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 .
Priority
The foreign priority document has not been retrieved due to an unspecified failure (document dated 9/7/2024). The Examiner has requested retrieval from the Patent Electronic Business Center (PEBC).
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: “a cleaning member” in claim 1.
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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “while the filter module is while the filter module is coupled” appears to contain a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-15 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the connection module,” “the dust outlet cover,” and “the dust outlet." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear what it means for a filter mesh to be arranged in a shape in which a left side and a right side are inverted. It is unclear exactly what shape is required to meet this limitation. It is also unclear if this limitation refers to a user performing an operation of inverting the filter mesh.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the inlet." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there are two different inlets.
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.
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) 1-4, 10, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2014/0208609) in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0129908).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a washing machine having a drying function, comprising: a main body having a laundry inlet at a front of the washing machine (1, 11); a tub disposed inside the main body (2); a drum rotatably disposed inside the tub (3); a heat exchanger disposed above the tub and configured to heat air supplied into the tub (41, 43, 45, 47); a fan configured to guide air through a circulating flow path that passes through the tub and the heat exchanger (49); a filter case disposed on one side of the main body (43/431); and a filter module coupleable to the filter case and decoupleable from the filter case such that while the filter module is coupled to the filter case and the main body, air discharged from the tub flows through the filter module and is supplied toward the heat exchanger (5), wherein the filter module comprises: a filter mesh (553, 573).
Han does not expressly disclose wherein the filter module comprises: a cleaning member configured to sweep the filter mesh to separate foreign substance caught in the filter mesh as the filter module is decoupled from the filter case. Rather, Han discloses a scraper (61) coupled to the filter guide (431).
Choi discloses a filter assembly and dryer, including a mounting groove (70) in which a filter assembly (100) is detachably mounted (paragraph 61), and wherein the filter assembly includes meshes (111a, 111b, 131a, 131b) and a compression member (150) having main blades (153, 155) to scrape lint from the first meshes (111a, 111b; paragraphs 81, 82) and sub blades (210, 230) to scrape lint from second meshes (131a, 131b; paragraph 105). The main blades (153, 155) scrape off the lint as the primary filter (110) is moved in the positive z direction (Figures 5C, 5D; paragraph 82).
Because it is known in the art to have a filter module with a cleaning member, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known filter and filter cleaning mechanism, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the filter module comprises: a cleaning member configured to sweep the filter mesh to separate foreign substance caught in the filter mesh as the filter module is decoupled from the filter case. Note that modified Han would be capable of performing the sweep of the filter mesh as the filter module is decoupled from the filter case. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claims 2-4, 10, and 11 are considered to be met by modified Han as applied above and which results in: wherein the air discharged from the tub flows into the filter module along a first direction and the air is supplied to the heat exchanger by being discharged through the filter mesh along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Choi: see orientation of air inlet holes 171 and meshes 111a, 111b); wherein the filter module comprises: a first filter on which the filter mesh is formed (Choi: 110); wherein at least a portion of the cleaning member is in contact with the filter mesh, and the at least the portion of the cleaning member is displaced as the filter module is being decoupled from the filter case (Choi: (153, 155; Figures 5C, 5D; paragraph 82); further comprising: a heat pump, arranged along the circulating flow path, to heat the air supplied into the tub (Han: 451, 453; paragraph 44); wherein the filter case is arranged on an upper portion of the main body along the circulating flow path such that the air supplied to the heat exchanger is filtered through the filter mesh of the filter module (Han: 43/431, 45).
Regarding claim 15, modified Han is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein the tub comprises an outlet (Han: 25) and an inlet at a front upper side of the tub (Han: 231), wherein the circulating flow path comprises: an outlet duct connected to the outlet (Han: 41); the filter case connected to the outlet duct and extending from one side of the rear upper portion in the main body to one side of a front upper portion in the main body (Han: 43/431); a heat exchange duct connected to the filter case and extending from one side of the front upper portion in the main body to another side (Han: 45); and a supply duct connected to the heat exchange duct and connected to the inlet (Han: 47), wherein the filter module is inserted into a filter insertion portion provided within the filter case (Han: 5, 43/431).
Modified Han does not expressly disclose wherein the tub comprises an outlet at a rear lower side of the tub; the outlet duct extending from the rear lower side of the tub to one side of a rear upper portion in the main body. However, this is considered to be a mere rearrangement of parts, and rearrangement of parts is considered to be obvious to a PHOSITA. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C) – Rearrangement of Parts. Absent unexpected results or persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the outlet and outlet duct, yielding wherein the tub comprises an outlet at a rear lower side of the tub; the outlet duct extending from the rear lower side of the tub to one side of a rear upper portion in the main body, and the results would be predictable.
Claim(s) 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2014/0208609), in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0129908), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2011/0271550).
Regarding claims 16, 20, and 21, modified Han is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a cleaning brush configured to sweep the filter mesh to separate foreign substance caught in the filter mesh.
Kim discloses a clothes treatment apparatus having a filter assembly (6) and a foreign substance removal unit (67) comprising a brush (671) provided in contact with a filter unit (65).
Because it is known in the art to have a brush as the substance removal member, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known filter cleaning mechanism, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a cleaning brush configured to sweep the filter mesh to separate foreign substance caught in the filter mesh.
Claims 17-19, and 22 are considered to be met by modified Han as applied above and which results in: wherein the cleaning brush is in contact with the filter mesh (Choi: 111a, 111b, 153, 155; Kim: 671); wherein the cleaning brush is displaceable with respect to the filter mesh (Choi: Figures 5A-5D); wherein the filter mesh is formed on a filter mesh face perpendicular to one open side on which a filter inlet is formed (Choi: 171, 111a/b); wherein the filter case includes a filter case inlet connected to the outlet duct, and a filter case outlet connected to the heat exchange duct (Han: upstream and downstream portion of 43/431).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the washing machine as defined by the combination of claims 1-5.
Regarding claim 5, there is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Han et al. (US 2014/0208609) in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0129908), to further include wherein the cleaning member is in a form of a square ring, and the cleaning member sweeps the filter mesh as the filter module is moved such that the filter module and the filter case decouple from each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 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) 272-1414. 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711