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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0095873, filed on 07/21/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/19/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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:
a molding member in claim 2
Three Prong Test:
Prong I: a molding member (Generic place holder)
Prong II: configured to integrate the first pipe and the heat wire member (Function)
Prong III: No structure
Regarding a molding member, the specification recites “[0008] The first pipe and the heat wire member may pass through the molding member, and the wire member may be disposed at a further inside of the molding member than the first pipe. [0009] The first pipe may include a heating area covered by the molding member and is formed to be spiral to surround the heat wire member. [0010] The molding member may be formed of at least one of aluminum, copper, gold, or silver.”. Furthermore, Figure 5 shows the heating member and first and second pipes within the molding member. The examiner interprets this language as a metal piece that contains the heating wire and pipes.
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 3 and 9 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 claim 3, the limitation of “wherein the heat wire member is disposed further inside of the molding member than the first pipe” seems unclear. While the specification repeats the language of the claim in ¶0008, the specification is silent on how this is achieved. Furthermore, Figure 3 shows the first end of the first pipe 201 wrapped around the heating wire and then between the heating wire leading to the first pipe 200. For at least these reasons the claim is unclear, for purposes of examination the examiner will interpret this claim as the first pipe and heating wire inside the molding member 420.
In claim 9, the limitation of “the recovery chamber is disposed at a side further up than the heater device.” seems unclear. the specification does not further clarify the language in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner what is meant by “further up”, the examiner will interpret this claims as the recovery chamber at any distance away from the heater.
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 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 1-3, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 211345264 U - Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Liu is directed towards an steam generating device. Liu does teach a recovery chamber (12) comprising a first inlet (11), a steam outlet (15), and a drain outlet (See Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
568
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu also teaches a first pipe configured to receive water through a first end of the first pipe (1) and which is connected at a second end of the first pipe to the first inlet (11) (Figure 1 shows a path following one pipe from the cold water inlet to the water vapor inlet.); a heater device configured to heat water moving through at least one of the first pipe (Figure 1 and [0020] Thick film heating tube, 8.).
Liu does not expressly teach a second inlet and a second pipe which is connected at a first end of the second pipe to the drain outlet and is connected at a second end of the second pipe to the second inlet.
Regarding a second inlet, “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.
Regarding a second pipe which is connected at a first end of the second pipe to the drain outlet and is connected at a second end of the second pipe to the second inlet, Liu in figure 1 shows the liquid going from the water-steam separator 12 through the heater pipes 7 and to an inlet at the top of the water-steam separator 12. The function of reheating liquid that was not made fully to vaper is achieved in both designs, the instant application and in Liu.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice a second pipe which is connected at a first end of the second pipe to the drain outlet and is connected at a second end of the second pipe to the second inlet, since the applicant has not disclosed that a second pipe which is connected at a first end of the second pipe to the drain outlet and is connected at a second end of the second pipe to the second inlet solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with a second pipe which is connected at a first end of the second pipe to the drain outlet and is connected at a second end of the second pipe to the second inlet.
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu does teach a heat wire member configured to dissipate heat ([0020] Thick film heating circuit,9.); and a molding member configured to integrate the first pipe and the heat wire member (See figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
858
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 2. Liu does teach the first pipe and the heat wire member pass through the molding member, and the heat wire member is disposed further inside of the molding member than the first pipe. (Figure 1 shows the heating member and the first pipe are within the molding member (shown in rejection of claim 2)).
Regarding claim 9, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Liu does teach the recovery chamber is disposed at a side further up than the heater device (Figure 1 shows the water-gas separator 12 is above the heater device.).
Regarding claim 12, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Liu does teach a water supply pump device configured to supply water to the first end of the first pipe ([0024] Specifically, the cold water inlet pipe between the cold water inlet 1 and the heating element inlet 5 is sequentially equipped with an inlet solenoid valve 2, a booster pump 3, and a flow switch 4. The connection between the return pipe and the cold water inlet pipe is located between the inlet solenoid valve 2 and the suction end of the booster pump 3.).
