DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 12/29/2023 & 07/13/2026. Claim(s) 27–52 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 27–31 & 34–38 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a significant search burden on the examiner. Applicant’s argument not persuasive because examiners are allotted only a limited amount of time for searching per application. Examining too many claims at a time degrades the quality of examination, especially when the claims diverge as to allegedly patentable aspects of the invention, as is the case when multiple species are present. In ¶ 0059 of the printed publication, Fig. 12 is described as “an embodiment;” Fig. 13 is described as “an additional embodiment;” and Fig. 15 is described as “a control method” that is not necessarily performed on the apparatus of either of Figs. 12 or 13. Applicant is reminded that, should the elected species be determined to be patentable, the remaining species can be rejoined and allowed if they depend from an allowable claim or contain the same allowable subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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: “a manipulation portion…configured to receive a confirmation intention of a user” in claim 37, which has been interpreted to mean “a rotary knob with a display portion disposed inside thereof.”
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
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) 27–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10-2018-219364 to Bömmels et al (citations are directed to the attached machine translation).
With regard to claim 27, Bömmels discloses a laundry treating apparatus (abstract) comprising: a cabinet (1) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0047); a drum (3) received in the cabinet (1) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0047), the drum (3) being configured to accommodate laundry therein (Fig. 1; ¶ 0047); a driver (18) configured to rotate the drum (3) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0057); a circulation flow path (2) in communication with the drum (3) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0048), the circulation flow path (2) including a space for air in the drum (3) to be circulated or for moisture contained in the air to be condensed (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0048–0049); a heat exchanger assembly including: a heat exchanger (4) provided in the circulation flow path (2) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0049), the heat exchanger (4) being configured to condense the moisture contained in the air or to heat the air (Fig. 1; ¶ 0049); and a compressor (13) configured to supply a refrigerant to the heat exchanger (4) (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0047, 0049), the refrigerant exchanging heat with the air (Fig. 1; ¶ 0049); a water storage tank (8) configured to collect the condensed water or to receive water from outside the cabinet (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0039, 0049, 0054); a pump (19) in communication with the water storage tank (12) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0052), the pump (19) being configured to supply the water from the water storage tank (12) to the heat exchanger (4) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0052); and a display portion (24) configured to display operation information of the pump (19) to the outside based on operation of the pump (19) and water supplied to the heat exchanger (4) (¶¶ 0042, 0050, 0056).
With regard to claim 28, Bömmels further discloses the operation information includes a wash phrase indicating a state of the heat exchanger (4) being washed by the water (¶¶ 0042, 0050, 0056).
With regard to claim 29, Bömmels further discloses the operation information includes an operation phrase indicating a state of the pump being operated (¶¶ 0042, 0050, 0056).
With regard to claim 30, Bömmels further discloses the operation information further includes a noise phrase indicating a noise generation state of the pump (19) (¶¶ 0042, 0050, 0056; indicating that the pump was operating would also inherently indicate that the pump was making noise).
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 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.
Claims 31 & 35–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bömmels.
With regard to claim 31, Bömmels further discloses the operation information includes: a wash phrase indicating a state of the heat exchanger (4) being washed by the water (¶¶ 0042, 0050, 0056); an operation phrase indicating a state of the pump (19) being operated (¶¶ 0042, 0050, 0056); and a noise phrase indicating a noise generation state of the pump (19) (¶¶ 0042, 0050, 0056; indicating that the pump was operating would also inherently indicate that the pump was making noise.
Bömmels fails to explicitly discloses the display portion is configured to alternately display at least two among the wash phrase, the operation phrase, and the noise phrase. The number of displayed conditions is a known results-effective variable because the greater the number of displayed conditions, the more information that is conveyed to the operator but the more likely that the user may be overwhelmed by unnecessary information. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to alternately display two operation parameters at a time, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 35, Bömmels further discloses the display portion is configured to stop the display of the operation information in response to the operation of the pump being completed (¶¶ 0042, 0050, 0056; once operating parameters are concluded, it would be necessary to remove that information from the display; otherwise, it would be displaying inaccurate information).
With regard to claim 36, Bömmels fails to explicitly disclose the display portion is configured to display the operation information for a specific time after the operation of the pump is completed. Adding a delay between the conclusion of a notification of an action and the conclusion of that action would have been a design choice well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a delay between the conclusion of the notification that pump was operating and the actual conclusion of pump operation would have the added benefit of giving a user time to determine whether to cancel the cleaning action.
Claims 37–38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bömmels in view of US 2016/0201248 to Kim et al.
With regard to claim 37, Bömmels fails to disclose a manipulation portion coupled to the cabinet, the manipulation portion being configured to receive a confirmation intention of a user, wherein the display portion is configured to stop the display of the operation information in response to the confirmation intention being input to the manipulation portion. Kim teaches a manipulation portion (112) coupled to the cabinet (101) (Figs. 1 & 5; ¶ 0104), the manipulation portion (112) being configured to receive a confirmation intention of a user (¶¶ 0104, 0110), wherein the display portion (115) is configured to stop the display of the operation information in response to the confirmation intention being input to the manipulation portion (112) (¶¶ 0104, 0110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dryer of Bömmels with the control knob and display of Kim because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing a user to select a desired action and to receive information regarding the operational status of the device.
With regard to claim 38 Bömmels as previously combined with Kim further discloses the manipulation portion includes a rotary knob (Kim: 112) rotatably coupled to the cabinet (Kim: 101) (Kim: Figs. 1 & 5; ¶ 0104), the rotary knob (Kim: 112) being configured to select a course or an option capable of rotating the drum (Kim: ¶¶ 0104, 0110).
Bömmels as previously combined with Kim fails to disclose the display portion is disposed inside the rotary knob. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the display portion inside the rotary knob, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Evidence of one of ordinary skill in the art being able to dispose a display portion inside a rotary knob is provided by Nest® thermostats, which have been known since at least 2011.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
July 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights