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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 12 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7 and 18 recite “normal ignition state” in Line 4 and “ignition failure state” in Line 5, Claim 12 recites “the ignition source” It shall be “the normal ignition state” and “the ignition failure state”, and “an ignition source” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2022/0106731 to Reeves et al (Reeves).
In Reference to Claim 1
Reeves discloses a dryer appliance comprising: a cabinet (Fig. 2, 12); a drum (Fig. 2, 26) rotatably mounted within the cabinet, the drum defining a chamber for the receipt of laundry articles for drying; a heating system (Fig. 2, 40) configured in fluid communication with the chamber at the drum, the heating system comprising an ignition source (Paragraph 23, a gas burner) configured to ignite gaseous fuel for heating air provided to the chamber for drying laundry articles; a temperature sensor (Fig. 2, 43), the system monitor the temperature positioned downstream of the ignition source, the temperature sensor configured to determine temperature of air in fluid communication with the chamber at the drum (Since the temperature sensor is at the exhaust, it is at downstream of the ignition and fluid communicate with the drum); and a controller(Fig. 2, 56) configured to store instructions that, when executed, causes the dryer appliance to perform operations, the operations comprising: measuring, via the temperature sensor (Fig. 2, 47), temperature of air for drying laundry articles; transmitting a first control signal for operating the ignition source to generate heat for heating air for drying laundry articles; measuring, via the temperature sensor and over a period of time following transmission of the control signal (Paragraph 8, since the system monitor a temperature and determine the temperature gradient, the temperature is measured over a period of time), temperature of air for drying laundry articles; and determining an operational state of the heating system based on measuring the temperature of air (Step 310, and 312, shows a determination process), wherein the operational state comprises a normal ignition state or an ignition failure state (As showed the step 312, the monitoring is based on the temperature gradient), wherein the normal ignition state corresponds to an increase in temperature of air during the period of time,
Reeves discloses the failure is decided based on the negative temperature gradient.
Reeves does not teach the failure is determined based on a zero gradient which is unchanged.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters of values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. As such, the Office considers that Reeves teaches that the failure status can be determined based on the unchanged temperature of air.
In Reference to Claim 2
Reeves discloses transmitting a second control signal to discontinue the dryer cycle when ignition failure state is determined. (Step 312, the system sent signal once the temperature gradient is found to be negative)
In Reference to Claim 3
Reeves discloses transmitting a communication signal corresponding to ignition failure. (According to specification, a communication signal was sent when a unchanged heat which is a result of the ignition failure. Therefore, the signal was sent based on the temperature gradient. Since Reeves’s system send an alarm when the gradient is negative which obviously caused by a malfunction of the ignition system).
In Reference to Claim 4
Reeves discloses determining the operational state of the heating system comprises determining, via the temperature sensor, a maximum temperature within the period of time. (Paragraph 7, the system measure a peak temperature)
In Reference to Claim 5
Reeves discloses the operational state of the heating system comprises determining, via the temperature sensor, a maximum temperature after the period of time. (As showed in Fig. 3, the system store a peak value at Step 206, and store a second peak value at Step 214)
In Reference to Claim 6
Reeves discloses obtaining a rolling average of temperature over the period of time (The Office considers that the rolling average is determined by the time period, since Reeves discloses the gradient is calculated and stored, if the time period for gradient calculation is the same as the sampling time frame for rolling average calculation, the rolling average would the same as the gradient)
In Reference to Claim 7
Reeves discloses determining the operational state of the heating system comprises determining whether the rolling average of temperature over the period of time exceeds a threshold temperature, (Fig. 4, Step 312, as explain in Claim 6, the Office considers that the rolling average is equivalent to the gradient. Reeves discloses compare the temperature gradient over a period of time) wherein exceeding the threshold temperature corresponds to normal ignition state, and wherein ignition failure state corresponds to the rolling average temperature below the threshold temperature. (According to specification, a communication signal was sent when a unchanged heat which is a result of the ignition failure. Therefore, the signal was sent based on the temperature gradient. Since Reeves’s system send an alarm when the gradient is negative which obviously caused by a malfunction of the ignition system).
In Reference to Claims 8-10
Reeves discloses the obtain the temperature gradient over a period of time, the comparing the temperature gradient.
Reeves does not teach the time interval.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters of values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. A person with ordinary skill in the art will determine the time frame of sampling temperature.
In Reference to Claim 11
Reeves discloses measuring the temperature of air for drying laundry articles comprises obtaining an air temperature prior to (Fig. 3, Step 202) transmitting the first control signal (Fig. 3, 206), and wherein the operations comprise: comparing the measured temperature of air to a temperature range to determine a functional state of the temperature sensor (Fig. 3, 216).
In Reference to Claim 12
Reeves a computer-implemented method for operating a dryer appliance, the method comprising: measuring temperature (Fig. 2, 43) of air for drying laundry articles; transmitting a first control signal (Fig. 3, Step 202) for operating the ignition source to generate heat for heating air for drying laundry articles; measuring, over a period of time following transmission of the control signal (Fig. 3, Step 204), temperature of air for drying laundry articles; and determining an operational state of the heating system based on measuring the temperature of air (Fig. 2, Step 208-214), wherein the operational state comprises a normal ignition state or an ignition failure state, wherein the normal ignition state corresponds to an increase in temperature of air during the period of time, and wherein the ignition failure state corresponds to a substantially unchanged temperature of air. (Fig. 2, Step 216)
Reeves discloses the failure is decided based on the negative temperature gradient.
Reeves does not teach the failure is determined based on a zero gradient which is unchanged.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters of values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. As such, the Office considers that Reeves teaches that the failure status can be determined based on the unchanged temperature of air.
In Reference to Claim 13
Reeves discloses transmitting a second control signal to discontinue the dryer cycle when ignition failure is determined. (Paragraph 3, the control system which monitor temperature within the dryer appliance and deactivate the one or more heating element)
In Reference to Claim 14
Reeves discloses transmitting a communication signal corresponding to ignition failure. (According to specification, a communication signal was sent when a unchanged heat which is a result of the ignition failure. Therefore, the signal was sent based on the temperature gradient. Since Reeves’s system send an alarm when the gradient is negative which obviously caused by a malfunction of the ignition system).
In Reference to Claim 15
Reeves discloses determining the operational state of the heating system comprises determining, via the temperature sensor, a maximum temperature within the period of time. (Paragraph 7, the system measure a peak temperature)
In Reference to Claim 16
Reeves discloses the operational state of the heating system comprises determining, via the temperature sensor, a maximum temperature after the period of time. (As showed in Fig. 3, the system store a peak value at Step 206, and store a second peak value at Step 214)
In Reference to Claim 17
Reeves discloses obtaining a rolling average of temperature over the period of time (The Office considers that the rolling average is determined by the time period, since Reeves discloses the gradient is calculated and stored, if the time period for gradient calculation is the same as the sampling time frame for rolling average calculation, the rolling average would the same as the gradient)
In Reference to Claim 18
Reeves discloses determining the operational state of the heating system comprises determining whether the rolling average of temperature over the period of time exceeds a threshold temperature, (Fig. 4, Step 312, as explain in Claim 6, the Office considers that the rolling average is equivalent to the gradient. Reeves discloses compare the temperature gradient over a period of time) wherein exceeding the threshold temperature corresponds to normal ignition state, and wherein ignition failure state corresponds to the rolling average temperature below the threshold temperature. (According to specification, a communication signal was sent when a unchanged heat which is a result of the ignition failure. Therefore, the signal was sent based on the temperature gradient. Since Reeves’s system send an alarm when the gradient is negative which obviously caused by a malfunction of the ignition system).
In Reference to Claim 19
Reeves discloses the obtain the temperature gradient over a period of time, the comparing the temperature gradient.
Reeves does not teach the time interval.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters of values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. A person with ordinary skill in the art will determine the time frame of sampling temperature.
In Reference to Claim 20
Reeves discloses the obtain the temperature gradient over a period of time, the comparing the temperature gradient.
Reeves does not teach the time interval.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters of values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. A person with ordinary skill in the art will determine the time frame of sampling temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 6/30/26
Prosecution Insights