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: Claim 1 recites “a housing” in Line 3 and “the dryer housing” in Line 11. The Office takes an assumption that they the same item. So the same name shall be used. 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 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant provide prior art US Patent Publication 2010/0031526 to Tuckett in view of US Patent Publication 2007/0062513 to Gagas.
In Reference to Claim 1
Tuckett discloses a dryer
Tuckett does not teach the detail of the blade
Gagas teaches the centrifugal impeller (20) having backwardly curved blades (Paragraph 14)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Gagas into the design of Tuckett. Doing so, would result in the backwardly curved blades being used as the impeller blade of Tuckett. Both inventions of Tuckett and Gagas have axial flow type impeller to draw air flow, Gagas teaches the backward blade is a
design with a high efficiency, high cubic foot per minute (CFM) operation (paragraph 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claims 5-11
Tuckett discloses a dryer.
The combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the detail size or the power level each component. According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In Reference to Claim 11
Tuckett discloses the adapter is a tree-like structure (As showed in Fig. 1) where the one or more outlets (Fig. 1, 11) are defined by the branches (As showed in Fig. 1) of the tree-like structure.
In Reference to Claims 13-14
Tuckett discloses the tree-like structure.
The combination of Tuckett and Gagas does not teach the detail size of opening.
According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In Reference to Claim 15
Tuckett teaches the adapter is formed as a coat hanger. (As showed in Fig. 1, the Tuckett discloses the mounting frame 12 with plurality of protrusions, it is obvious that those protrusion can be used to hang coat)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2010526579 (JP579) (The art rejection is made based on the respective English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claim 2
Tuckett teaches a ceramic heat (Fig. 3, 22) in the adapter, and it is controlled by the controller.
The combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the heater is in the dryer housing.
JP579 teaches a ceramic heater (Fig. 5, 17) provided between the inlet (Fig. 5, 2) and the outlet (Fig. 2, 6) in the housing (Fig. 5, 7)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from JP579 into the combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in the heater being positioned in the blower housing as being taught by Tuckett, since JP579 teaches an integrated design, so the heater and blower can be replaced as a single unit.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 2008/0222909 to Picozza.
In Reference to Claim 3
Tuckett discloses a dryer with a impeller type blower.
The combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to Claim 1 does not teach an ionizer.
Picozza teaches the blower unit can further function as an ionizer (Paragraph 34)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Picozza into the combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in an ionizer being included in the blower as being taught by Picozza. Both inventions of Tuckett and Picozza are in the same field of endeavor, Picozza teaches a an apparatus suitable for refreshing/cleaning, deodorizing, and/or drying cloth fabrics.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN207795634 to Lin (The art rejection is made based on the respective English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claim 4
Tuckett discloses the dryer assembly
The combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the driving details of the impeller.
Lin teaches a centrifugal impeller driven by a DC brushless moto.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Lin into the combination of Tuckett and Gagas as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in a DC brushless type motor being used to drive the centrifugal impeller, since a DC brushless type motor will improve the heat discharging efficiency.
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 2/26/26