Regarding claim 13, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Liu does teach a recovery pump device configured to recover water from the first end of the first pipe ([0024] Specifically, the cold water inlet pipe between the cold water inlet 1 and the heating element inlet 5 is sequentially equipped with an inlet solenoid valve 2, a booster pump 3, and a flow switch 4. The connection between the return pipe and the cold water inlet pipe is located between the inlet solenoid valve 2 and the suction end of the booster pump 3.).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 211345264 U - Liu as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US 5237144 A - Iguchi.
Regarding claim 4, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 2. Liu does teach the first pipe comprises a heating area covered by the molding member (Figure 1 show a cover that incases the pipe and the heating elements.).
Liu does not expressly teach the first pipe is formed to be spiral to surround the heat wire member.
Iguchi is directed towards an induction heater. Iguchi does teach the first pipe is formed to be spiral to surround the heat wire member. (Figure 1 shows the water/steam pipe 3 coiled around a heating member 2)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include the first pipe is formed to be spiral to surround the heat wire member because coiling the pipe around the heating member of Iguchi in the steam system of Liu to increase the amount of surface area of the pipe that touches the heater in order to heat the liquid in the pipe more efficiently.
Regarding claim 14, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Liu does not expressly teach an insulation member configured to cover at least one outer surface between the recovery chamber and the heater device.
Iguchi does teach an insulation member configured to cover at least one outer surface between the recovery chamber and the heater device ([Col. 1 Ln. 54-62] Further, since an electric resistance heater, like the burning of gas, produces extraordinary temperature difference between the heating source and the water, inorganic and organic components contained in water are adsorbed to and accumulated on the heater surface and act as heat insulator, thus reducing the heat conductivity and retarding the boiling of the water. At the same time, heat radiation from the heater deteriorates).
The combination of the insulators on the heater of Iguchi with the steam device of Liu to isolate the heat from the heating element from the other components of the device to avoid unintended outcomes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include an insulation member configured to cover at least one outer surface between the recovery chamber and the heater device because the insulator of Iguchi allows the heat to be contained within the heating area of Liu to prevent heat radiation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 211345264 U - Liu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20080271608 A1 – Morin.
Regarding claim 5, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 2. Liu does not expressly teach the molding member is formed of at least one of aluminum, copper, gold, or silver.
Morin is directed towards a boiler for a brewing device. Morin does teach the molding member is formed of at least one of aluminum, copper, gold, or silver. ([0053] Body 20 is made of an aluminum alloy by injection in a mold)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include teach the molding member is formed of aluminum because the aluminum body of Morin in the steam device of Liu allows the even flow of the material throughout the mold (see Morin ¶0062).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 211345264 U - Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20110262119 A1 - Hsu.
Regarding claim 6, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Liu does not expressly teach the second pipe comprises a re-heating area to surround a side surface of the heater device.
Hsu is directed towards an steam generating device. Hsu does teach the second pipe comprises a re-heating area to surround a side surface of the heater device ([0020] FIG. 4 shows another embodiment of the pre-heat tube 101 which has a spiral tubular body 111 and spirally located around the body 60.).
The combination of the spiral pre-heating area of Hsu with the steam device of Liu will allow the second pipe to be wrapped around the heating element in order to reheat the liquid from the water-steam separator 12 of Liu.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include the second pipe comprises a re-heating area to surround a side surface of the heater device because the pipe wrapped around the heating device in order to heat the liquid of Lui to produce steam.
Regarding claim 7, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 6. Liu does not expressly teach wherein the re-heating area comprises a front end connected to the first end of the second pipe adjacently disposed with a lower surface of the heater device, and a rear end connected to the second end of the second pipe adjacently disposed with an upper surface of the heater device.
Hsu does teach the re-heating area comprises a front end connected to the first end of the second pipe adjacently disposed with a lower surface of the heater device, and a rear end connected to the second end of the second pipe adjacently disposed with an upper surface of the heater device (See figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
538
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include the first end of the second pipe adjacently disposed with a lower surface of the heater device, and a rear end connected to the second end of the second pipe adjacently disposed with an upper surface of the heater device because the first end and second end of Hsu allows the steam device of Liu to wrap around the heating element for reheating of the liquid that was not made into usable steam in the first pass.
Regarding claim 8, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 6. Liu and Hsu does not expressly teach the re-heating area is formed to be upwardly spiral with an angle of greater than or equal to three degrees and less than or equal to ten degrees.
Although Liu and Hsu does not expressly teach an upward spiral with an angle between three to ten degrees, it is well known in the art to have spirals in heating pipes to manage thermal expansion and prevent pipe warping, buckling, etc.
Hsu teaches the claimed invention except for the re-heating area is formed to be upwardly spiral with an angle of greater than or equal to three degrees and less than or equal to ten degrees. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the re-heating area is formed to be upwardly spiral with an angle of greater than or equal to three degrees and less than or equal to ten degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 211345264 U - Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060278630 A1 - Sung.
Regarding claim 10, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Liu does teach wherein the drain outlet is disposed at a lower surface of the recovery chamber (Figure 1 shows the drain pipe on the lower end of the water-gas separator 12).
Liu does not expressly teach the lower surface of the recovery chamber is formed to be downwardly inclined toward the drain outlet.
Sung is directed towards an steam generator. Sung does teach the lower surface of the recovery chamber is formed to be downwardly inclined toward the drain outlet ([Claim 11] the water tank is provided at an upper portion with a steam discharging pipe, and the barrier includes a horizontal section extending in parallel with the bottom surface of the water tank, and a slanted section extending from the horizontal section towards the steam discharging pipe.).
The combination of the slanted member of Sung with the water-gas separator of Liu to help separate the liquid from the gas in the water-gas separator tank to flow into the second pipe for reheating of the liquid to form steam.
Regarding claim 11, Liu does teach the limitations of claim 10. Liu and Sung does not expressly teach the lower surface of the recovery chamber is formed to be downwardly inclined with an angle of greater than or equal to two degrees and less than or equal to ten degrees.
Although Liu and Sung does not expressly teach a downward angle of two to ten degrees, it is known in the art to slant the bottom of a tank to promote draining.
Sung and Liu teaches the claimed invention except for the lower surface of the recovery chamber is formed to be downwardly inclined with an angle of greater than or equal to two degrees and less than or equal to ten degrees. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the lower surface of the recovery chamber is formed to be downwardly inclined with an angle of greater than or equal to two degrees and less than or equal to ten degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 211345264 U - Liu in view of US 20110030147 A1 - Yoo.
Regarding claim 15, Liu does teach a recovery chamber comprising a first inlet, a second inlet, a steam outlet, and a drain outlet, a first pipe configured to receive water through a first end of the first pipe and which is connected at a second end of the first pipe to the first inlet; a second pipe which is connected at a first end of the second pipe to the drain outlet and is connected at a second end of the second pipe to the second inlet; and a heater device configured to heat water moving through at least one of the first pipe and the second pipe. (Refer to rejection of claim 1).
Liu does not expressly teach a main body comprising a clothes care room and a machine room; and a steam generator disposed in the machine room and provided to supply steam to inside of the clothes care room.
Yoo is directed towards an clothes treating apparatus. Yoo does teach a main body comprising a clothes care room and a machine room ([0059] As shown in FIG. 1, the clothes treating apparatus 100 according to the present invention includes an accommodating space 10 in which clothes are received, and a mechanism compartment 20 which is disposed at a lower portion of the accommodating space 10 and is provided with various parts for removing creases, smells or moisture remained in the clothes by dehumidifying, heating of circulating air in the accommodating space 10.); and a steam generator disposed in the machine room and provided to supply steam to inside of the clothes care room ([0092] In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the steam spraying unit 50 through which steam supplied from the steam generator 25 is sprayed is described as a steam spraying unit. Although a plurality of steam spraying units 50 are installed at the bottom surface 12 of the accommodating space according to FIG. 1, however one steam spraying unit 50 will be explained for the sake of convenience, as shown in FIG. 2.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include a main body comprising a clothes care room and a machine room and a steam generator disposed in the machine room and provided to supply steam to inside of the clothes care room because the accommodating space (10) and the steam generator being located within the device allows the steam generator of Liu to be used to removes smells or moisture of the user clothes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights