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 § 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 10 & 13-15 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.
In claim 10, applicant states “the heat sink disposed in the control board”, however the disclosure does not appear to indicate the heat sink is disposed “in” the board but rather the heat sink is disposed “on” the board. Thus, it is unclear if applicant truly intends to claim the heat sink being within the board. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as “on” as it is believed that is what applicant intended.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the outdoor air duct" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed that claim 13 was meant to be dependent upon claim 12 and not claim 11, as claim 12 recites proper antecedent basis for such a limitation. Thus, for examination purposes, claim 13 will be interpreted to dependent upon claim 12.
In claim 15, applicant states “flows into the outside”, the grammatical structure of such a limitation is unclear due to the phrasing of “into the outside”. Outside typically denotes an exterior environment which is encompassing, thus the phrase “into” when utilized with “outside” renders confusion as to whether a certain subset of “outside” is selected for flow to flow “into” it, or if another element encompasses the space of “outside”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as “flows to the outside”.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20220138194A) in view of Taniguchi (US20100170101A1).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a laundry apparatus (abstract) comprising: a cabinet (ref 10); a processing chamber (interior of ref 10 including ref 11) located inside the cabinet and configured to accommodate laundry [0032]; a door (ref 40) configured to open and close the processing chamber [0033]; a heat exchanger (ref 100) located inside the cabinet, disposed in a lower portion of the processing chamber (see Figs.2-3 & 5) and configured to exchange heat with air of the processing chamber using a refrigerant [0005, 0050-0055, & 0114]; a control board (ref 193) located inside the cabinet, disposed in the lower portion of the processing chamber (see Figs.3 & 17a-18b), and configured to control the heat exchanger [0161]; and a fan (Fig.5 ref 105 or Fig.10 ref 160) configured to cool the control board [0183-0185 & 0189], disposed at a position adjacent to a floor inside the cabinet (see Figs.3 & 17a-17b) and configured to disperse an airflow of the floor inside the cabinet. The feature of the refrigerant being flammable is directed toward the refrigerant, which is not positively recited. Accordingly, the heat exchanger being configured to exchange heat using a flammable refrigerant is intended use and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the heat exchanger is capable of doing so as heat pump systems have long been known to utilize flammable refrigerants. However, assuming arguendo that compatibility with a flammable refrigerant is not explicitly disclosed, such a feature would be obvious in view of Taniguchi.
Taniguchi discloses an art related laundry treating device (abstract), wherein flammable refrigerants are known to be utilized for their environmentally friendly properties [0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoon to allow the heat pump to utilize a flammable refrigerant for their known environmentally friendly properties (Taniguchi [0094]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20220138194A) in view of Taniguchi (US20100170101A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon (US20210372032A1).
As to claim 2, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose the exhaust port of the fan communicating with outside air. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Yoon.
Yoon discloses an art related laundry treating appliance (abstract), wherein it is known that a circulation path may require at least some form of outlet (Fig.4 ref 155) in order to discharge as needed [0081] to the outside of the cabinet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to provide a discharge duct in order to allow for the exhaust port of the fan to communicate with the outside of the cabinet in order to discharge air as needed (Yoon [0081]).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20220138194A) in view of Taniguchi (US20100170101A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US20210176891A1).
As to claim 3, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the control board has a mounting surface on which elements are mounted [0183 & 0189] and the control board (ref 193) is positioned higher than the fan (ref 161). Thus, the fan can be considered to be disposed at least partially below the control board. As the claim does not specify the directionality of downward with respect to any element, the downward direction can be construed to a mean a left side surface when viewed in a right to left direction. However, assuming arguendo downward refers to a direction facing a ground/base when viewed in a top down view, the following alternative rejection is provided. Kim does not disclose the board surface facing downwardly; however such a feature would amount to a mere rearrangement of the circuit board and its housing. Further configurations where a control board with elements placed thereon can be facing downwardly are known in the art, as seen by Lee.
Lee discloses an art related laundry treatment device (abstract), wherein it is shown that components (Fig.5 refs208/209) are mounted to a surface of a control board (Fig.5 ref 202) which faces downward. Lee further showcases that the at least a portion of the fan can be disposed below the control board (see Figs.5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to provide the control board in a horizontal orientation with the surface facing downwardly, as such is a known variation in the art. Such a modification would merely change the board and board housing orientation, and a skilled artisan would recognize such a change to be a mere rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 4, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 3 wherein the circulation duct (Kim Fig.5 refs 101a/101b & refs 151/152/153) is located in the cabinet below the processing chamber (see Kim Fig.1-3) and forms a circulation flow path that discharges air introduced from the processing chamber back to the processing chamber (Kim [0054 & 0057]; the control board is disposed at least partially below the circulation duct (Kim Figs.5-6 & 17a-17b).
As to claim 5, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 4 wherein an exhaust port of the fan communicates with the circulation duct and air discharged from the fan is guided to the circulation duct (see Figs.21-22).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20220138194A) in view of Taniguchi (US20100170101A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US20200048820A1) and Mitty (US5734554A).
As to claim 6, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein it is indicated that the board has elements (Kim [0014 & 0083]) which controls operation of the heat pump (Kim [0011, 0046, & 0161]) along with a heat sink (Kim ref 194) for cooling of elements on the board. Modified Kim does not disclose an IPM module disposed on the control board or the fan disposed on the fins. However, the use of IPM modules for controlling compressor operation in heat pump system is known in the art, as seen by Lee. Further, the mounting of a fan on a control element of a board for cooling said element is known, as seen by Mitty.
Lee discloses an art related clothing treating apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that a compressor of a heat pump system is an inverter compressor that allows for changing compressor performance and utilizes DC power [0081]. Lee further discloses that in order to control such a compressor of the heat pump system a circuit board utilizes an IPM module which requires cooling via a heat sink [0082].
Mitty discloses a heat sink for cooling a CPU chip (abstract), wherein it is showcased that a control board (ref 11) can be provided with an element (ref 9 i.e., CPU) which requires cooling. To this extent Mitty provides a heat sink (ref 21) to which a fan (ref 27) attaches to ensure temperature maintenance via cooling of the element (Col.2 lines 50-65). Mitty and Kim are related in the desire for cooling of electrical board components, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look towards manners of cooling electric board components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to provide an inverter compressor to allow for variable compressor performance (Lee [0081]) and an IPM module on the board for controlling the compressor along with a heat sink to cool the IPM module (Lee [0082]). Further, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement a fan mounted to the heat sink in order to cool the component, as such is a known manner of cooling electrical components on control boards (Mitty Col.2 lines 50-65). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to add additional fans and heat sinks for the control board as needed for cooling of components on the board.
As to claim 7, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 6 wherein the fan is a centrifugal fan (Kim [0104]), thereby reading on a centrifugal blower
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20220138194A) in view of Taniguchi (US20100170101A1), Lee (US20200048820A1), and Mitty (US5734554A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cavarreta (US20150308034A1).
As to claim 8, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the air flow rate can be adjusted to reduce noise and vibration (Kim [0108]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a fan is capable of producing an exhaust air volume of 0.1 to 0.16 m3/min. Further, the adjustment of air flow to affect cooling is known as seen by Cavarreta.
Cavarreta discloses an art related laundry apparatus that utilizes a heat pump (abstract), wherein it is known that cooling capability can be adjusted by varying air flow rate [0028] in accordance with a temperature [0030] of a control unit in order to prevent overheating [0014 & 0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the air flow rate of the air exhaust volume accordingly in order to prevent overheating (Cavarreta [0014 & 0029]) while also reducing noise and vibration (Kim [0108]). Thus, a skilled artisan would find the adjustment of the exhaust air flow rate within the claimed range to merely be optimization of a result effective variable (see MPEP 2144).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20220138194A) in view of Taniguchi (US20100170101A1), Lee (US20200048820A1), and Mitty (US5734554A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee (US20210176891A1, hereafter L1) and Noh (US20210317609A1).
As to claim 9, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the heat sink has a plurality of fins (Kim ref 194, Lee ref 102, & Mitty ref 23), where a distance from a first fin to a last fin is a length, and the fins extend in second direction with a second length (see Kim, Lee, and Mitty). Modified Kim does not disclose the specific configuration of the fin dimensions as claimed, however such configurations are known in the art, as seen by L1 and Noh.
L1 discloses an art related clothes treating device (abstract), utilizing a heat pump system (ref 70), wherein it is shown that a plurality of heat sink fins can have a length, where said length is defined as the distance from the first fin to the last fin, smaller than a diameter of a suction inlet for a fan (Fig.5 ref 211) and a second length greater than a diameter of the fan (Fig.5 ref 211 see longest direction).
Noh discloses an art related laundry treatment device (abstract), wherein it is shown that heat sink fins can extend across length of circuit board (Fig.4 ref 82) while also having a distance between a first and last fin being less than a diameter of a fan inlet port (see Figs.4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to elongate the length of the fins in the second direction and provide the fins with a distance between the last fin and the first fin being less than a diameter of the fan, as such is a known configuration in the art (L1 Fig.5 & Noh Fig.4). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known configuration for heat sink fins sizes in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a skilled artisan recognizes that by increasing the length coverage of the fins, greater heat transfer can occur.
As to claim 10, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the heat sink is disposed on the board far from the compressor in a front-rear direction (see Kim Figs.5 & 17a-18b).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20220138194A) in view of Taniguchi (US20100170101A1), Lee (US20210176891A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Moon (US20090260254A1).
As to claim 11, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the a steam generator is provided in the machine base where the heat pump system is located (Kim [0038]) to generate steam from supplied water [0040-0041]. Modified Kim does not specifically showcase the exact position of the steam generator being located above the circulation duct. However, such a feature would merely amount to an obvious rearrangement of parts, as one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that positioning the steam generator at any location within the machine base, including the claimed position, would not affect the operation of the steam generator. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to position the steam generator at any position within the machine base, including the claimed position with no anticipation of unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, such a configuration is known in the art, as seen by Moon.
Moon discloses an art related clothing treating device (abstract), utilizing a heat pump system (Fig.3 ref 23) and circulation duct (Fig.3 refs 26 & 28). Moon showcases that a steam generator (Fig.3 ref 25) can be positioned above the circulation duct in order to allow for steam cleansing and sterilization of the heat exchanger parts [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to provide the steam generator above the circulation duct in order to allow for steam cleansing and sterilization of the heat exchanger parts (Moon [0073]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20220138194A) in view of Taniguchi (US20100170101A1), Lee (US20210176891A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yoon (US20210372032A1).
As to claim 12, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 4, but does not disclose the exhaust port of the fan communicating with outside air. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Yoon.
Yoon discloses an art related laundry treating appliance (abstract), wherein it is known that a circulation path may require at least some form of discharge ducting (Fig.4 ref 155, reading on an outdoor air duct since it allows for emission of air to the outdoors) in order to discharge as needed [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to provide a discharge duct in order to allow for the exhaust port of the fan to communicate with the outside of the cabinet in order to discharge air as needed (Yoon [0081]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Modified Kim, as utilized in the rejections above, appears to be the closest art of record. Modified Kim showcases the inlet port (Kim ref 101a), while the Yoon reference utilized above provides rationale for including an outdoor air-side inlet port. Although neither reference showcases said ports being capable of opening and closing, the opening and closing of ports to control air flow is a known concept, as seen by Kang (US20200370235A1) which showcases the use of said ports to control and direct airflow as desired (see Figs.8A-8C). However, claim 13 requires a specific configuration where the air flow is guided to outside the cabinet when the air-side inlet port is closed and direct air from the fan to the circulation duct when the chamber-side inlet port is closed and the outdoor air-side inlet port is opened. Coupled with the requirement of the control board having the mounting surface facing downward with the fan disposed below said control board, the limitation indicates that the air flow from the fan is not directly coupled with the circulation duct (e.g., fan and portion of the control board being present in the circulation path). At best the Kang reference would suggest that closing outdoor air-side inlet would prevent airflow from being guided outside and when opened would allow for said air flow to be guided outside. Accordingly, the configuration is opposite to what the closest prior art of record details. There is no other art of record, which appears to teach or suggest such a limitation. Thus, claim 13 is considered to contain allowable subject matter, and claims 14-15 are considered to contain allowable subject matter for being dependent upon claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711