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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2011/0277334 to Lee.
In Reference to Claim 1
Lee discloses a dryer, comprising: a main body (Fig. 1, 120); a drum (Fig. 1, 200) inside the main body to receive an object for drying; a heat pump (Fig. 1, 600) configured to supply hot and dry air to the drum, and including: an evaporator (Fig. 2, 630), a compressor (Fig. 2, 640), and a condenser (Fig. 4, 620), wherein the evaporator, the compressor, and the condenser are configured to circulate (Fig. 4, via pipe 660) a refrigerant through the evaporator, the compressor, and the condenser; a condensate tank (Fig. 4, 720) configured to store condensate generated by the evaporator; and a connection pipe between the condenser and the evaporator, with at least a portion of the connection pipe (Fig. 4, 680) being in the condensate tank, wherein the dryer is configured so that refrigerant that has been heat-exchanged with external air in the condenser (Fig. 1, a heat exchanger via air sent by blower 310), and discharged from the condenser, then passes through the connection pipe so as to additionally exchange heat with the condensate in the condensate tank while passing through the at least a portion of the connection pipe in the condensate tank.
In Reference to Claim 5
Lee discloses the portion of the at least a portion of the connection pipe (Fig. 4, 680) in the condensate tank is configured in a tortuous pattern (as showed in Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 6
Lee discloses a water supply device (Fig. 4, 722) configured to supply water to the condensate tank.
In Reference to Claim 15
Lee discloses the dryer system.
The Office considers “increases efficiency of the heat pump" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus.
In Reference to Claim 16
Lee discloses clothing care device, comprising: a main body (Fig. 1, 120) including an inner space in which clothes are mountable or receivable; a heat pump (Fig. 1, 600) configured to supply hot and dry air to the inner space, and including: an evaporator (Fig. 4, 630), a compressor (Fig. 3, 640), and a condenser (Fig. 4, 670), wherein the evaporator, the compressor, and the condenser are configured to circulate a refrigerant through the evaporator, the compressor, and the condenser; a condensate tank (Fig. 4, 720) configured to store condensate generated by the evaporator; and a connection pipe (Fig. 4, 680) between the condenser and the evaporator, with at least a portion of the connection pipe being in the condensate tank (As showed in Fig. 4), wherein the clothing care device is configured so that refrigerant that has been heat-exchanged with external air in the condenser, and discharged from the condenser, then passes through the connection pipe so as to additionally exchange heat with the condensate in the condensate tank while passing through the at least a portion of the connection pipe in the condensate tank.
In Reference to Claim 17
Lee discloses the at least a portion of the connection pipe (Fig. 4, 680) in the condensate tank is configured in a tortuous pattern (As showed in Fig. 4).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Applicant provided prior art KR20210112159 to Kim.
In Reference to Claim 2
Lee discloses a water level sensor (Fig. 4, 716b) configured to sense a water level in the condensate tank;
Lee does not teach a drain.
Kim teaches a drain pump (Fig. 2, 90) configured to discharge the condensate in the condensate tank to an outside of the condensate tank.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kim into the design of Lee. Doing so, would result in a drain pump being added to the system of Lee. Both inventions of Lee and Kim are in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a method to facilitate the condensed water in the water with a predictable result of success.
In Reference to Claims 3 and 4
The combination of Lee and Kim are applied to Claim 2 teaches the dryer system having a drain pump.
The combination of Lee and Kim as applied to Claim 2 does not teach when the drain pump would be operated.
The Office considers the operational status of the drain pump is the process of the recited structure. According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
In Reference to Claim 7
Kim discloses the condensed water tank with water supply.
Kim does not teach the supply of water is controlled.
Lee teaches that the water in level in the condensed water tank is kept at a certain level. Obviously, the controller is required to control the supply of water.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kim into the system of Lee. Doing so, would result in a supply control is provide to control the supplying the water to the condensed water tank. Both invention of Kim and Lee are in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a method of improved the efficiency of the condensing water tank of the system.
Claims 8-11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US Publication 2016/0153687 to Deng.
In Reference to Claim 8
Lee discloses the connection pipe includes: a first pipe (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) including the at least a portion of the connection pipe (Fig. 4, 680) in the condensate tank
Lee does not teach a second pipe.
Deng teaches a second pipe (Fig. 5, annotated by the examiner) configured to bypass the first pipe, wherein the dryer further comprises a three-way valve (Fig. 5, 26) configured to adjust a flow of the refrigerant to pass the refrigerant discharged from the condenser toward the first pipe or the second pipe.
a controller (Fig. 5, 30) configured to control the three-way valve (Fig. 5, 26).
a refrigerant movement path of the second pipe (Fig. 5, annotated by the examiner) is shorter than a refrigerant movement path of the first pipe.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Deng into the design of Lee. Doing so, would result in a bypass pipe with three way valve being added to the system of Lee. Both inventions of Lee and Deng teaches a heat pump system with additive heat transfer unit. Deng teaches a method of increasing the efficiency of the system with a predictable result of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
548
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claims 10-11
The combination of Lee and Deng as applied to Claims 10 and 11 discloses the system as recited.
The combination of Lee and Deng as applied to Claims 10 and 11 does not teach the detail process of the three-way valve.
The Office considers the operational status of the drain pump is the process of the recited structure. According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
In Reference to Claims 18 and 20
Lee discloses the connection pipe includes: a first pipe (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) including the at least a portion of the connection pipe (Fig. 4, 680) in the condensate tank
Lee does not teach a second pipe.
Deng teaches a second pipe (Fig. 5, annotated by the examiner) configured to bypass the first pipe, wherein the dryer further comprises a three-way valve (Fig. 5, 26) configured to adjust a flow of the refrigerant to pass the refrigerant discharged from the condenser toward the first pipe or the second pipe.
a refrigerant movement path of the second pipe (Fig. 5, annotated by the examiner) is shorter than a refrigerant movement path of the first pipe.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Deng into the design of Lee. Doing so, would result in a bypass pipe with three way valve being added to the system of Lee. Both inventions of Lee and Deng teaches a heat pump system with additive heat transfer unit. Deng teaches a method of increasing the efficiency of the system with a predictable result of success.
In Reference to Claim 19
The combination of Lee and Deng as applied to Claim 19 discloses the system as recited.
The combination of Lee and Deng as applied to Claim 19 does not teach the detail process of the three-way valve.
The Office considers the operational status of the drain pump is the process of the recited structure. According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights