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 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, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2006/0179896 to Lim in view of KR2019/0096496 to Kwon (The art rejection is made based on the respective English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claim 1
Lim discloses a laundry appliance comprising: a cabinet (Fig. 3A, annotated by the examiner); a tub (Fig. 3A, 50) positioned within the cabinet, the tub defining a tub outlet and a tub inlet (As showed in Fig. 1A); a laundry basket (Fig. 3A, 20) rotatably mounted within the tub, the laundry basket defining a chamber (As showed in Fig. 3A, the chamber surrounded by basket 20) for receipt of articles for washing or drying; a motor (Fig. 1A, 44) mounted within the cabinet; and an impeller (Fig. 1A, 41) in mechanical communication with the motor to motivate rotation of the impeller about an axial direction, the impeller being rotatable along a rotational direction about the axial direction (As showed in Fig. 1A) to urge a flow of air (As showed in Fig. 3A, the flow of air marked by arrow, the Office considers that the air flow is circulated (urge) by impeller) from the chamber of the laundry basket.
PNG
media_image1.png
608
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lim does not teach the detail of the impeller
Kwon teaches the impeller comprising a baseplate (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner), and a plurality of radially accurate vanes (Fig. 8, 110) supported on the baseplate, the plurality of radially arcuate vanes each extending rearward relative to the rotational direction from an inner end (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) proximal to the axial direction to an outer end (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) distal to the axial direction; and a housing (Fig. 8, 30), the housing defining a housing cavity (Fig. 8, as showed) within which the impeller is positioned, an entrance upstream (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) from the impeller to permit air thereto, a cutoff (Fig. 8, 34) disposed above the impeller, and a transition duct (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) extending between the cutoff and an exhaust exit (Fig. 8, 32) of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching from Kwon. Doing so, would result in the air blower design of Kwon being used in the air duct of Lim. Both inventions of Kwon and Lim having impeller type air blower to move air flow, Kwon teaches an air blower design can effectively reduce blade pass frequency and noise.
In Reference to Claims 3 and 4
The combination of Lim and Kwon as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the relative size between the blade and the cutoff.
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 5
Lim discloses the impeller having an impeller guide (Fig. 3A, annotated by the examiner)
Lim does not teach the detail of the impeller.
Kwon teaches the impeller defines an impeller outlet (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) and an impeller width (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) along the axial direction at the impeller outlet, wherein the housing further comprises an impeller guide (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) extending about the impeller within the housing cavity and radially inward from the cutoff,
The combination of Kim and Kwon as applied to Claim 5 does not teach the guide outlet having a GO width less than the impeller width.
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 Claims 6, 7
Lim discloses the impeller to move the air in the air duct.
Lim does not teach the detail of the impeller.
Kwon teaches the impeller defines an impeller inlet (Fig. 6, 21) extending concentrically with the entrance along the axial direction, and wherein the housing further comprises an interior lip (Fig. 6, annotated by the examiner) extending axially along the entrance into the impeller inlet.
the impeller further comprises a faceplate (Fig. 6, 12) supported on the plurality of radially arcuate vanes opposite of the baseplate, the faceplate extending radially from an inner edge proximal to the axial direction to an outer edge distal to the axial direction.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching from Kwon. Doing so, would result in the air blower design of Kwon being used in the air duct of Lim. Both inventions of Kwon and Lim having impeller type air blower to move air flow, Kwon teaches an air blower design can effectively reduce blade pass frequency and noise.
PNG
media_image2.png
520
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
487
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lim and Kwon as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent3,217,976 to Downs.
In Reference to Claims 8 and 9
The combination of Lim and Kwon as applied to Claim 7 teaches the impeller type air blower.
The combination of Lim and Kwon as applied to Claim 7 does not teach the detail of the blade and the top cover of the blade.
Downs teaches a maximum impeller (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) width along the axial direction at the inner edge and a minimum impeller width (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) along the axial direction at the outer edge.
PNG
media_image4.png
517
505
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the faceplate defines a curved outer surface (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner), wherein the housing further comprises a front panel defining an inner panel surface directed toward the impeller, and wherein the inner panel surface is complementary to the curved outer surface.
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 Downs into the combination of Lim and Kwon as applied to Claim 7. Doing so, would result in the blade and the cover design of Downs being used in the blower design of Lim. Lim has the impeller blower to move the air flow in the air duct, Downs teaches an impeller design to remove the discharge turbulence, so the efficiency of the impeller would be improved.
Claims 10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 2021/0062400 to Yu in view of Kwon.
In Reference to Claim 10
Yu discloses a ventilation assembly for a laundry appliance, the ventilation assembly comprising: a motor (Fig. 10, 114); and an impeller (Fig. 10, 110) in mechanical communication with the motor to motivate rotation of the impeller about an axial direction, the impeller being rotatable along a rotational direction about the axial direction to urge a flow of air, the impeller comprising a baseplate (Fig. 10, annotated by the examiner), and a plurality of radially accurate vanes (Fig. 10, supported on the baseplate, the plurality of radially arcuate vanes each extending rearward relative to the rotational direction from an inner end (Fig. 10. Annotated by the examiner) proximal to the axial direction to an outer end distal to the axial direction.
PNG
media_image5.png
534
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yu does not teach the detail of the blade.
Kwon teaches the impeller comprising a baseplate (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner), and a plurality of radially accurate vanes (Fig. 8, 110) supported on the baseplate, the plurality of radially arcuate vanes each extending rearward relative to the rotational direction from an inner end (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) proximal to the axial direction to an outer end (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) distal to the axial direction; and a housing (Fig. 8, 30), the housing defining a housing cavity (Fig. 8, as showed) within which the impeller is positioned, an entrance upstream (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) from the impeller to permit air thereto, a cutoff (Fig. 8, 34) disposed above the impeller, and a transition duct (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) extending between the cutoff and an exhaust exit (Fig. 8, 32) of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching from Kwon. Doing so, would result in the air blower design of Kwon being used in the air duct of Lim. Both inventions of Kwon and Yu having impeller type air blower to move air flow, Kwon teaches an air blower design can effectively reduce blade pass frequency and noise.
In Reference to Claims 12 and 13
The combination of Yu and Kwon as applied to Claim 10 does not teach the relative size between the blade and the cutoff.
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 14
Yu discloses the impeller having an impeller guide (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner)
PNG
media_image6.png
365
476
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yu does not teach the detail of the impeller.
Kwon teaches the impeller defines an impeller outlet (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) and an impeller width (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) along the axial direction at the impeller outlet, wherein the housing further comprises an impeller guide (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) extending about the impeller within the housing cavity and radially inward from the cutoff,
The combination of Yu and Kwon as applied to Claim 5 does not teach the guide outlet having a GO width less than the impeller width.
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
Yu discloses the impeller defines an impeller inlet (Fig. 9, annotated by the examiner) extending concentrically with the entrance along the axial direction, and wherein the housing further comprises an interior lip (Fig. 9, annotated by the examiner) extending axially along the entrance into the impeller inlet.
In Reference to Claim 16
Yu discloses the impeller to move the air in the air duct.
Yu does not teach the detail of the impeller.
Kwon teaches the impeller further comprises a faceplate (Fig. 6, 12) supported on the plurality of radially arcuate vanes opposite of the baseplate, the faceplate extending radially from an inner edge proximal to the axial direction to an outer edge distal to the axial direction.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching from Kwon. Doing so, would result in the air blower design of Kwon being used in the air duct of Yu. Both inventions of Kwon and Yu having impeller type air blower to move air flow, Kwon teaches an air blower design can effectively reduce blade pass frequency and noise.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Kwon as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Downs.
In Reference to Claims 17 and 18
The combination of Yu and Kwon as applied to Claim 7 teaches the impeller type air blower.
The combination of Yu and Kwon as applied to Claim 7 does not teach the detail of the blade and the top cover of the blade.
Downs teaches a maximum impeller (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) width along the axial direction at the inner edge and a minimum impeller width (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) along the axial direction at the outer edge.
a faceplate defines a curved outer surface (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner), wherein the housing further comprises a front panel defining an inner panel surface directed toward the impeller, and wherein the inner panel surface is complementary to the curved outer surface.
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 Downs into the combination of Yu and Kwon as applied to Claim 7. Doing so, would result in the blade and the cover design of Downs being used in the blower design of Lim. Yu has the impeller blower to move the air flow in the air duct, Downs teaches an impeller design to remove the discharge turbulence, so the efficiency of the impeller would be improved.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Kwon, and further in view of Downs.
In Reference to Claim 19
Yu discloses a ventilation assembly for a laundry appliance, the ventilation assembly comprising: a motor (Fig. 10, 114); and an impeller (Fig. 10, 110) in mechanical communication with the motor to motivate rotation of the impeller about an axial direction, the impeller being rotatable along a rotational direction about the axial direction to urge a flow of air, the impeller comprising a baseplate (Fig. 10, annotated by the examiner), and a plurality of radially accurate vanes (Fig. 10, supported on the baseplate, the plurality of radially arcuate vanes each extending rearward relative to the rotational direction from an inner end (Fig. 10. Annotated by the examiner) proximal to the axial direction to an outer end distal to the axial direction.
Yu does not teach the detail of the blade.
Kwon teaches the impeller comprising a baseplate (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner), and a plurality of radially accurate vanes (Fig. 8, 110) supported on the baseplate, the plurality of radially arcuate vanes each extending rearward relative to the rotational direction from an inner end (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) proximal to the axial direction to an outer end (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) distal to the axial direction; and a housing (Fig. 8, 30), the housing defining a housing cavity (Fig. 8, as showed) within which the impeller is positioned, an entrance upstream (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) from the impeller to permit air thereto, a cutoff (Fig. 8, 34) disposed above the impeller, and a transition duct (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) extending between the cutoff and an exhaust exit (Fig. 8, 32) of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching from Kwon. Doing so, would result in the air blower design of Kwon being used in the air duct of Lim. Both inventions of Kwon and Yu having impeller type air blower to move air flow, Kwon teaches an air blower design can effectively reduce blade pass frequency and noise.
The combination of Yu and Kwon as applied to Claim 7 teaches the impeller type air blower.
The combination of Yu and Kwon as applied to Claim 7 does not teach the detail of the blade and the top cover of the blade.
Downs teaches a maximum impeller (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) width along the axial direction at the inner edge and a minimum impeller width (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) along the axial direction at the outer edge.
a faceplate defines a curved outer surface (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner), wherein the housing further comprises a front panel defining an inner panel surface directed toward the impeller, and wherein the inner panel surface is complementary to the curved outer surface.
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 Downs into the combination of Yu and Kwon as applied to Claim 19. Doing so, would result in the blade and the cover design of Downs being used in the blower design of Lim. Yu has the impeller blower to move the air flow in the air duct, Downs teaches an impeller design to remove the discharge turbulence, so the efficiency of the impeller would be improved.
In Reference to Claim 20
The combination of Yu, Kwon and Downs as applied to Claim 19 does not teach the relative size between the blade and the cutoff.
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 21
Yu does not teach the detail of the impeller.
Kwon teaches the impeller defines an impeller outlet (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) and an impeller width (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) along the axial direction at the impeller outlet, wherein the housing further comprises an impeller guide (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner) extending about the impeller within the housing cavity and radially inward from the cutoff,
The combination of Yu, Kwon and Downs as applied to Claim 21 does not teach the guide outlet having a GO width less than the impeller width.
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 22
Yu discloses the impeller defines an impeller inlet (Fig. 9, annotated by the examiner) extending concentrically with the entrance along the axial direction, and wherein the housing further comprises an interior lip (Fig. 9, annotated by the examiner) extending axially along the entrance into the impeller inlet.
Response to Arguments
Upton further consideration, the Allowability of Claims 2 and 11 has been withdrawn. A new ground of Claim rejection is issued as above claim rejection section.
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 9/4/26
Prosecution Insights