DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Liu teaches spraying water into a condensation duct that is merely a fluid passage that interconnects a tub and fan rather than a passage designed to guide air from the tub into a chamber where a heat exchanger is disposed; accordingly, the configuration of the present cleaning unit is distinct from the teachings of Liu. However, Liu teaches a washer that provides the benefit of cleaning a drying air flow channel connected to a tub, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized from the teachings of Liu that a washer would be beneficial for other configurations of drying air flow channels such as one as presently claimed. Liu was relied on for its teachings of a washer for a drying air flow channel, not for the specific configuration or portion of an air flow channel being cleaned.
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 1-13 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.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 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 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170191212 by Yoon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220356636 by Liu et al. and WO2023005816A1 by Yamamoto.
As to claim 1, Yoon teaches a method for controlling a laundry treating apparatus with a cabinet having an inlet (fig. 1A), a tub 17 and tub inlet (fig. 1B), a connection body (gasket 17a) connecting the laundry and tub inlets, a drum 18, an air supply including a chamber (e.g. 121) above the tub, a chamber supply flow channel 1711 (fig. 1D) guiding air from the tub to the chamber, and a tub supply flow channel 131 guiding air in the chamber 121 to the connection body 17a, a heat exchanger assembly 100 to sequentially dehumidify and heat air introduced into the chamber, the method comprising a water supply operation of supplying water to the tub to a level higher than a vertical level of a lowermost end of the drum (para. 35); and a washing operation of rotating the drum at a preset cleaning rotation number such that water circulates along an inner surface of the tub (para. 35).
Yoon teaches a washer to remove foreign substances from its evaporator, but does not teach a washer to remove substances from its chamber supply flow channel. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform an operation of removing substances from the flow channel using a washer. Liu teaches using a washer to spray water inside an air flow channel for the purpose of removing foreign substances to increase stability of drying functions (paras. 45-46). Liu also teaches that its washer is particularly designed to advantageously clean the entire flow channel (para. 49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the claimed foreign substance removal operation using a washer in order to clean the entire flow channel, as suggested by Liu.
Yoon does not teach a cleaning rotation number (e.g. time, speed, directions, etc.) capable of supplying water in the tub to the chamber supply flow channel. However, Yamamoto teaches such operation. Yamamoto teaches a laundry treating apparatus with an air supply flow channel and an exhaust duct cleaning mode to clean the inner surface of an exhaust duct (para. 13), the mode comprising supplying water to the tub and rotating the drum a number of rotations capable of supplying the water to the exhaust duct (paras. 72-77). Yamamoto teaches that this improves maintainability and reduces the need to manually clean the inside of the duct (para. 20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Yoon to perform a washing operation of rotating the drum at a preset cleaning rotation number in order to deliver water to the chamber supply flow channel for cleaning the channel, eliminating the need for manual cleaning, as taught by Yamamoto.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Yamamoto teaches that the cleaning rotation number is set to raise a level of water inside the tub to a point lower than a connection point of the chamber and the chamber supply flow channel (see fig. 10; note that the water level would be lower than a connection point since its purpose is to clean the flow channel).
As to claim 3, Yoon teaches that the chamber supply flow channel 1711 has at least a partial corrugated pipe section (fig. 1D). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, the cleaning rotation number would be a number to raise the level of water to at least a partial area of the pipe in order to clean the pipe.
As to claim 7, while Yoon does not explicitly teach when its foreign substance removal operation for its evaporator takes place, and Liu does not explicitly teach that its operation is before start of the washing operation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform it before a start. Both Yoon and Liu recognize that foreign substances impair operation of the laundry apparatuses, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform the operation before the start of a washing operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the foreign substance removal operation may be performed before, during, or after a washing operation, and it would have been obvious to try performed it before a washing operation with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 8, while Yoon does not explicitly teach when its foreign substance removal operation for its evaporator takes place, and Liu does not explicitly teach that its operation is during a tub water supply operation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform it during a water supply operation. Yoon teaches that its evaporator washer is supplied water from a washing water supply unit connected to a tap, which is the same source as tub washing water (para. 74). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform foreign substance removal during a water supply operation with a reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
As to claim 9, Yamamoto teaches that the reference water level is higher than a vertical level of the lowermost end of the drum (para. 75), which would be lower than the lowermost end of the connection body of Yoon (see fig. 1B).
As to claim 10, Yoon teaches a drainage operation of draining water after a washing operation (para. 44, the purpose of the drain pump is to discharge washing water; see also Yamamoto, para. 89).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170191212 by Yoon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220356636 by Liu et al. and WO2023005816A1 by Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR20210122718A by Kim et al. (citations are to English translation published as EP4130375A1).
As to claim 4, Yoon does not teach that the number of rotations allows water in the tub to flow along a circumferential surface of the connection body (gasket). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the number of rotations set to flow water along a surface of the gasket. Kim teaches controlling rotation to allow water in the tub to flow along a circumferential surface of a gasket in order to clean the gasket of lint and other foreign substances (para. 69). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such operation in order to clean the gasket, as suggested by Kim. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 5, Yoon teaches that a connection point of the tub supply flow channel and the connection body (gasket) is higher than a center line of the gasket (fig. 1D). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, the water level would be lower than the connection point (see Yamamoto, para. 75).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170191212 by Yoon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220356636 by Liu et al. and KR20210122718A by Kim et al. (citations are to English translation published as EP4130375A1).
As to claim 11, Yoon teaches a method for controlling a laundry treating apparatus with a cabinet having an inlet (fig. 1A), a tub 17 and tub inlet (fig. 1B), a connection body (gasket 17a) connecting the laundry and tub inlets, a drum 18, an air supply including a chamber (e.g. 121) above the tub, a chamber supply flow channel 1711 (fig. 1D) guiding air from the tub to the chamber, and a tub supply flow channel 131 guiding air in the chamber 121 to the connection body 17a, a heat exchanger assembly 100 to sequentially dehumidify and heat air introduced into the chamber, the method comprising a water supply operation of supplying water to the tub to a level higher than a vertical level of a lowermost end of the drum (para. 35); and a washing operation of rotating the drum at a preset cleaning rotation number (para. 35).
Yoon teaches a washer to remove foreign substances from its evaporator, but does not teach a washer to remove substances from its chamber supply flow channel. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform an operation of removing substances from the flow channel using a washer. Liu teaches using a washer to spray water inside an air flow channel for the purpose of removing foreign substances to increase stability of drying functions (paras. 45-46). Liu also teaches that its washer is particularly designed to advantageously clean the entire flow channel (para. 49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the claimed foreign substance removal operation using a washer in order to clean the entire flow channel, as suggested by Liu.
Yoon does not teach that the number of rotations allows water in the tub to flow along a circumferential surface of the connection body (gasket). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the number of rotations set to flow water along a surface of the gasket. Kim teaches controlling rotation to allow water in the tub to flow along a circumferential surface of a gasket in order to clean the gasket of lint and other foreign substances (para. 69). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such operation in order to clean the gasket, as suggested by Kim.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 12, Yoon teaches a connection point of the tub supply flow channel and the connection body (gasket) (fig. 1D). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, the water level would be lower than the connection point (see Kim, abstract, paras. 262-263).
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