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 § 102
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 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) 1-5, 7-8, 12-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3,241,944, hereinafter referred to as “’944”.
Re Claim 1, ‘944 teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising: a tub 3 configured to accommodate washing water; a drum 2 rotatably disposed inside the tub; a duct (from 6 to P) disposed at the tub and having an air intake port 7 and an air-inflow port (arrow to the right of where 8 points to); a blower fan (fan 20) inside the duct between the air intake port 7 and the air-inflow port; a heat exchanger 11 disposed inside the duct and configured to carry cooling water (W) to thereby exchange heat between the cooling water and the and the air; and a heater 19 disposed inside the duct, wherein the heat exchanger is configured to discharge the cooling water, and the tub is configured to receive the cooling water discharged from the heat exchanger (below 12).
Re Claim 2, any surface reads on a condensation surface, but the dotted bottom surface is chosen. See Fig. 1.
Re Claim 3, the tub has a rear surface to guide water (overlaps where 12 points to).
Re Claim 4, the tub is configured to discharge the cooling water along a path (14) through which the washing water is discharged.
Re Claim 5, 18 is a water supply port outside of the duct and 23 is a drain port, both of which are on the right side of the duct.
Re Claim 7, the heat exchanger is configured to receive a portion of the washing water and to carry it as cooling water (via 13, 17, 18).
Re Claim 8, the flow path of the air and cooling path are expected to be separate, as the coils within 11 are taught.
Re Claim 12, ‘944 teaches a cleaning nozzle 26 at an upper portion of the heat exchanger that is expected capable of cleaning lint.
Re Claim 13, the tub comprises a filter 30 with a filter cleaner (Water and arrow to the right of it.
Re Claim 14, the cooling water via 12 sprays cooling water as filter washing water.
Re Claim 17, the duct is attached to an upper side (See P, Fig. 1) of an outer circumferential surface of the tub.
Re Claim 18, air-inflow port 5 is connected to a front portion of the tub, and the air-intake port 6 is connected to a rear portion of the tub.
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.
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.
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) 6 9-11, 15-16, and 19-20 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,241,944, hereinafter referred to as “’944”.
‘944 is relied upon as applied to the claims above.
Claim 6 is further directed towards a sealing, between each of the water supply port and the drain port, which it is unclear whether ‘944 teaches. However, it is extremely well known and obvious to seal a water port to protect the machinery. Thus, while it is implicitly present for proper water supply and draining, it would have been obvious to provide sealing to ensure that the water supply and drain perform their intended functions without damage to the machinery.
Claim 9 is rejected as obvious because heat exchangers are well known to be made of stainless steel or alloys to prevent rusting as well as their thermal efficiency. Claims 10-11 are rejected as obvious because different shapes of a heat exchanger and are considered obvious as the third embodiment of ‘944 already teaches coils/windings which is well established in the art as increased surface area for improved thermal efficiency.
Re Claims 15-16, it is considered obvious to add more piping and valves, and to independently control, as it is well known method of increasing control of fluid control.
Re Claim 19, heater 19 is disposed between air inflow port 5 and heat exchanger 11. The fan is not shows as marking outside of the heat exchanger. However, adding an additional fan (duplication of parts) or rearranging parts would have been at least obvious to try through routine experimentation in determining whether heat exchange could be carried out more efficiently.
Re Claim 20, the air-intake port 6 is closer to drain 14 than the water supply port 18. It is unclear whether air-inflow port 5 is closer to the water supply port than to the drain port, but it is considered at least obvious to rearrange parts and also obvious to try during routine experimentation, because the parts would still perform their expected and intentional functions without unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y KO whose telephone number is (571)270-7451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-6:00.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-270-1414. 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 Y. KO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/JASON Y KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711