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.
Claim 10 is 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.
The term “preferably” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 10, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stegerwald (USPN 9,885,142).
As to claim 1, 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.
As to claim 2, Stegerwald discloses at Fig. 3 that its extinguishing system 60 is carried by the drum 20.
As to claims 4-5, the containers 30 read on the claimed independent bosses as shown in Stegerwald at Fig. 3, for example.
As to claim 10, at Fig. 3 of Stegerwald, there are three containers, for example.
As to claims 14-15, Stegerwald discloses 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.
As to claim 17, Stegerwald discloses at Figs. 3-4 a portion of each container 30 being inside the laundry cavity and a portion outside the laundry cavity.
As to claims 18-19, 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
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.
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) 3, 6-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stegerwald as applied to claims above.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5pm 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.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711