DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 08/26/2026. Claim(s) 1–34 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1–23) and the species associated with Figure 16 in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims overlap in scope. This is not found persuasive because Applicant misstates the requirement for restriction; instead of overlap in scope the requirement is mutual exclusivity. In this case, Group I (claims 1–23) requires a ratio of high to low speeds while Group II (claims 24–34) requires a protection step. As such, they are mutually exclusive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 1 includes the limitation “wherein a ratio of the high-speed period to the low-speed period is set differently for each specific period during the air supply step;” however, specific time periods are not claimed, so it is unclear to what “each specific period during the air supply step” is referring. Appropriate action is necessary.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0020262 to Altinier et al
With regard to claim 1, Altinier discloses a method for controlling a laundry treating apparatus (abstract), including: a drum (3) configured to accommodate laundry therein (¶ 0045), a driver (9) configured to rotate the drum (3) (¶ 0046), a circulation flow channel providing a space where air of the drum is circulated or moisture contained in air is condensed (¶ 0050), and a heat exchanger assembly (10, 15) configured to heat air flowing through the circulation flow channel (¶ 0050), the method comprising: an air supply step of supplying heated air to the drum via the heat exchanger assembly (10, 15) (¶¶ 0047, 0049); and a rotation step of rotating the drum during the air supply (¶ 0051), wherein the rotation step is composed of a high-speed period for rotating the drum such that the laundry rotates in a state of being attached to an inner wall of the drum and a low-speed period for rotating the drum such that the laundry rotates while falling from the inner wall of the drum (¶¶ 0055–0057), wherein a ratio of the high-speed period to the low-speed period is set differently for each specific period during the air supply step (¶¶ 0055–0064).
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 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.
Claims 2–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altinier in view of US 2005/0050758 to Park et al.
With regard to claim 2, Altinier fails to disclose the air supply step is divided into a preheating period, a constant-rate drying period, and a falling-rate drying period, wherein the preheating period is set to be a period from a time the heat exchanger assembly operates until a temperature of a refrigerant flowing through the heat exchanger assembly reaches a specific temperature from a starting temperature or a period until a reference time elapses after the heat exchanger assembly operates, wherein the high-speed period and the low-speed period are repeatedly arranged in the preheating period. Park teaches the air supply step is divided into a preheating period (¶ 0012), a constant-rate drying period (¶ 0012), and a falling-rate drying period (¶ 0013), wherein the preheating period is set to be a period from a time the [heater] operates until a temperature of [the heated air] reaches a specific temperature from a starting temperature or a period until a reference time elapses after the [heater] operates (¶ 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying method of Altinier with the segmented drying cycle of Park because such a combination would have had the added benefit of increasing the efficiency of the drying process without damaging the laundry being dried. Furthermore, the combination of Altinier with Park would have resulted in the high-speed period and the low-speed period being repeatedly arranged in the preheating period because Altinier discloses the high-speed period and the low-speed period occurring repeatedly throughout the drying cycle (¶¶ 0055–0064) and Park discloses that the pre-heating period is a portion of the drying cycle the (¶ 0012).
With regard to claim 3, Altinier fails to disclose a sum time period of the high-speed periods is set to be longer than a sum time period of the low-speed periods in the preheating period. The ratio of high-speed periods to low-speed periods is a known results-effective variable because high-speeds increase water removal but low-speeds increase movement of the laundry to ensure the clothing is uniformly dried. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have sum time period of the high-speed periods be set to be longer than a sum time period of the low-speed periods in the preheating period, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 4, Altinier fails to disclose a duration of the high-speed period is set to be longer than a duration of the low-speed period in the preheating period. The ratio of high-speed periods to low-speed periods is a known results-effective variable because high-speeds increase water removal but low-speeds increase movement of the laundry to ensure the clothing is uniformly dried. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a duration of the high-speed period be set to be longer than a duration of the low-speed period in the preheating period, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 5, Altinier as previously combined with Park further discloses the low-speed period includes: a constant-speed period where the drum is rotated such that the laundry falls between a high point of the drum and a center of the drum (Altinier: Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0056–0060); and a deceleration period where a rotation speed of the drum is lower than in the constant-speed period (Altinier: Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0056–0060), wherein the high-speed period, the constant-speed period, and the deceleration period are periodically arranged in the preheating period (Altinier: Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0056–0060).
With regard to claim 6, Altinier further discloses the deceleration period is set to have a shorter duration than the constant-speed period (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 7, Altinier fails to disclose the air supply step is divided into a preheating period, a constant-rate drying period, and a falling-rate drying period, wherein the constant-rate drying period is entered when a temperature of a refrigerant of the heat exchanger assembly reaches a reference value in the preheating period or when the heat exchanger assembly operates for a reference time, wherein the low-speed period is set to be longer than the high-speed period in the constant-rate drying period. Park teaches the air supply step is divided into a preheating period (¶ 0012), a constant-rate drying period (¶ 0012), and a falling-rate drying period (¶ 0013), wherein the constant-rate drying period is entered when a temperature of [the heater] reaches a reference value in the preheating period or when the [heater] operates for a reference time (¶ 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying method of Altinier with the segmented drying cycle of Park because such a combination would have had the added benefit of increasing the efficiency of the drying process without damaging the laundry being dried.
Altinier as previously combined with Park fails to disclose the low-speed period is set to be longer than the high-speed period in the constant-rate drying period. The ratio of low-speed period to high-speed period is a known results-effective variable because a greater amount of low-speed will increase the movement of the laundry while a greater amount of high-speed increases the amount of water removed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the low-speed period be set to be longer than the high-speed period in the constant-rate drying period, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 8, Altinier further discloses the rotation step further includes a variable period where a rotation speed of the drum is variable (Fig. 3), wherein the variable period is disposed in the constant-rate drying period (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 9, Altinier as previously combined with Park further discloses the falling-rate drying period is entered when a discharge temperature of the circulation flow channel rises to a reference temperature or higher or dryness of the laundry reaches a set value (Park: ¶¶ 0012–0013; Fig. 1), wherein the variable period is performed before entering the falling-rate drying period (Altinier: Figs. 3 & 6).
With regard to claim 10, Altinier further discloses the laundry treating apparatus further includes a dryness sensor (22) configured to detect dryness of the laundry (¶ 0071), wherein the variable period is entered when the dryness reaches a target value after entering the constant-rate drying period (¶¶ 0021–0027; Figs. 3 & 5).
With regard to claim 11, Altinier further discloses the variable period is entered when a reference time elapses after entering the constant-rate drying period (¶ 0074).
With regard to claim 12, Altinier further discloses the variable period varies the rotation speed of the drum in the high-speed period and the low-speed period (Fig. 3), wherein the low-speed period is further divided into a constant-speed period and a deceleration period where the rotation speed is lower than in the constant-speed period (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 13, Altinier further discloses the constant-speed period, the high-speed period, and the deceleration period are periodically arranged in the variable period (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 14, Altinier further discloses the low-speed period is continuously disposed in the constant-rate drying period until entering the variable period (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 15, Altinier fails to disclose a duration of the low-speed period before entering the variable period is set to be longer than a duration of the entire variable period. The duration of the low-speed period is a known results-effective variable because the greater the duration of the low-speed period, the more the clothes are mixed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a duration of the low-speed period before entering the variable period set to be longer than a duration of the entire variable period, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 16, Altinier further discloses the high-speed period and the low-speed period are periodically and repeatedly arranged between the low-speed period and the variable period (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 17, Altinier fails to disclose the air supply step is divided into a preheating period, a constant-rate drying period, and a falling-rate drying period, wherein the falling-rate drying period is entered when a discharge temperature of the circulation flow channel rises to a reference temperature or higher or dryness of the laundry reaches a set value, wherein a duration of the low-speed period is set to be longer than a duration of the high-speed period in the falling-rate drying period. Park teaches the air supply step is divided into a preheating period (¶ 0012), a constant-rate drying period (¶ 0012), and a falling-rate drying period (¶ 0013), wherein the falling-rate drying period is entered when a discharge temperature of the circulation flow channel rises to a reference temperature or higher or dryness of the laundry reaches a set value (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the drying method of Altinier with the segmented drying cycle of Park because such a combination would have had the added benefit of increasing the efficiency of the drying process without damaging the laundry being dried.
Altinier as previously combined with Park fails to disclose a duration of the low-speed period is set to be longer than a duration of the high-speed period in the falling-rate drying period. The duration of the low-speed period is a known results-effective variable because the longer the low-speed period, the more enhanced the mixing of the laundry. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a duration of the low-speed period set to be longer than a duration of the high-speed period in the falling-rate drying period, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 18, Altinier further discloses a rotation speed of the drum is set such that the laundry falls from a vertical level lower than a vertical level of a center of the drum in the low-speed period of the falling-rate drying period (¶¶ 0055–0056).
With regard to claim 19, Altinier as previously combined with Park fails discloses the low-speed period is continuously disposed when entering the falling-rate drying period. The duration of the low-speed period is a known results-effective variable because the longer the duration of the low-speed period, the more the laundry is uniformly mixed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the low-speed period be continuously disposed when entering the falling-rate drying period, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 20, Altinier as previously combined with Park further discloses the high-speed period is disposed after the low-speed period in the falling-rate drying period (Altinier: Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 21, Altinier as previously combined with Park further discloses when the high-speed period is entered in the falling-rate drying period, the high-speed period and the low-speed period are periodically arranged until the falling-rate drying period is completed (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 22, Altinier further discloses the laundry treating apparatus further includes a dryness sensor (22) configured to detect dryness of the laundry (¶ 0071), wherein a time point for entry into the high-speed period is set to be a time point when the dryness reaches a specific value higher than the set value (¶¶ 0021–0027; Figs. 3 & 5).
With regard to claim 23, Altinier further discloses the falling-rate drying period is terminated when the dryness reaches a completion value higher than the specific value (¶¶ 0004, 0027).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights