DETAILED ACTION
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: “hot wind supplying device” in claims 1, 4, 5, and 15.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20060120761 A to Ahn et al. (Ahn).
In reference to independent claim 1, Ahn discloses:
A dryer apparatus (10) comprising:
a drum (15) configured to accommodate subjects to be dried;
a dryness sensor (30) configured to sense a humidity (30 is a humidity sensor) of the subjects to be dried;
a hot wind supplying device (17, 18, 19) configured to provide hot wind to the drum (when the heater 18 is operated while the drying fan 19 is driven, hot dry air is introduced into the drying drum 15 via drying duct 17); and
at least one processor (“controller” and “microcomputer”, not shown, and control panel 14) configured to:
based on a user input (at step ST111, the user inputs the steam drying course through the input unit on the control panel 14) for a predetermined drying cycle being acquired, acquire a humidity value of the subjects to be dried through the dryness sensor (at step ST114),
based on the humidity value of the subjects to be dried being less than a threshold value cycle (the detected humidity value is compared with the humidity value set in the microcomputer at step ST115), perform a washing pre-processing (if the humidity value detected by the humidity sensor 30 is less than the set humidity steam injection continues), and
based on the humidity value of the subjects to be dried being greater than or equal to the threshold value (see step ST116), control the hot wind supplying device to perform the predetermined drying cycle (at step ST117, when the detected humidity value is greater than the set humidity, heater 18 is operated, and at the same time, drying fan 19 flows heated air into the drying drum 15),
wherein the washing pre-processing cycle comprises a cycle of providing liquid to the drum (Steam injection is performed if the humidity value detected by the humidity sensor 30 is less than the set humidity. Since the injected steam would be at a higher temperature than the drum and the clothes therein, the steam would necessarily condense, thus providing a liquid to the drum and its contents).
Independent claim 11 recites a method that includes the same technical features addressed in claim 1 and is, thus, anticipated by Ahn.
In reference to dependent claims 3 and 13, Ahn further discloses: a liquid spray nozzle (120; see Fig. 4), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on the humidity value of the subjects to be dried being less than the threshold value (at step ST115), control the liquid spray nozzle to provide liquid to the drum (if the humidity value detected by the humidity sensor 30 is less than the set humidity steam injection continues).
In reference to dependent claim 10, Ahn further discloses: the predetermined drying cycle is a cycle for performing a function related to a pet (the dryer of Ahn is a laundry dryer, i.e. it can be used to dry laundry from a pet).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-9, 12, 14, and 15 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:
In reference to claims 2 and 12, Ahn further discloses a driving motor configured (20) to rotate the drum (15) (by spinning belt 16). However, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the at least one processor being configured to: based on the humidity value of the subjects to be dried being less than the threshold value, control a driving cycle of the driving motor to perform the cycle of rotating the drum and a cycle of stopping the rotation of the drum.
In reference to claims 4 and 14, a temperature sensor for sending a temperature value inside the drum is well-known in the prior art. However, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the at least one processor being configured to: based on the humidity value of the subjects to be dried being less than the threshold value, control the hot wind supplying device to provide hot wind to the drum based on the temperature value acquired through the temperature sensor and the threshold temperature information.
In reference to claim 6, Ahn further discloses the hot wind supplying device comprises: a first heater and a second heater (18; see Fig. 1). However, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the first and second heaters having different heat capacities, and the at least one processor is configured to: perform the washing pre-processing cycle by using the first heater, and perform the predetermined drying cycle by using the second heater.
In reference to claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the predetermined drying cycle comprises: a first drying cycle performed based on first temperature information, a second drying cycle performed based on second temperature information, and a third drying cycle performed based on third temperature information, a temperature value of the second temperature information is less than a temperature value of the first temperature information, and a temperature value of the third temperature information is less than the temperature value of the first temperature information and is more than the temperature value of the second temperature information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the interpretation of the limitation “hot wind supplying device” under 35 USC 112(f), Applicant argued (see page 9 of the filed Response) that the Specification defines the “hot wind supplying device” as a heater and that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this device as any device that heats air, and that the Specification does not use “hot wind supplying device” as a nonce term.
As set forth above and previously in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 13, 2026, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test defined in MPEP § 2181 are to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Claim limitation “hot wind supplying device” includes a generic placeholder “device” that is a substitute for “means”. See MPEP § 2181(I)(A). Moreover, the term “device” is modified by functional language “hot wind supplying”, i.e. the device for supplying hot wind. And finally, the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the function of supplying hot wind. Therefore, the limitation “hot wind supplying device” meets all the standards required by the three prongs and is thus properly interpreted under 35 UCS 112(f).
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “hot wind supplying device” is the structure disclosed in the specification as a heater and equivalents. As such, claim limitation “hot wind supplying device” is definite. The disclosure of the structure of the “hot wind supplying device” as a heater, however, does not preclude the interpretation of the claim limitation under 35 USC 112(f).
Regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 11 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), Applicant argued that the prior art Ahn discloses “a cycle of providing moisture to a drum” in the form of steam injection and thus does not disclose providing liquid to the drum (see page 10 of the filed Response). As discussed in the rejection(s) above, the injected steam of Ahn, when added to the drum, would clearly condense into liquid form as the drum as well as the clothes contained therein would be at a lower temperature than the hot steam. Hence, Ahn indeed discloses providing liquid into the drum and thus anticipates claims 1 and 11.
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 Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
