). (Application claim 21)
Regarding claim 22, Mangan discloses wherein the solar powered radiator system (an electrical heater powered by a battery, solar cell, [0167]; battery 47, that can be recharged by the solar cell, [0181]; top-cap with solar cell 13, [0194]; solar cell 45, [0226]; figs. 4B-C, 4F; further, the electrical heater radiates heat, so the electrical heater is a heat radiator) is a closed loop system (during a drying operation, the solar powered radiator system of Magan should be a closed loop system in order to supply power to the electrical heater).
Regarding claim 23, Mangan discloses a method for drying clothes (figs. 4A-H) (clothes, [0179]) comprising:
placing clothes (clothes, [0179]) in a solar clothes dryer (10, fig. 4A),
wherein the solar clothes dryer (10, fig. 4A) comprises
an outer housing (23, fig. 4A) comprising a double sidewall (11, 15, fig. 4C) comprising an inner wall (15, fig. 4C) and an outer wall (11, fig. 4C) separated by a cavity (16, fig. 4C),
a solar powered air heater (11, 15, 16, figs 4C-E),
heating air (34, fig. 4C) with the solar powered air heater (11, 15, 16, figs 4C-E);
drying the clothes (clothes, [0179]) with the heated air (37, fig. 4C); and
exhausting (via item 25, fig. 4C) the heated air (37, fig. 4C).
Mangan does not disclose a heat recovery system comprising a heat conductor within the cavity,
wherein the heat conductor defines a barrier between an outer heating conduit and an inner exhaust air duct within the cavity, configured such that the heat conductor conducts heat from air in the inner exhaust air duct to air within the outer heating conduit;
wherein heat is recovered from the heated air with the heat recovery system before its exhaustion.
Judelson teaches a heat recovery system (Judelson, 24, 21, 22, fig. 1) comprising a heat conductor (Judelson, wall thickness of side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) within the cavity (Judelson, cavity between item 34 and item 11, fig. 1),
wherein the heat conductor (Judelson, wall thickness of side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) defines a barrier (Judelson, as shown in fig. 1) between an outer heating conduit (Judelson, 12, fig. 1) and an inner exhaust air duct (Judelson, 21, 22, fig. 1) within the cavity (Judelson, cavity between item 34 and item 11, fig. 1), configured such that the heat conductor (Judelson, wall thickness of side wall of item 22 at item 20, fig. 1) conducts heat from air in the inner exhaust air duct (Judelson, 22, fig. 1) to air within the outer heating conduit (Judelson, 12, fig. 1);
wherein heat is recovered from the heated air (Judelson, heated air inside items 21, 22, fig. 1) with the heat recovery system (Judelson, 24, 21, 22, fig. 1) before its exhaustion.
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 method for drying clothes of Mangan with a heat recovery system comprising a heat conductor within the cavity, wherein the heat conductor defines a barrier between an outer heating conduit and an inner exhaust air duct within the cavity, configured such that the heat conductor conducts heat from air in the inner exhaust air duct to air within the outer heating conduit; wherein heat is recovered from the heated air with the heat recovery system before its exhaustion, as taught by Judelson, for utilizing waste heat of exhaust air or recirculating air to heat a cool process drying air which would result in improving or increasing a temperature of the process drying air before being supplied to a drying chamber of the solar clothes dryer and thus the solar clothes dryer is effectively drying an object to be dried such as clothe(s), sock(s), glove(s), or etc.… within a shorter period of time. Thus, the solar clothes dryer operates in a more thermally efficient manner and thus benefits the consumer.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangan and Judelson as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Peet (US 6,216,359).
PNG
media_image18.png
626
374
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
594
416
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Mangan as modified discloses the limitations of the solar clothes dryer as claimed in Claim 7 above, but does not disclose wherein the heat conductor comprises aluminum.
Well-known in the art, Peet teaches wherein the heat conductor (Peet, conducting wall thickness of item 24, figs. 1, 2) comprises aluminum (Peet, “heat conductive material such as aluminum”, col. 3, lines 60-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the solar clothes dryer of Mangan with wherein the heat conductor comprises aluminum, as taught by Peet, for improving a heat transfer from a hot exhaust air or a hot recirculating air to a cool process drying air via the heat conducting wall thickness or the heat conductor during a drying process which would result in quickly heating the cool process drying air before being supplied to a drying chamber of the solar clothes dryer. Thus, the solar clothes dryer operates further more efficiently and thus benefits the consumer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 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 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed wherein the solar powered radiator system comprises:
an evacuated tube collector that heats fluid;
a fluid reservoir communicable with the evacuated tube collector; and
a radiator connected to the fluid reservoir;
wherein the solar powered radiator system being mountable in the solar clothes dryer.
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 Mangan as modified discloses “The solar clothes dryer as claimed in Claim 15”. However, Mangan does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the solar powered radiator system comprises: an evacuated tube collector that heats fluid; a fluid reservoir communicable with the evacuated tube collector; and a radiator connected to the fluid reservoir; wherein the solar powered radiator system being mountable in the solar clothes dryer”.
Therefore, allowance of claims 16-20 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the solar powered radiator system comprises: an evacuated tube collector that heats fluid; a fluid reservoir communicable with the evacuated tube collector; and a radiator connected to the fluid reservoir; wherein the solar powered radiator system being mountable in the solar clothes dryer” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claims 16-20.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
