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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 17 August 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant further elects Species II (Figs. 14-19), with claims 1-3 and 6-10 readable on the elected Species.
Regarding claims 1-3, Applicant’s argument that these claims are generic is persuasive.
Regarding claim 4, the determining the no-load or small load based on maintaining water level at a first level for a first time is disclosed in Fig. 9, which is the non-elected Species. Thus, claim 4 is withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected Species. However, claim 4 remains eligible for rejoinder upon allowance of a generic claim.
Claims 4-5 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 August 2026.
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.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0208609 to Han et al. (“Han”) in view of US 2011/0289796 to Ha et al. (“Ha”).
Regarding claim 1, Han (in Figs. 1-3 and associated text) discloses a clothes treating apparatus (1) comprising:
a drying device including a heat exchanger (condenser 453 and evaporator 451), a compressor (455), and a fan (blower 49), and having a drain hole formed to drain condensate water produced by the heat exchanger (note ¶ [0089] where water from evaporator may be drained into the tub via duct 41, which reads on a drain hole);
a tub (2) arranged underneath the drying device and storing the condensate water drained through the drain hole (see evaporator being drained into the tub above);
a controller configured to:
start a drying process,
operate the drying device based on the start of the drying process.
Han discloses the claimed invention including a controller starting a drying process with the drying device (see ¶ [0022]) but Han does not expressly disclose a water level sensor configured to detect a water level in the tub or the controller configured to determine a load for drying to be one of a no-load and a small load based on the water level in the tub having yet to reach a preset water level while a preset time elapses after the start of the drying process. Ha teaches an art-related clothes treating apparatus using a heat exchanger (condenser 50) to condense and remove moisture in a drying process, employing a water level sensor (240,250,260,270) to a container (200) that collects the condensate, and a controller (600) configured to transmit a water level value of condensed water calculated by the water level sensor, calculate a condensed water change rate, compare a reference amount with the condensed water change rate, and determine whether to complete the drying operation, such that the drying operation is continuously repeated if the change rate is greater than the reference amount and that the drying operation is end if the change rate is smaller than the reference amount (see Ha at ¶ [0055], [0079]-[0084] as well as Figs. 10-11),
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide the clothes treating apparatus of Han with a water level sensor and controller determining drying operation based on water level reaching a preset water level while a preset time elapses in the drying process, such as that taught in Ha, in order to yield the predictable results of determining when to complete a drying process based on condensed water level.
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches using a drain pump (27) and Ha teaches a drain pump (81) to drain the condensate out of the container, and the combination would produce a controller operating a drain pump based on water level.
Regarding claim 3, Ha further discloses terminating the drying process in response to the drying rate, which could be interpreted as relative load size being load that requires no additional drying operation time (see above).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Ha, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of US 2018/0195229 to Pistochini et al. (“Pistochini”).
Regarding claim 6, Han further discloses a drum (3) rotationally arranged in the tub and a temperature sensor for monitoring temperature of air to be supplied into the tub (see Han at ¶ [0093]). Han does not expressly disclose first and second sensors at the inlet and outlet of the drum that determines a load based on temperature differences. Pistochini teaches that it is known in the dryer art to provide first and second sensors at the drum inlet and outlet for monitoring temperature differences in order to determine the dryness of the load (see Pistochini at ¶ [0025]-[0026]) and that the rate of temperature signal change correlating to the mass of the load (see Pistochini at ¶ [0028]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide the clothes treating apparatus in the combination of Han and Ha with first and second sensors, such as that taught in Pistochini, to yield the same and predictable results of monitoring temperature differentials in order to determine dryness or load size.
Regarding claim 7, Pistochini further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to terminate the drying process based on the load for drying determined to be the no-load even before a lapse of the preset time after the drying process is started (see Pistochini at ¶ [0027]-[0028], the determination of drying being completed based on the sensed temperature differentials, the determination of load size being readily understood by one having ordinary skill in the art based on the simple correlation of time to dryness completion).
Regarding claim 8, Pistochini further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to terminate the drying cycle upon determination of drying being completed
to, based on the temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet of the drum being higher than the preset temperature or the water level in the tub being higher than the first water level, determine the load for drying to be the small load based on the water level in the tub having yet to reach the preset water level for the preset time (see Pistochini at ¶ [0027]-[0028], the determination of drying being completed based on the sensed temperature differentials, the determination of load size being readily understood by one having ordinary skill in the art based on the simple correlation of time to dryness completion).
Regarding claims 9-10, the combination of Han, Ha, and Pistochini above of water level sensing and drying temperature differentials relative to load size would readily be interpreted to not be a no-load or small load size based on excessive water levels (indicating significant drying and significant load size) since condensate levels and drying time monitored by temperature differentials correlate to load size.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/035218 to Rajendran, which discloses operating a drying cycle using plural temperature sensors and monitor drying temperature differentials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
