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 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: “clothes receiving unit”, “lint cleaning device” and “operation assembly” in claim 1 and “filtering mounting portion” in claim 17.
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) 1, 11, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8667705 B2 to Shin et al. (Shin).
In reference to independent claim 1, Shin discloses:
A clothing treatment device (1), comprising:
a clothes receiving unit (11) for receiving clothes; and
a lint cleaning device (21) configured to couple with a filter member (41, 42) and configured to clean lint filtered on a surface of the filter member,
wherein the lint cleaning device includes a brush (51, 52) disposed so that a tip portion (52) of the brush rotates between a first position and a second position along an inner circumferential surface of the filter member (see Figs. 5A-5C), a lint chamber (71, 72) disposed to receive the lint removed by the brush, a chamber door (80) disposed to open or close the lint chamber (see Fig. 6), a driver (31) configured to rotate the brush (see col. 4 at lines 36-37), and an operation assembly configured to move the chamber door in response to an operation of the driver (see col. 7 at lines 9-38 and Figs. 9A-9B).
In reference to independent claim 17, Shin further discloses: a case (45, 47); and a filter mounting portion (46) configured to mount a filter member (see Fig. 4).
In reference to dependent claim 11, Shin further discloses the lint cleaning device (21) is configured to move the lint removed from the filter member (42) toward the lint chamber (71) as the brush (52) is rotated from the first position to the second position (see col. 5 at lines 49-50 and Figs. 5C and 9B).
In reference to dependent claim 15, Shin further discloses a case (45, 46, 47, 72; note also the case of the dryer) to receive the brush (51, 52), the lint chamber (41, 71), and the chamber door (80).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of JP 2019030506 A to Shiibashi et al. (Shiibashi).
In reference to dependent claim 10, Shin is silent regarding the tip of the brush including rubber or an elastic material.
Shiibashi teaches a similar clothes dryer with lint cleaning device (see Figs. 12-14) having a brush (24) having a rubber tip (rubber plate 27 with scraping portion 27a) for cleaning the lint filter (“the scraping portion 27a of the blade 27 is moved along the surface of the filter member 15. Moving in the direction of arrow C, lint scraping operation is performed.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the filter assembly and filter unit of Shin to have a rubber tip on the brush as taught by Shiibashi in order to effectively scrape lint off the filter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Shin further discloses the drive motor 31 being connected to a push rod 91 via a gear cam 33 so that power from the drive motor 31 is transmitted to the push rod 91, which pushes button 79 coupled to a push plate 74 to open and close inlets 95 and 96 of the tank 72 (see Figs. 7A-7C and 9A-9B). However, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach a first pressing protrusion, a second pressing protrusion spaced apart from the first pressing protrusion in a circumferential direction, and a recess between the first pressing protrusion and the second pressing protrusion, a lever including a lever protrusion protruding radially outward and rotated as the lever protrusion is pressed by the first pressing protrusion or the second pressing protrusion during movement of the cam.
Regarding claim 12, Shin further discloses the brush 52 is rotated in a first direction from the first position to the second position (see Figs. 5A-5C), and the cover 80 is rotated to open the tank 72 (see Fig. 6). However, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the chamber door being rotated so that the lint chamber is opened before the brush reaches the second position.
Regarding claim 14, Shin further discloses the cleaning device 21 being disposed under the dryer drum 11 (see Fig. 1). However, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the cleaning device being configured to be modular so as to slide into, and slide out of, the clothing treatment device.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the lint chamber being configured to slide into, and slide out from, the case.
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