18772DETAILED 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 Objections
Claims 18-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 8-10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The Examiner suspects that Applicant intended for claims 18-20 to depend from independent claim 11 rather than from independent claim 1. Fixing this claim dependency would overcome the claim objection.
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.
For the record, claim limitations “dehumidification module,” “tilting module,” and “light emitting module” have NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since sufficient corresponding structures are described in the respective claims.
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR1020160006419.
As per claim 1, KR1020160006419 discloses a dehumidifier, comprising: a housing 10 including a suction grill 22 formed on a rear surface thereof (Fig. 3), and a discharge port 24 formed on an upper surface thereof; a dehumidification module provided inside of the housing, wherein the dehumidification module includes at least a compressor 50, a condenser (see background art section), an evaporator (see background art section), and a fan module 40; a water tank 12 detachably provided on one side of the housing (Fig. 3; etc.) and that stores condensate generated during a dehumidification process; a discharge cover 100 that opens and closes the discharge port; a tilting module (Figs. 5, 9; etc.) connected to a bottom of the discharge cover inside of the housing to tilt the discharge cover; and a shielding cover 160 that accommodates the tilting module, wherein the tilting module includes: a tilting motor 150 fixed to the shielding cover (Fig. 5; etc.); a tilting gear 130 connected to a shaft 155 of the tilting motor (Fig. 7; and a tilting neck 140 curved at a predetermined curvature and having on one surface thereof a tilting rack that engages with the tilting gear (Fig. 5; etc.).
As per claim 11, KR1020160006419 discloses a dehumidifier, comprising: a housing 10 including a suction grill 22 formed on a rear surface thereof (Fig. 3), and a discharge port 24 formed on an upper surface thereof; a dehumidification module provided inside of the housing, wherein the dehumidification module includes at least a compressor 50, a condenser (see background art section), an evaporator (see background art section), and a fan module 40; a discharge cover 100 that opens and closes the discharge port; a tilting module (Figs. 5, 9; etc.) connected to a bottom of the discharge cover inside of the housing to tilt the discharge cover; and a shielding cover (160, 162, 164) that accommodates the tilting module, wherein the tilting module includes: a tilting motor 150 fixed to the shielding cover (Fig. 5; etc.); a tilting gear 130 connected to a shaft 155 of the tilting motor (Fig. 7; and a tilting neck 140 curved at a predetermined curvature and having on one surface thereof a tilting rack that engages with the tilting gear (Fig. 5; etc.).
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.
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) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR1020160006419 in view of Antonelli (US 2013/0112130 A1).
As per claims 2 and 12, KR1020160006419 does not disclose wherein the tilting module further comprises one or more inner guide rollers in contact with an upper surface of the tilting neck. Antonelli teaches the basic concept of using guide rollers (13, 16, etc.) to guide movement of a tilting neck (curved rack 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply guide rollers to the arrangement of KR1020160006419 for the same basic purpose providing smooth movement of the tilting neck.
As per claims 3 and 13, KR1020160006419 does not disclose wherein the tilting module further comprises one or more outer guide rollers in contact with a lower surface of the tilting neck. Antonelli teaches guide rollers 13 in contact with a lower surface of the tilting neck. Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply such guide rollers to the arrangement of KR1020160006419 for the same basic purpose providing smooth movement of the tilting neck.
As per claims 4 and 14, KR1020160006419 discloses wherein the tilting module further comprises at least one bracket (bracket portion of 162) that couples the tilting motor 150 to a rear surface of the shielding cover 162.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 15-17 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.
Claims 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 and also correcting the claim objections set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 5 and 15 (and claims 6-7 and 16-17 which depend therefrom, respectively), there appears no teaching or motivation to further modify the arrangement of KR1020160006419 to further comprise wherein the at least one bracket includes: a fixing bracket fixed to the rear surface of the shielding cover; and a support bracket coupled to a front surface of the fixing bracket, wherein a shaft of the tilting motor passes through the support bracket to be coupled to the tilting gear.
As per claims 8 and 18 (and claims 9-10 and 19-20 which depend therefrom, respectively), there appears no teaching or motivation to further modify the arrangement of KR1020160006419 to further comprise wherein the discharge cover includes: a circular upper plate; a lower plate coupled to a bottom of the upper plate; and a light emitting module provided between the upper plate and the lower plate, wherein a transparent portion is configured to surround an edge of the discharge cover in a ring shape, such that light emitted from the light emitting module is discharged to an outside through the transparent portion.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Park et al. (US 2025/0290657 A1; US 2025/0290647 A1; US 2025/0283612 A1) are directed to related dehumidifier inventions by the instant assignee/applicants).
Yoon et al. (US 2006/0283327 A1) teach a dehumidifier comprising a rotatable rotor cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763