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 07/10/2024. Claim(s) 1–20 are pending.
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: “an air blowing module configured to for an air flow” in claim 1, which has been interpreted to mean “a fan”.
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 § 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 1–3, 7–8, 11–13, & 17–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/164039 (citations directed to US national stage application US 2023/0357982) to Jeon et al in view of KR 2023-0055647 to Koo et al (citations are directed to the attached machine translation).
With regard to claims 1 & 11, Jeon discloses a dryer and its associated method of use (abstract) comprising: a drum (20) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0028); an air blowing module (65) configured to form an air flow to be brought into the drum (20) (¶ 0042); a filter (40) configured to filter out foreign substances included in air discharged out of the drum (20) in the air flow (¶ 0034); an input/output interface (11, 120) (¶¶ 0032–0033); a memory (210) to store at least one instruction (¶¶ 0070, 0076–0077); and at least one processor (220) configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory (210) (¶¶ 0051–0052, 0076–0088) to: determine whether the filter is separated and installed after a previous dry operation (¶¶ 0082, 0088, 0101), and control the input/output interface (11, 120) to provide a notification to guide separation of the filter (40) from the dryer and cleaning of the separated filter (40) based on [an event] (¶¶ 0026, 0083–0104).
Jeon fails to explicitly disclose increase a number of successive operation times based on a dry operation type of the dryer in response to the filter being not separated and installed. Koo teaches increase a number of successive operation times based on a dry operation type of the dryer in response to the filter being not separated and installed (¶ 0142). 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 dryer of Jeon with the operation time counter of Koo because such a combination would have had the added benefit of determining how long the dryer has been run without the filter being cleaned.
With regard to claims 2 & 12, Jeon as previously combined with Koo fails to disclose the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide the notification at a level corresponding to at least one count range based on the number of successive operation times belonging to the at least one count range among a plurality of ranges of the number of times. Displaying a notification during a specific count range is a known results-effective variable because the greater the number of counted times, the dirtier the filter is likely to be. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide the notification at a level corresponding to at least one count range based on the number of successive operation times belonging to the at least one count range among a plurality of ranges of the number of times, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges 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 claims 3 & 13, Jeon as previously combined with Koo further discloses the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to determine an increasing value of the number of successive operation times based on a range of an amount of lint creation depending on the dry operation type (Koo: ¶ 0142; measures drying period for each cycle).
With regard to claims 7 & 17, Jeon further discloses the input/output interface (11) comprises a display (110) (¶¶ 0033, 0068–0069), and the at least one processor (220) is configured to execute the at least one instruction to: set at least one of size, color and content of an information object including at least one of an icon and text based on the level (¶ 0085); generate the information object, for which at least one of the size, the color and the content is set, as the notification (¶ 0085); and display the notification through the display (110) (¶ 0085).
With regard to claims 8 & 18, Jeon further discloses the input/output interface comprises a speaker (130) (¶¶ 0076–0077, 0084, 0096, 0103), and the at least one processor (220) is configured to execute the at least one instruction to: set at least one of sound volume and voice content of the notification based on the level (¶¶ 0076–0077, 0084, 0096, 0103); and output the notification through the speaker (130) (¶¶ 0076–0077, 0084, 0096, 0103).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4–6, 9–10, 14–16 & 19–20 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.
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
July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights