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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first flow path and second flow path in line 13 fail to provide proper antecedent basis. Also, antecedent basis has to be corrected in lines 15 and 17 by replacing “a” with “the” or “said”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term circulate should be singular. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “a” in the second last line should be “an” to read an opening size. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the circulator in claims 1-23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cennon (US 2013/0118023).
As for claim 1, Cennon shows an object treatment apparatus comprising: a cabinet (12, fig. 1) having an inlet formed in a front surface thereof (14, fig. 1); a door coupled to the cabinet to open or close the inlet (22, fig. 1); a first chamber located inside the cabinet and accommodating an object put through the inlet (14, fig. 1, chamber inside); a second chamber located inside the cabinet and defining a space separated from the first chamber (84, fig. 1, space below in closed condition); a partition (29, fig. 1, [0037]) provided in the first chamber and partitioning the first chamber into a first object processing room facing the inlet (forward of 29, fig. 1, with unit in closed condition) and a second object processing room located behind the first object processing room (behind 29, fig. 1, with unit in closed condition); and a circulator disposed in the second chamber and circulating air of the first chamber (86, 88, 90, 92, vertical sections below 84), wherein the circulator includes a connection duct (80, 82, fig. 5, [0041]) provided with a circulation fan (68, 70, 64, 66, fig. 5) that circulates the air introduced into [a] first flow path (air below 84 and forward of partition 29) and [a] second flow path (air below 84 and behind partition 29), and air processor that at least one of heats or dehumidifies the air (246, 248, 242, 244, fig. 12, [0051]), wherein [the] first flow path (air below 84 and forward of partition 29) is provided between the circulator (86, 88, 90, 92, vertical sections below 84) and the first object treatment chamber (air above 84 and forward of partition 29), [the] second flow path (air below 84 and behind partition 29) is provided between the circulator (86, 88, 90, 92, vertical sections below 84) and the second object treatment chamber (air above 84 and behind partition 29), and the connection duct (80, 82, fig. 5, [0041]) is configured to communicate with at least one of the first flow path (air below 84 and forward of partition 29) or the second flow path (air below 84 and behind partition 29).
As for claim 2, Cennon shows a flow path converter configured to selectively allow at least one of the first flow path or the second flow path to pass to the connection duct (118, fig. 7, [0044]).
As for claim 3, Cennon shows the flow path converter includes a first converter (118, fig. 7, [0044]) provided upstream (118, fig. 7) of the connection duct (80, 82, fig. 5, [0041]), the first converter configured to allow at least one of the first flow path or the second flow path to pass to the connection duct (118, fig. 7, [0044]).
As for claim 5, Cennon shows the circulator further includes a third flow path to circulates the air introduced from at least one of the first flow path or the second flow path within the second chamber (86, 88, 90, 92, fig. 6, [0044]).
As for claim 6, Cennon shows a flow path converter configured to selectively allow at least one of the first flow path, the second flow path or the third flow path pass to the connection duct (118, fig. 7, [0044]).
As for claim 7, Cennon shows the first flow path and the second flow path are separated upstream of the connection duct (28, 30, fig. 1), and the first flow path, the second flow path, and the third flow path are separated (29, fig. 1, separates the first flow path and second flow path, 86, 88, 90, 92 separated from first flow and second flow by illustrated walls fig. 6) downstream of the connection duct (80, 82, fig. 5, [0041]).
As for claim 8, Cennon shows a first converter (116, fig. 7) disposed upstream of the connection duct (80, 82, fig. 5, [0041]), the first converter configured to allow at least one of the first flow path or the second flow path to pass to the connection duct (80, 82, fig. 5, [0041]) or configured to block at least one of the first flow path or the second flow path from the connection duct (116, fig. 7); and a second converter disposed downstream of the connection duct, the second converter configured to allow at least one of the first flow path, the second flow path, or the third flow path to pass through or exit from the connection duct (118, fig. 7, blocks third flow path).
As for claim 9, Cennon shows the object treatment apparatus is configured to control the flow path converter in at least one of a first circulation mode in which the first converter allows the first flow path to pass to the connection duct and the second converter allows the first flow path to exit from the connection duct, a second circulation mode in which the first converter allows the second flow path pass to the connection duct and the second converter allows the second flow path to exit from the connection duct, or a regenerative mode in which the first converter blocks the first flow path and the second flow path from the connection duct and the second converter allows the third flow path to circulate the air through the connection duct ([0044], a regenerative mode).
As for claim 21, Cennon shows an object treatment apparatus comprising: a cabinet (12) having an inlet formed in a front surface thereof (14, fig. 1); a door coupled to the cabinet to open or close the inlet (22, fig. 1); a first chamber located inside the cabinet and accommodating an object placed through the inlet (14, fig. 1, chamber inside); a second chamber located inside the cabinet and defining a space separated from the first chamber (84, fig. 1, space below in closed condition); a wall configured to move in at least one direction to spatially create a first object processing room and a second object processing room inside the first chamber (29, [0037]); and a circulator disposed in the second chamber and circulating air of the first chamber (86, 88, 90, 92, vertical sections below 84), the circulator having a connection duct (80, 82, fig. 5, [0041]) provided with a circulating fan (68, 70, 64, 66, fig. 5) configured to circulate air and an air processor configured to dehumidify air (246, 248, 242, 244, fig. 12, [0051]), wherein based on an operation of the circulating fan, at least one of a first air flow exists between the connection duct of the circulator and the first object processing room (air above 84 and forward of partition 29) or a second flow exists between the connection duct of the circulator and the second object processing room (air above 84 and behind partition 29).
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.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cennon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn (US 10,041,203).
Cennon discloses the claimed invention except for a replacement body provided with the air processor mounted thereon and configured to extend beyond the front surface of the cabinet. Ahn teaches a replacement body provided with the air processor mounted thereon and configured to extend beyond the front surface of the cabinet (100, fig. 2, 4:18-22) in order to facilitate easier maintenance of the heat pump. Cennon would benefit equally from facilitating easier maintenance of the heat pump. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cennon with a replacement body provided with the air processor mounted thereon and configured to extend beyond the front surface of the cabinet as taught by Ahn in order to facilitate easier maintenance of the heat pump.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cennon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pattarello (US 20212/0285037).
As for claim 17, Cennon discloses the claimed invention except for the door includes a door window provided to face the inlet and provided to be transmissive to allow viewing of an inside of the first object processing room. Pattarello teaches the door includes a door window provided to face the inlet and provided to be transmissive to allow viewing of an inside of the first object processing room (135, [0050]) in order to provide a clear view of the inside of the drying cabinet. Cennon would benefit equally from providing a clear view of the inside of the drying cabinet. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cennon with the door includes a door window provided to face the inlet and provided to be transmissive to allow viewing of an inside of the first object processing room as taught by Pattarello in order to provide a clear view of the inside of the drying cabinet.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cennon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 2012/0285037).
Cennon discloses the claimed invention except for the air processor includes a material that adsorbs and removes moisture or contaminants in air; wherein the air processor includes a porous material. Park teaches the air processor includes a material that adsorbs and removes moisture or contaminants in air ([0040], a filter); the air processor includes a material that adsorbs and removes moisture or contaminants in air; wherein the air processor includes a porous material (a filter is porous) in order to improve the quality of the processing air. Cennon would benefit equally from improving the quality of the processing air. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cennon with the air processor includes a material that adsorbs and removes moisture or contaminants in air; the air processor includes a material that adsorbs and removes moisture or contaminants in air; wherein the air processor includes a porous material as taught by Park in order to improve the quality of the processing air.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cennon in view of Park as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Park (US 2021/0040675), hereinafter Park ‘675.
Cennon discloses the claimed invention except for the air processor includes at least one of zeolite or activated carbon. Park ‘675 teaches the air processor includes a porous material [0056] in order to deodorize the processing air for increased consumer satisfaction. Cennon would benefit equally from deodorizing the processing air for increased consumer satisfaction. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Cennon with the air processor includes at least one of zeolite or activated carbon as taught by Park ‘675 in order to deodorize the processing air for increased consumer satisfaction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10-15 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.
Claims 22 and 23 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 4, 11 and 13 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the flow path converter includes a second converter provided downstream of the connection duct, the second converter configured to allow at least one of the first flow path or the second flow path to pass through or exit from the connection duct; and a first air port provided closer to the partition than the inlet, and a second air port having a width longer than the length in the front-to-back direction, the second flow path configured to pass between the second object processing room and the circulator through the second air port with all of the limitations of independent claim 1. There is little prior art of redundant treating chambers differentiated by volume, although there is prior art of disparate drying chambers to dry different object types such as a separate shoe drying chamber adjacent to a clothes/tumble dryer (such as Lim US 2009/0277037). The closest prior art is found in Cennon which discloses a second converter downstream of the connection duct but not configured to allow at least one of the first flow path or the second flow path to pass through or exit from the connection duct or a first air port provided closer to the partition than the inlet or a second air port having a width longer than the length in the front-to-back direction, the second flow path configured to pass between the second object processing room and the circulator through the second air port which all relate to a circulator that could not be found in the prior art.
Claims 10 and 22 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the third flow path includes a regenerative duct through which air of the connection duct circulates in the second chamber with all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 23 and dependent claims 5-7. While there is significant prior art for a flow path includes a regenerative duct through which air circulates through the second chamber (such as Maruca US 2007/0144032, fig. 5) but not the third flow path includes a regenerative duct through which air of the connection duct circulates in the second chamber with all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 23.
Claim 23 includes allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the second object processing room having a greater volume than the first object processing room; a first air port communicating with the first object processing room and connected to the connection duct, a second air port communicating with the second object processing room and connected to the connection duct, wherein an opening size of the second air port is greater than an opening size of the first air port. with all of the limitations of independent claim 23. As indicated above there is very little prior art for two processing chambers other than unrelated commercial laundry art. Claim 23 not only requires disparate size treating chambers but also requires air port sizing based on the disparate sized chambers which would not necessarily be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights