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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100662769 B1 to Kim et al. (Kim) in view of KR 20190103879 A to Setae et al. (Setae).
In reference to independent claim 1, Kim discloses:
A clothes dryer, comprising:
a drum (20) in which laundry is receivable;
a humidity detector (40) to detect a dryness level of the laundry in the drum (“an electrode sensor (40) is
installed on this protruding inclined surface to detect the drying state of the clothing”); and
a controller (“control computer (not shown)”) configured to:
obtain the dryness level of the laundry in the drum detected by the humidity detector while a first initial drying cycle to dry the laundry in the drum is performed (“And the degree of clothes drying detected by the electrode sensor (40) is input into a control computer (not shown) that controls the operation of the dryer and is used for various control operations for drying clothes”),
the amount of clothing to be dried is determined based on pulses generated based on changes in voltage values generated through the electrode sensor when the clothes inside the drum come into contact with the electrode sensor as the drum rotates (“when the above electrode sensor (40) comes into contact with clothing to be dried, pulses are repeatedly generated according to changes in voltage values. If the change in voltage value per unit time, that is, the number of pulses, is large, it is determined that there is a large amount of clothing to be dried, and if the number of pulses per unit time is small, it is determined that there is a small amount of clothing to be dried. Of course, as described above, the amount of drying based on the number of pulses can be determined by putting the amount of clothing to be dried into the drum (20) and going through a repetitive experimental process”), and
the amount of drying time is determined by the repeated pulses generated by the clothing touching the sensor in the drum (“the clothing introduced into the drum (20) comes into contact with the electrode sensor (40), and the number of pulses per unit time, which is the number of changes in the voltage value generated at this time, is measured to determine the amount of clothing to be dried. In this way, the amount of clothing to be dried is determined, and the drying time, the rotation speed of the drum (20), the temperature of the heated air, etc. are determined, and the clothing drying operation is started based on the determined values”).
However, Kim is silent regarding determining a weight category of the laundry in the drum from a plurality of weight categories of laundry based on the obtained dryness level, obtaining control information based on the determined weight category, and controlling, according to the obtained control information, a main drying cycle to dry the laundry in the drum after the first initial drying cycle is performed.
Setae teaches a similar clothes dryer having a control unit (110) for setting a rotational speed of the drying operation in response to the amount of clothing to be dried (see [0163]-[0169]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to modified the control computer of Kim to include the control as taught by Setae in order to allow for different stages of drying to set according to the amount of clothes to be dried thus more efficiently setting the rotational speed (i.e. power) according to the drying need of the dryer.
In reference to dependent claim 2, Kim further discloses: the humidity detector includes a pair of touch electrode sensors in the drum (“The above electrode sensor (40) is configured such that two metal plates are positioned side by side and wires are connected to each metal plate to form a circuit, thereby detecting changes in voltage flowing through both metal plates to determine the degree of drying”), and the pair of touch electrode sensors output a pulse signal indicating a moisture content of the laundry in the drum when contacted by the laundry in the drum (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12 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 13-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to dependent claim 3, the prior art does not disclose or teach the controller is further configured to: count a number of times that the pulse signal is greater than or equal to a predetermined reference during each time unit of a plurality of time units that the first initial drying cycle is performed, determine an average of the counted number of times for the plurality of time units, determine whether the average is less than a first threshold, and determine the weight category of the laundry in the drum based on the determination of whether the average is less than the first threshold.
In reference to dependent claim 4, the prior art does not disclose or teach the controller is further configured to: after the weight category is determined, obtain the pulse signal while a second initial drying cycle to dry the laundry in the drum is performed, determine a material category of the laundry in the drum from a plurality of material categories of laundry based on the obtained pulse signal, obtain the control information based on the determined weight category and the determined material category, and control, according to the obtained control information based on the determined weight category and the determined material category, the main drying cycle to dry the laundry in the drum after the second initial drying cycle is performed.
In reference to independent claim 13, the prior art does not disclose or teach counting a first number of times that the pulse signal is greater than or equal to a predetermined reference during each first time unit of a plurality of first time units that the first initial drying cycle is performed; and determining a first average of the counted first number of times for the plurality of first time units.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights