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 Fig. 3, claims 1-9 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/11/2026.
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: heating system in claims 1 and 18.
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.
Claims 1-9, 18-20 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.
For claims 1 and 18, claim limitation “heating system” 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure of a system that performs the function of heating in the claim. 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "other connected appliance" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "other connected appliance"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is also unclear what the claimed data from other connected appliance is.
Since claims 2-6, 8-9, 19-20 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency.
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 1-9, 18-20 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. For claims 1 and 18, claim limitation “heating system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification failed to disclose any structure of the heating system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bellinger et al. (US 2012/0096738 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bellinger et al. discloses a method of operating a dryer appliance 10, the dryer appliance 10 (Fig. 1) comprising a cabinet 12, a drum 28 rotatably mounted within the cabinet 12, the drum 28 defining a chamber 34 for the receipt of articles 36 for drying, and a heating system 42 fluidly coupled to the drum 28 whereby heated air flows from the heating system 42 to the chamber 34 of the drum 28 for drying of articles 36 within the chamber 34, the method comprising: receiving a user input comprising a timed dry cycle selection (paragraph [0024]); activating a timed dry cycle in response to the user input, the timed dry cycle configured to operate for an amount of time (paragraph [0026], lines 1-3); determining a notification window of the timed dry cycle before activating the timed dry cycle (paragraphs [0025], [0027], lines 3-5); activating the heating system 42 of the dryer appliance during the timed dry cycle of the dryer appliance (paragraph [0026], lines 5-7); calculating a drying time to reach a pre-determined dryness threshold (paragraph [0030], lines 2-4, and lines 10-15); comparing the calculated drying time to a remaining time of the timed drying cycle (paragraph [0030], lines 4-8). As for the step “providing a user notification when the calculated drying time exceeds the remaining time of the cycle”, this step is conditioned on the calculated drying time exceeds the remaining time of the cycle. When the calculated drying time does not exceed the remaining time of the cycle, the performance of providing a user notification recited by this contingent step need not be carried out.
Regarding claims 2-3, Bellinger et al. discloses extending the timed dry cycle via the user notification; wherein extending the dry time comprises extending the timed dry cycle by a flat amount of time, the flat amount of time depending on the calculated drying time (paragraphs [0030], [0031]).
Regarding claim 4-5, Bellinger et al. discloses monitoring remaining moisture content throughout the timed dry cycle (by moisture sensor 50), wherein the calculated drying time is a known drying time when the remaining moisture content reaches a predetermined threshold prior to the notification window; wherein the calculated drying time is a forecasted drying time when the remaining moisture content is greater than a predetermined threshold at the notification window (paragraph [0030], lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 6, Bellinger et al. discloses wherein the forecasted drying time is based on at least one of a moisture score and a progression of a moisture sensor signal (paragraph [0030], 10%-15% of moisture content).
regarding claim 9, Bellinger et al. discloses wherein the predetermined threshold comprises a moisture score of no more than twenty percent (paragraph [0030], 10%-15% of moisture content).
Regarding claim 18, Bellinger et al. discloses a method of operating a dryer appliance 10, the dryer appliance 10 (Fig. 1) comprising a cabinet 12, a drum 28 rotatably mounted within the cabinet 12, the drum 28 defining a chamber 34 for the receipt of articles 36 for drying, and a heating system 42 fluidly coupled to the drum 28 whereby heated air flows from the heating system 42 to the chamber 34 of the drum 28 for drying of articles 36 within the chamber 34, the method comprising: receiving a user input comprising a timed dry cycle selection (paragraph [0024]); activating a timed dry cycle in response to the user input, the timed dry cycle configured to operate for an amount of time (paragraph [0026], lines 1-3); determining a notification window of the timed dry cycle before activating the timed dry cycle (paragraphs [0025], [0027], lines 3-5); activating the heating system 42 of the dryer appliance during the timed dry cycle of the dryer appliance (paragraph [0026], lines 5-7); calculating a drying time to reach a pre-determined dryness threshold (paragraph [0030], lines 2-4, and lines 10-15); comparing the calculated drying time to a remaining time of the timed drying cycle (paragraph [0030], lines 4-8); and providing a user notification based on the comparison of the calculated drying time and the remaining time of the cycle (paragraph [0031], last two lines).
Regarding claim 19, Bellinger et al. discloses adjusting the timed dry cycle via the user notification (paragraph [0031], last two lines).
Regarding claim 20, the terminating the timed dry cycle step is conditioned on the calculated drying time exceeds the remaining time of the timed drying cycle, and the extending the timed dry cycle step is conditioned on the remaining time of the timed drying cycle exceeds the calculated drying time. When remaining time of the timed drying cycle does not exceed the calculated drying time and when the calculated drying time does not exceed the remaining time of the timed drying cycle, the performances of terminating the timed dry cycle and extending the timed dry cycle recited by these contingent steps need not be carried out.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights