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 first arguments:
PNG
media_image1.png
230
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s responses: In this case, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Paragraph [0055] of Specification of the instant application recites “Within a venting dryer 50, where blowing air 148 is utilized through the airflow path 24, the turbine 140 can be incorporated to provide additional functionality. In the venting dryer 50, the turbine 140 can be utilized for creating a separate flow of accessory process air 40 that can be in the form of an accessory blowing air 148 or an accessory suction air 150 that can be utilized by the various accessory tools 14. In various aspects of the device, the compressor wheel 162 can be positioned at or near the accessory port 10 for allowing a user to connect the accessory tool 14 with the blowing air 148 or the suction air 150 at the compressor wheel 162.” (UNDERLINE emphasis added) Furthermore, paragraph [0059] of Specification of the instant application recites “The laundry appliance 12 can also be in the form of a recirculating dryer 54. In this condition, as exemplified in FIGS. 15-16 and 20-20B, the accessory port 10 receives the interface 76 for the accessory tool 14 and operates the baffle 70, via the baffle actuator 80, for redirecting the process air 22. Again, the baffle 70 can define the standard state 72, where the process air 22 moves through the typical airflow path 24. When the baffle 70 is engaged by the accessory tool 14, the baffle 70 within the accessory port 10 creates a positive airflow path 120 for providing positive airflow 42 in the form of blowing air 148 into the accessory tool 14 and also creates a negative airflow path 122 that generates the negative airflow 44 in the form of suction air 150 for bringing fresh air 90 into the airflow path 24 for the laundry appliance 12 via the accessory tool 14. The positive airflow path 120 and the negative airflow path 122 can be used in the accessory tools 14 for providing blowing air 148 as well as suction air 150 or vacuum pressure for accomplishing various air-related tasks within and around the laundry appliance 12.” (UNDERLINE emphasis added)
PNG
media_image2.png
242
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
302
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
558
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Moreover, Fig. 20A of the instant application shows a standard state 72 of the baffle 70. In the Fig. 20A, a velocity force of the process air 22 applies on the baffle 70 which result in closing the opening of the accessory port 10. Fig. 20B of the instant application shows an accessory state 74. In the Fig. 20B, a velocity force of the suction air 150 applies on the baffle 70 which result in rotating the baffle 70 at a pivot point. In order for allowing the baffle 70 to rotate at the pivot point, the baffle 70 inherently has a pivot shaft or pin at the pivot point which is very well-known in the art. So, the process air 22 and the suction air 150 selectively bias the baffle 70. However, the process air 22 and the suction air 150 are not mechanical components. Thus, the baffle 70 acts as a bias mechanism to bias itself with the support of the pivot pin. Therefore, an interpretation of the baffle 70 and the pivot pin together creating the biasing mechanism is proper. Thus, the interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is proper and maintained.
Applicant’s second arguments:
PNG
media_image5.png
680
752
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
198
744
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
746
750
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
238
754
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
512
746
media_image9.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., an accessory port attached to the cabinet; and an accessory tool that is selectively inserted into the accessory port to selectively define a standard state that directs the process air away from the accessory airflow path and an accessory state characterized by the accessory tool defining the accessory airflow path, wherein the accessory port is positioned within the cabinet in each of the standard state and the accessory state) were not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). However, in this case, Brame still reads on the new limitations of the amended independent claim 11. See the updated detail rejection of the independent claim 11 below. Thus, the references of Brame, Ghadiali and Harvey still read on the amended independent claim 11 and claims 12 and 14-16. The rejection of claim 13 is withdrawn based on the applicant’s arguments of the independent claim 1 which are persuasive.
Applicant’s third arguments:
PNG
media_image10.png
166
752
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
506
746
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
130
746
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
514
752
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
236
750
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
202
742
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
734
744
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
234
748
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
640
744
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
66
746
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s responses: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s fourth arguments:
PNG
media_image20.png
374
748
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
126
742
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
172
638
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
200
642
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image24.png
256
638
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
204
750
media_image25.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., an accessory port attached to the cabinet and coupled with the recirculating airflow path; and wherein the accessory port is positioned within the cabinet in each of the standard state and the accessory state) were not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). However, in this case, Brame still reads on the new limitations of the amended independent claim 17. See the updated detail rejection of the independent claim 17 below. Thus, the references of Brame, Ghadiali and Harvey still read on the amended independent claim 17 and claims 18-19. The rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn based on the applicant’s arguments of the independent claim 1 which are persuasive.
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 “biasing mechanism” in claim 6 which has been interpreted to mean or include a baffle 70 and a pivot pin of the baffle 70. (Figs. 20A and 20B of the Specification)
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 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 § 102
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brame et al. (US 3,197,886; hereinafter Brame).
PNG
media_image26.png
698
430
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
698
435
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
757
469
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Brame shows a laundry appliance (1, fig. 1) comprising:
a processing chamber (interior chamber of item 14, fig. 2) positioned within a cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2);
a blower (51, figs. 2, 6) that delivers process air through an airflow path (airflow path from item 34 through items 35, 31, 30, 50, 55, figs. 2, 6) and to an exhaust port (55, fig. 6), wherein the airflow path (airflow path from item 34 through items 35, 31, 30, 50, 55, figs. 2, 6) includes the processing chamber (interior chamber of item 14, fig. 2);
an accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) attached to the cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2) (as shown in figs. 1-5, item 61 is formed in item 22 which is attached to the item 2 and disposed inside the item 2) and coupled with the airflow path (airflow path from item 34 through items 35, 31, 30, 50, 55, figs. 2, 6), wherein the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) selectively redirects the process air through an accessory airflow path (accessory airflow path from item 61 through items 7, 8, 9, figs. 1-6) to define accessory process air; and
an accessory tool (7, 8, 9, fig. 1) that is selectively inserted into the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) to selectively define a standard state (standard state when item 64 closes or seals item 61, figs. 2, 5) that directs the process air away from the accessory airflow path (accessory airflow path from item 61 through items 7, 8, 9, figs. 1-6) and an accessory state (accessory state when item 64 pivots away or opens item 61, figs. 3, 4) characterized by the accessory tool (7, 8, 9, fig. 1) defining the accessory airflow path (accessory airflow path from item 61 through items 7, 8, 9, figs. 1-6), wherein the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) is positioned within the cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2) (as shown in figs. 1-5, item 61 is formed in item 22 which is attached to the item 2 and disposed inside the item 2) in each of the standard state (standard state when item 64 closes or seals item 61, figs. 2, 5) and the accessory state (accessory state when item 64 pivots away or opens item 61, figs. 3, 4).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brame as applied to claim 11 above, and in view of Ghadiali (US 3,750,304).
PNG
media_image29.png
534
381
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Brame discloses wherein the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) includes an internal baffle (64, figs. 3, 4, 6) that is operable between the standard state (standard state when item 64 closes or seals item 61, figs. 2, 5) that directs the process air to an outside (via item 55, fig. 6) and the accessory state (accessory state when item 64 pivots away or opens item 61, figs. 3, 4) that redirects the process air to the accessory airflow path (accessory airflow path from item 61 through items 7, 8, 9, figs. 1-6) to define the accessory process air.
Brame does not disclose an internal baffle that is operable the standard state that directs the process air to the processing chamber.
Ghadiali teaches an internal baffle (Ghadiali, 34, figs. 1, 2) that is operable the standard state (Ghadiali, as shown in fig. 2, col. 3, line 33 through col. 4, line 9) that directs (Ghadiali, via items 30, 32, 16, figs. 1, 2) the process air to the processing chamber (Ghadiali, interior chamber of item 14, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the laundry appliance of Brame with the internal baffle that is operable the standard state that directs the process air to the processing chamber, as taught by Ghadiali, for mixing the high-temperature exhausted process air with the fresh air to become a hot or warm processing air mixture before being directed to the processing chamber which would result in reducing the power consumption of the heater. Thus, the power consumption cost is reduced and thus benefits the consumer.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brame as applied to claim 11 above, and in view of Harvey (US 3,357,109).
PNG
media_image30.png
252
376
media_image30.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image31.png
368
358
media_image31.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Brame discloses wherein the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) is positioned on a front-wall (22, figs. 1, 6) of the cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2) and the accessory tool (7, 8, 9, fig. 1) is coupled with a housing (60a, figs. 2-6) of the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6).
Brame does not disclose the accessory port is positioned on a sidewall of the cabinet.
Harvey teaches an accessory port (Harvey, 60, figs. 1, 2, col. 2, lines 60-64) is positioned on a sidewall (Harvey, right sidewall of outer housing or cabinet of item 10, figs. 1, 2) of the cabinet (Harvey, outer housing or cabinet of item 10, figs. 1, 2).
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 laundry appliance of Brame with the accessory port is positioned on a sidewall of the cabinet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Shifting the location of the accessory port does not modify the operation of the laundry appliance because the laundry appliance would still selectively supply or redirect the process air through the accessory port. Please note, Specification of the instant application does not disclose any criticality of the claim invention.
Regarding claim 15, Brame as modified discloses wherein the accessory tool (7, 8, 9, fig. 1) is an integral accessory tool (as shown in fig. 1) that is operably coupled to the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) to define the standard state (standard state when item 64 closes or seals item 61, figs. 2, 5) and the accessory state (accessory state when item 64 pivots away or opens item 61, figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 16, Brame as modified discloses wherein the integral accessory tool (7, 8, 9, fig. 1) includes at least one of a drying bar (12, 13, fig. 1), a drying wand, and an extendable hose.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brame et al. (US 3,197,886; hereinafter Brame) in view of Ghadiali (US 3,750,304).
PNG
media_image26.png
698
430
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
698
435
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
757
469
media_image28.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image29.png
534
381
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Brame discloses a laundry appliance (1, fig. 1) comprising:
a processing chamber (interior chamber of item 14, fig. 2) positioned within a cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2);
a blower (51, figs. 2, 6) that delivers process air through an airflow path (airflow path from item 34 through items 35, 31, 30, 50, 55, figs. 2, 6) that includes the processing chamber (interior chamber of item 14, fig. 2);
an accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) attached to the cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2) (as shown in figs. 1-5, item 61 is formed in item 22 which is attached to the item 2 and disposed inside the item 2) and coupled with the airflow path (airflow path from item 34 through items 35, 31, 30, 50, 55, figs. 2, 6), wherein the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) selectively redirects the process air through an accessory airflow path (accessory airflow path from item 61 through items 7, 8, 9, figs. 1-6) to define accessory process air; and
an accessory tool (7, 8, 9, fig. 1) that is incorporated into the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) and is operable between a standard state (standard state when item 64 closes or seals item 61, figs. 2, 5) that directs the process air to an outside (via item 55, fig. 6) and an accessory state (accessory state when item 64 pivots away or opens item 61, figs. 3, 4) that redirects the process air to the accessory airflow path (accessory airflow path from item 61 through items 7, 8, 9, figs. 1-6) to define the accessory process air, wherein the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) is positioned within the cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2) (as shown in figs. 1-5, item 61 is formed in item 22 which is attached to the item 2 and disposed inside the item 2) in each of the standard state (standard state when item 64 closes or seals item 61, figs. 2, 5) and the accessory state (accessory state when item 64 pivots away or opens item 61, figs. 3, 4).
Brame does not disclose a blower that delivers process air through a recirculating airflow path that includes the processing chamber; and a standard state directs the process air to the processing chamber.
Ghadiali teaches a blower (Ghadiali, 25, fig. 1) that delivers process air through a recirculating airflow path (Ghadiali, recirculating airflow path flowing through items 32, 16, 14, 12, 22, 26, 30, fig. 1) that includes the processing chamber (Ghadiali, interior chamber of item 14, fig. 1); and a standard state (Ghadiali, as shown in fig. 2, col. 3, line 33 through col. 4, line 9) directs (Ghadiali, via items 30, 32, 16, figs. 1, 2) the process air to the processing chamber (Ghadiali, interior chamber of item 14, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the laundry appliance of Brame with the blower that delivers process air through a recirculating airflow path that includes the processing chamber; and a standard state directs the process air to the processing chamber, as taught by Ghadiali, for mixing the high-temperature exhausted process air with the fresh air to become a hot or warm processing air mixture before being directed to the processing chamber which would result in reducing the power consumption of the heater. Thus, the power consumption cost is reduced and thus benefits the consumer.
Regarding claim 18, Brame as modified discloses wherein the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) includes an internal baffle (64, figs. 3, 4, 6) that is operable between the standard state (standard state when item 64 closes or seals item 61, figs. 2, 5) and the accessory state (accessory state when item 64 pivots away or opens item 61, figs. 3, 4), and wherein the internal baffle (64, figs. 3, 4, 6) is operable via the accessory tool (7, 8, 9, fig. 1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brame and Ghadiali as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Harvey (US 3,357,109).
PNG
media_image30.png
252
376
media_image30.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image31.png
368
358
media_image31.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Brame as modified discloses wherein the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) is disposed within a front-wall (22, figs. 1, 6) of the cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2).
Brame does not disclose the accessory port is positioned within a sidewall of the cabinet.
Harvey teaches an accessory port (Harvey, 60, figs. 1, 2, col. 2, lines 60-64) is positioned within a sidewall (Harvey, right sidewall of outer housing or cabinet of item 10, figs. 1, 2) of the cabinet (Harvey, outer housing or cabinet of item 10, figs. 1, 2).
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 laundry appliance of Brame with the accessory port is positioned on a sidewall of the cabinet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Shifting the location of the accessory port does not modify the operation of the laundry appliance because the laundry appliance would still selectively supply or redirect the process air through the accessory port. Please note, Specification of the instant application does not disclose any criticality of the claim invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed a laundry appliance comprising:
a processing chamber positioned within a cabinet;
a blower that delivers process air through an airflow path and through the processing chamber;
an accessory port attached to the cabinet and coupled with the airflow path, wherein the accessory port selectively redirects the process air through an accessory airflow path to define accessory process air, wherein the accessory airflow path includes a turbine that is rotationally operated by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine; and
an accessory tool that selectively engages the accessory port to define the accessory airflow path.
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 Brame et al. (US 3,197,886) discloses “A laundry appliance (1, fig. 1) comprising: a processing chamber (interior chamber of item 14, fig. 2) positioned within a cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2); a blower (51, figs. 2, 6) that delivers process air through an airflow path (airflow path from item 34 through items 35, 31, 30, 50, 55, figs. 2, 6) and through the processing chamber (interior chamber of item 14, fig. 2); an accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) positioned on an exterior surface of the cabinet (2, figs. 1, 2) and coupled with the airflow path (airflow path from item 34 through items 35, 31, 30, 50, 55, figs. 2, 6), wherein the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) selectively redirects the process air through an accessory airflow path (accessory airflow path from item 61 through items 7, 8, 9, figs. 1-6) to define accessory process air, ...; and an accessory tool (7, 8, 9, fig. 1) that selectively engages the accessory port (61, figs. 2, 6) to define the accessory airflow path (accessory airflow path from item 61 through items 7, 8, 9, figs. 1-6)”, citations added. Bae discloses an auxiliary airflow path (Bae, 250, fig. 9) includes a turbine (Bae, 240, fig. 9). Civanelle discloses “an accessory airflow path (Civanelle, accessory airflow path from item 18 through items 20, K and exit an air outlet of item A” when the item A” is selectively connected to item D, figs. 4, 5) includes a turbine (Civanelle, 18, fig. 5) …”, citations added. However, both Bae and Civanelle do not disclose that the turbine (Bae, 240, fig. 9) (Civanelle, 18, fig. 5) is rotationally operated or driven by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine. Thus, Brame in view of Bae or Civanelle does not disclose the limitations of “A laundry appliance comprising: … wherein the accessory airflow path includes a turbine that is rotationally operated by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine; …”.
Therefore, allowance of claims 1-10 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “A laundry appliance comprising: … wherein the accessory airflow path includes a turbine that is rotationally operated by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine; …” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claims 1-10.
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.”
Claims 13 and 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 13, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the laundry appliance of claim 11, wherein the accessory airflow path includes a turbine that is rotationally operated by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine, wherein the turbine is positioned within one of the cabinet proximate the accessory port and within the accessory tool.
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 Brame discloses “The laundry appliance of claim 11”. Civanelle discloses “an accessory airflow path (Civanelle, accessory airflow path from item 18 through items 20, K and exit an air outlet of item A” when the item A” is selectively connected to item D, figs. 4, 5) includes a turbine (Civanelle, 18, fig. 5) …, wherein the turbine (Civanelle, 18, fig. 5) is positioned within one of the cabinet proximate the accessory port and within the accessory tool (Civanelle, A”, fig. 5)”, citations added. However, Civanelle does not disclose that the turbine 18 is rotationally operated or driven by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine. Thus, Brame in view of Civanelle does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the accessory airflow path includes a turbine that is rotationally operated by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine”.
Therefore, allowance of claim 13 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the accessory airflow path includes a turbine that is rotationally operated by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 13.
As to claim 20, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the laundry appliance of claim 17, wherein the accessory airflow path includes a turbine that is rotationally operated by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine.
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 Brame in view of Ghadiali discloses “The laundry appliance of claim 17”. Civanelle discloses “an accessory airflow path (Civanelle, accessory airflow path from item 18 through items 20, K and exit an air outlet of item A” when the item A” is selectively connected to item D, figs. 4, 5) includes a turbine (Civanelle, 18, fig. 5) …”, citations added. However, Civanelle does not disclose that the turbine 18 is rotationally operated or driven by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine. Thus, Brame in view of Ghadiali and Civanelle does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the accessory airflow path includes a turbine that is rotationally operated by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine”.
Therefore, allowance of claim 20 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the accessory airflow path includes a turbine that is rotationally operated by the accessory process air to define a secondary airflow that is directed along a rotational axis of the turbine” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 20.
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