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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 80 in Fig.2; 180 and 186 in Figs.7 & 8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (EP3524727A1) in view of Armstrong et al (US20160037586A1).
Park teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a laundry appliance (10, Fig. 1): a cabinet (10, Fig. 1) defining an interior volume (see Fig. 2); a tub (20, Fig. 2) mounted within the interior volume of the cabinet; a laundry basket (30, Fig. 2) rotatably mounted within the tub, the laundry basket defining a chamber (33, Fig. 2) for the receipt of laundry articles; a heat exchanger system (100, Fig. 4) at which a refrigerant (air from blower 90) is receivable and in thermal communication with the chamber.
Regarding claim 14, a combination washer and dryer laundry appliance (10, Fig. 1), comprising: a cabinet (10, Fig. 1) defining an interior volume (see Fig. 2); a tub (20, Fig. 2) mounted within the interior volume of the cabinet; a laundry basket (30, Fig. 2) rotatably mounted within the tub, the laundry basket defining a chamber (33, Fig. 2) for the receipt of laundry articles; a heat exchanger system (100, Fig. 4) at which a refrigerant (air from blower 90) is receivable and in thermal communication with the chamber.
Park teaches the invention as discussed above but is silent regarding the heat exchanger system comprising a vessel comprising a plenum at which the refrigerant is receivable, the vessel comprising a ferrous material; and a sleeve at least partially surrounding the vessel, the sleeve comprising a non-ferrous material, wherein the sleeve comprises a conductive structure extending at least partially surrounding the vessel, and wherein a volume is formed between the vessel and the sleeve.
Armstrong teaches:
Regarding claim 1, the heat exchanger system(10, Fig.5) comprising a vessel (14, Fig. 5) comprising a plenum (12 Fig. 5) at which a process gas (22, Fig. 3) is to be heated, the vessel comprising a ferrous material (paragraph 19); and a sleeve (64, Fig. 5) at least partially surrounding the vessel, the sleeve comprising a non-ferrous material (see page 4, paragraph 39, lines 14-18), wherein the sleeve comprises a conductive structure (32, Fig. 5) extending at least partially surrounding the vessel, and wherein a volume is formed between the vessel and the sleeve (see Fig. 5).
Armstrong teaches that the vessel material can be any suitable material, but was not specific that said material is ferrous material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use ferrous material for the vessel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See In reLeshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Also, MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding claim 14, the heat exchanger system(10, Fig.5) comprising a vessel (14, Fig. 5) comprising a plenum (12 Fig. 5) at which a process gas (22, Fig. 3) is to be heated, the vessel comprising a ferrous material (paragraph 19); and a sleeve (64, Fig. 5) at least partially surrounding the vessel, the sleeve comprising a non-ferrous material (see page 4, paragraph 39, lines 14-18), wherein the sleeve comprises a conductive structure (32, Fig. 5) extending at least partially surrounding the vessel, and wherein a volume is formed between the vessel and the sleeve (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention was filled to substitute Park’s washing drying machine heat exchanger with an induction-heating arrangement, with Armstrong’s induction heating apparatus with sleeve-supported conductive coil arrangement surrounding the vessel because substituting of one known element for another would have yielded predictable result of heating a laundry appliance while performing washing and/or drying functions.
Park in view of Armstrong teaches:
Regarding claims 2 and 15, wherein the conductive structure is a conductive wire (see Armstrong, 32, Fig. 5) extending substantially circumferentially at the sleeve (see Armstrong, 64, Fig. 5) and around the vessel (see Armstrong, 14, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the vessel is a pressure vessel (see Armstrong, Fig. 5, paragraph 28, lines 5-8) forming the plenum as a closed volume.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the laundry appliance comprising: a power supply operably coupled to the conductive structure; and a controller configured to selectively transmit energy through the conductive structure to generate heat at the vessel. (see Park et al, Col. 9, lines 24-36)
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (EP3524727A1) in view of Davis (US4488865A).
Park teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a laundry appliance (10, Fig. 1): a cabinet (10, Fig. 1) defining an interior volume (see Fig. 2); a tub (20, Fig. 2) mounted within the interior volume of the cabinet; a laundry basket (30, Fig. 2) rotatably mounted within the tub, the laundry basket defining a chamber (33, Fig. 2) for the receipt of laundry articles; a heat exchanger system (100, Fig. 4) at which a refrigerant (air from blower 90) is receivable and in thermal communication with the chamber.
Regarding claim 14, a combination washer and dryer laundry appliance (10, Fig. 1), comprising: a cabinet (10, Fig. 1) defining an interior volume (see Fig. 2); a tub (20, Fig. 2) mounted within the interior volume of the cabinet; a laundry basket (30, Fig. 2) rotatably mounted within the tub, the laundry basket defining a chamber (33, Fig. 2) for the receipt of laundry articles; a heat exchanger system (100, Fig. 4) at which a refrigerant (air from blower 90) is receivable and in thermal communication with the chamber.
Park teaches the invention as discussed above but is silent regarding the heat exchanger system comprising a vessel comprising a plenum at which the refrigerant is receivable, the vessel comprising a ferrous material; and a sleeve at least partially surrounding the vessel, the sleeve comprising a non-ferrous material, wherein the sleeve comprises a conductive structure extending at least partially surrounding the vessel, and wherein a volume is formed between the vessel and the sleeve.
Davis teaches:
Regarding claim 1, the heat exchanger system comprising
a vessel (414, Fig. 10) comprising a plenum (360 Fig. 10) at which a refrigerant is receivable, the vessel comprising a ferrous material (see Col.6 lines 29-31); and a sleeve (320, Fig. 10) at least partially surrounding the vessel, the sleeve comprising a non-ferrous material (see Col.14, lines 10-15), wherein the sleeve comprises a conductive structure (230, Fig. 6 or 10) extending at least partially surrounding the vessel, and wherein a volume is formed between the vessel and the sleeve (see Fig.10).
Regarding claim 14, the heat exchanger system comprising
a vessel (414 and 360, Fig. 10) comprising a plenum (360 Fig. 10) at which a refrigerant is receivable, the vessel comprising a ferrous material (see Col.6 lines 29-31); and a sleeve (320, Fig. 10) at least partially surrounding the vessel, the sleeve comprising a non-ferrous material (see Col.14, lines 10-15), wherein the sleeve comprises a conductive structure (230, Fig. 6 or 10) extending at least partially surrounding the vessel, and wherein a volume is formed between the vessel and the sleeve (see Fig.10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention was filled to have Park’s washing drying machine heat exchanger with an induction-heating arrangement, substituted with Davis’s heat exchanger with sleeve-supported conductive coil arrangement surrounding the vessel because substituting of one known element for another would have yielded predictable result of heating a laundry appliance while performing washing and/or drying functions.
Park in view of Davis teaches:
Regarding claims 4 and 16, wherein the refrigerant (see Davis, Fig. 10, Col 1, lines 12-15 and Col 16, lines 34-44) is water or a water-based solution.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, wherein the vessel comprises a sidewall (see Davis, 12, Fig. 1), and wherein the sleeve at least partially surrounds the sidewall.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, wherein the sleeve positions the conductive structure in substantially uniform distance from the sidewall. (see Davis Fig. 6 or 10)
Regarding claims 7 and 19, wherein the sleeve and the vessel are concentric to one another. (see Davis Fig. 10)
Regarding claims 8 and 19, wherein the conductive structure and the sidewall are concentric to one another. (see Davis Fig. 6 or 10)
Regarding claim 10, wherein the laundry appliance comprises a laundry washing appliance. (see Park et al, Col.1, line 13)
Regarding claim 11, wherein the laundry appliance comprises a laundry dryer appliance. (see Park et al, Col.1, line 13)
Regarding claim 12, wherein the laundry appliance comprises a combination washer and dryer appliance. (see Park et al, Col.1, line 13)
Regarding claim 13, wherein the vessel is positioned in thermal communication with a flow of fluid provided in fluid communication with the chamber of the laundry basket. (The combination of Park’s invention and Davis’s invention yields the results of claim 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masters et al (US20240068145A1) teaches a washer and dryer laundry appliance that comprises a cabinet, a tub, a drum, an exhaust duct, and an induction heater. Civanelli et al (US20230183911A1) teaches a combination washer/dryer having a cabinet defining an interior, a tub provided within the interior, and a drum rotatably provided within the tub and defining a treating chamber, an induction coil carried by the tub and generating a magnetic field encompassing at least a portion of the container. Warriner (CN116507472A) teaches an induction heating mould system that uses the induction coil in the heater module to realize the quick heating and quick cooling of the mould so as to reduce the heat circulation time, the induction coil induction heats the ferromagnetic layer configured on the mould main body. Bernreuter et al (20050067154A1) teaches a heat exchange assembly used in a water tank, commercial water heater and residential or domestic water heater.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERVE DEREK SHYAKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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.
/HERVE DEREK SHYAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights