DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Stegerwald does not disclose that the extinguishing device element is formed as a ring, which extends around the axis, or the ring is carried by the door. These limitations were previously recited in claims 11 and 12. As explained in the prior Office action, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the claimed extinguishing device element shape. Applicant also asserts that Stegerwald does not disclose that the element forms a seal around the loading opening or is located adjacent to a seal around the loading opening. This limitation was previously recited in claims 13 and 15. As also previously set forth, Stegerwald discloses and/or renders this limitation obvious, at least that the element is adjacent to a seal. Applicant further asserts that Stegerwald does not disclose that the extinguishing device has a first part in the cavity at the level of the loading opening and is in the form of a ring, a portion of a ring, or a tubular loop, and a second part outside the cavity and in the casing, as presently recited in claim 22. The aforementioned limitations were previously recited in claims 17 and 18. However, Stegerwald discloses such subject matter as previously set forth.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 14-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 3, 6-9, and 11-13 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein extinguishing device element” should be “wherein said extinguishing device element” (fourth line from end). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 14, 19, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9885142 granted to Stegerwald.
As to claim 21, Stegerwald discloses a tumble dryer with automatic fire extinguishing system, including a housing 11, base plate 12, worktop 14, drum 20 in which laundry introduced and rotated about axis D (Figs. 1 and 3). At col. 5, para at line 10, Stegerwald discloses that positioned on the outer face 24 of the drum casing 22 in this embodiment at an angular distance of 90° are four containers 30 containing an extinguishing agent 9. Each container 30 has a temperature-activated release facility 60, which is embodied so that after being activated at a certain temperature, as produced in a fire, it releases the extinguishing agent 9 automatically into a space 13 within the housing 11 and outside the drum 20. Regions 63 are formed of polypropylene (reads on a thermoplastic) that will melt in the case of a fire in the dryer 10 (see also col. 5, para at line 19). As shown in Figs. 3-4 the fire extinguishing system 60 is located at least partially in the cavity. The extinguishing device 60 forms a seal around the loading opening or is located adjacent to a seal around the loading opening (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 14, Stegerwald discloses that the extinguishing device 60 is carried by the casing (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 22, Stegerwald discloses a tumble dryer with automatic fire extinguishing system, including a housing 11, base plate 12, worktop 14, drum 20 in which laundry introduced and rotated about axis D (Figs. 1 and 3). At col. 5, para at line 10, Stegerwald discloses that positioned on the outer face 24 of the drum casing 22 in this embodiment at an angular distance of 90° are four containers 30 containing an extinguishing agent 9. Each container 30 has a temperature-activated release facility 60, which is embodied so that after being activated at a certain temperature, as produced in a fire, it releases the extinguishing agent 9 automatically into a space 13 within the housing 11 and outside the drum 20. Regions 63 are formed of polypropylene (reads on a thermoplastic) that will melt in the case of a fire in the dryer 10 (see also col. 5, para at line 19). As shown in Figs. 3-4 the fire extinguishing system 60 is located at least partially in the cavity. The extinguishing device discloses a portion of each container 30 being inside the laundry cavity and a portion outside the laundry cavity (Figs. 3-4), and the first part is located at the level of the loading opening (See Fig. 1, for example the interior side of each container 30 matches the circumference of the tub opening) and is in the form of a portion of a ring.
As to claim 19, Stegerwald discloses wherein the first part is located at the level of the loading opening (See Fig. 1, for example the interior side of each container 30 matches the circumference of the tub opening) and is in the form of a portion of a ring.
As to claim 20, Stegerwald discloses at Figure 2 that a second side of the container 30 is attached to the casing.
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.
Claims 1, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9885142 granted to Stegerwald.
As to claim 1, Stegerwald teaches a tumble dryer with automatic fire extinguishing system, including a housing 11, base plate 12, worktop 14, drum 20 in which laundry introduced and rotated about axis D (Figs. 1 and 3). At col. 5, para at line 10, Stegerwald discloses that positioned on the outer face 24 of the drum casing 22 in this embodiment at an angular distance of 90° are four containers 30 containing an extinguishing agent 9. Each container 30 has a temperature-activated release facility 60, which is embodied so that after being activated at a certain temperature, as produced in a fire, it releases the extinguishing agent 9 automatically into a space 13 within the housing 11 and outside the drum 20. Regions 63 are formed of polypropylene (reads on a thermoplastic) that will melt in the case of a fire in the dryer 10 (see also col. 5, para at line 19). As shown in Figs. 3-4 the fire extinguishing system 60 is located at least partially in the cavity.
Stegerwald does not explicitly teach that the extinguishing device element is in the form of a tubular ring or a portion of a tubular ring, which extends around the axis, and that the tubular ring or the portion of the tubular ring is carried by the door. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the claimed element shape.
Other known shapes are considered by Stegerwald for its extinguishing containers 30, particularly, "for example the configuration and arrangement of the container or the number of containers and of the release facilities, can also be present individually or cumulatively in other embodiments". Altering the shape of the containers 30 to be formed cylindrically about all or a portion of the drum would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to encapsulate the entirely of the drum and thereby achieve expected fire extinguishing results. Changing the shape so that it mimics the shape of the drum would have been an obvious design consideration in achieving expected fire extinguishing results because the fire extinguishing chemicals would more closely surround the drum and aid in effectively extinguishing a fire.
Moreover, Stegerwald contemplates having extinguishing facilities on the respective end faces of the drum 20 ("With the abovementioned embodiments the release facilities 60, 62 are only shown on the face of the container 30 facing away from the drum 20 or facing the rotation axis D. It is of course also possible to provide release facilities instead of or in addition to these on the respective end faces or narrow faces."). This would effectively create an end ring or end wall that connects each of the individual containers 30 that has a circular shape. The "end face" may on a front wall. The front wall in Stegerwald has an opening in which laundry may be inserted.
As to claim 13, Stegerwald teaches wherein the extinguishing device 60 is carried by the casing (see Fig. 3) and forms a seal around the loading opening or is located adjacent to a seal around the loading opening (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 16, impliedly in Stegerwald a door is used to cover the porthole of the drum 20 after the clothes are inside.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights