DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-11, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20090260404 A1) in view of Daniels (US 20140033445 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a laundry appliance comprising:
a cabinet (Fig. 1; 2);
a tub (Fig. 4; 7) positioned within the cabinet, the tub defining a tub outlet and a tub inlet (the tub has many openings for liquids and air to enter and leave; paras. 84, 86, 101, 102);
a laundry basket (drum 10) rotatably mounted within the tub, the laundry basket defining a laundry chamber for receipt of articles for washing or drying;
a conditioning system comprising a heat exchanger (paras. 124, 125) disposed within the cabinet in thermal communication with the laundry chamber to adjust a temperature therein; and
a controller operably coupled to the conditioning system and configured to initiate a laundry operation (para. 114), the laundry operation comprising
initiating a cooling action at the heat exchanger to reduce a temperature within the laundry chamber (during the intermediate dehydrating step, the drum is spun at high speeds to cool the laundry chamber after a previous heating procedure in the second washing step; paras. 119, 120),
directing ozone transmission into the laundry chamber following initiating the cooling action (ozone can be provided during the drying step or before the washing step, i.e., in the rinsing step or final dehydrating step; para. 127 and Fig. 12), and
initiating a heating action (in a next washing or drying cycle, starting from the top of the cycle again; see Fig. 12) at the laundry chamber to increase the temperature within the laundry chamber following directing ozone transmission (heat is applied in steps S2 and S6; paras. 119, 124).
Saito fails to explicitly disclose:
determining achievement of a set ozone depletion level within the laundry chamber following initiating the heating action.
Saito suggests where the system determines achievement of a set ozone depletion level (see last sentence in para. 125). Nevertheless, as further support, Daniels teaches a laundry machine with an ozone dispenser, and the step of determining achievement of a set ozone depletion level within the laundry chamber (para. 71).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Saito to include the step of determining achievement of a set ozone depletion level within the laundry chamber following initiating the heating action. The motivation to combine is to ensure that ozone levels are safely reduced for the people in the surrounding area.
Regarding claim 7, modified Saito discloses the laundry appliance of claim 1, wherein directing ozone transmission is simultaneous to at least a portion of the cooling action (ozone can be provided during the drying/cooling step; see Saito in para. 125).
Regarding claim 9, modified Saito discloses the laundry appliance of claim 1, wherein the laundry operation further comprises directing the laundry chamber to a locked state for ozone transmission (Saito; para. 125).
Regarding claim 10, modified Saito discloses (or suggests) the laundry appliance of claim 9, wherein the laundry operation further comprises directing the laundry chamber to an unlocked state in response to determining achievement of the set ozone depletion level.
Saito discloses that the outer lid is locked “until all the supplied ozone is consumed by an oxidation reaction and the ozone concentration is reduced to a level that exerts no influence on a human body” (para. 125), which suggests that the door is unlocked once this determination is complete.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Saito wherein the laundry operation further comprises directing the laundry chamber to an unlocked state in response to determining achievement of the set ozone depletion level, so that the user can inspect the laundry or take it out only when ozone levels are safe.
Regarding claim 11, modified Saito discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations) a method of operating a dryer appliance comprising a cabinet, a laundry basket rotatably mounted within the cabinet, and a conditioning system comprising a heat exchanger in thermal communication with the laundry basket, the method comprising: initiating a cooling action at the heat exchanger to reduce a temperature within a laundry chamber; directing ozone transmission into the laundry chamber following initiating the cooling action; initiating a heating action at the laundry chamber to increase the temperature within the laundry chamber following directing ozone transmission; and determining achievement of a set ozone depletion level within the laundry chamber following initiating the heating action.
Regarding claim 17, modified Saito discloses the method of claim 11, wherein directing ozone transmission is simultaneous to at least a portion of the cooling action (see rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 19, modified Saito discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising directing the laundry chamber to a locked state for ozone transmission (see rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 20, modified Saito discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising directing the laundry chamber to an unlocked state in response to determining achievement of the set ozone depletion level (see rejection of claim 10).
Claim(s) 2-5, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20090260404 A1) in view of Daniels (US 20140033445 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ono (US 20050086824 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Saito discloses the laundry appliance of claim 1, except wherein the conditioning system comprises a sealed refrigerant system in thermal communication with the laundry chamber.
However, Ono teaches a dryer with a heat pump conditioning system, wherein the conditioning system comprises a sealed refrigerant system in thermal communication with the laundry chamber (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Saito wherein the conditioning system comprises a sealed refrigerant system in thermal communication with the laundry chamber (with the modification, Saito is modified to have a heat pump heating and cooling system). The motivation to combine is to reduce electrical costs by implementing an efficient heat pump system.
Regarding claim 3, modified Saito discloses (see Ono for citations) the laundry appliance of claim 2, wherein the sealed refrigerant system comprises a compressor (21), a first heat exchange coil (91), a second heat exchange coil (22), and a reversible refrigerant valve (93, 94) disposed along a refrigerant line, wherein the reversible refrigerant valve is movable between a cooling mode position directing refrigerant flow from the compressor to the first heat exchange coil and a heating mode position directing refrigerant flow from the compressor to the second heat exchange coil (paras. 37, 38).
Regarding claim 4, modified Saito discloses the laundry appliance of claim 3, wherein initiating the cooling action comprises directing the reversible refrigerant valve to the cooling mode position (Ono; para. 55).
Regarding claim 5, modified Saito discloses the laundry appliance of claim 3, wherein initiating the cooling action comprises directing the reversible refrigerant valve to the heating mode position (position where refrigerant goes to the radiator 91).
Regarding claim 12, modified Saito discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the conditioning system comprises a sealed refrigerant system in thermal communication with the laundry chamber (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 13, modified Saito discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the sealed refrigerant system comprises a compressor, a first heat exchange coil, a second heat exchange coil, and a reversible refrigerant valve disposed along a refrigerant line, wherein the reversible refrigerant valve is movable between a cooling mode position directing refrigerant flow from the compressor to the first heat exchange coil and a heating mode position directing refrigerant flow from the compressor to the second heat exchange coil (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 14, modified Saito discloses the method of claim 13, wherein initiating the cooling action comprises directing the reversible refrigerant valve to the cooling mode position (see rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 15, modified Saito discloses the method of claim 13, wherein initiating the cooling action comprises directing the reversible refrigerant valve to the heating mode position (see rejection of claim 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 16, 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights