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 18 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 August 2026.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how a termination time point of the drying process can be determined by any operation cycle of the drainage pump. Does this include when the drainage pump is “off”? What operation cycle of the pump determines a termination time point of the drying process? How is this determination performed? Clarification and correction is required regarding how the determining step is performed based on an unspecified operation cycle.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0030643 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
Regarding claims 1-2, and 8-10, Kim discloses a clothes treating apparatus comprising:
a tub (130);
a drying device (heat pump 220 or heater 135) configured to supply hot air to the tub;
a drainage pump (192) configured to discharge water stored in the tub to an outside of the clothes treating apparatus;
a temperature sensor (265,270) located at a predetermined height from a bottom surface of the tub; and
a controller (250) configured to:
operate the drying device in response to a start of a drying process (see Figs. 4-5 and associated text, particularly ¶ [0048];
operate the drainage pump for a predetermined time in response to a predetermined condition detected by the temperature sensor (see Figs. 4-5 and associated text, particularly ¶ [0053]-[0056]); and
determine a termination time point of the drying process based on an operation cycle of the drainage pump (see Figs. 4-5 and associated text, particularly ¶ [0056]).
wherein the controller is configured to terminate the drying process in response to determining that the drainage pump has not been operating for a reference time period (see Figs. 4-5 and associated text, particularly ¶ [0055]),
further comprising a water level sensor (260) configured to measure a water level in the tub, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to a determination the water level sensor is not in a failed state, terminate the drying process based on a determination that the water level in the tub remained lower than a minimum water level measurable by the water level sensor for a reference time period after the operation of the drainage pump (see Figs. 4-5 and associated text, particularly ¶ [0061]-[0062]),
further comprising: a water level sensor (260) configured to measure a water level in the tub, wherein the controller is further configured to operate the drainage pump for the predetermined time in response to the predetermined condition being detected by the temperature sensor only in response to a determination that the water level sensor is in a failed state (see Figs. 4-5 and associated text, particularly ¶ [0061]-[0062]), note the sensed water level being less than predetermined water level in S190 leading to drain pump operation S220 reads on a failed water level sensing),
further comprises a water level sensor (260) configured to measure a water level in the tub, wherein the controller is further configured to operate the drainage pump for the predetermined time in response to at least one of: a determination the water level in the tub measured by the water level sensor reached a predetermined water level, or a determination the temperature sensor detected the predetermined condition (see Step S190 in Fig. 5).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Kim, supra, discloses the claimed invention including changes in temperature measured by the temperature sensor being greater than or equal to a predetermined value but Kim does not expressly disclose the measured temperature as a rate of change. However, variables such as temperature and time are result effective variables, and 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 monitor either the temperature change directly or a rate of change to yield the same and predictable results of monitoring temperature change, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2019/0024299 to Ryu.
Kim, supra, discloses the claimed invention including the drying device including a heat exchanger (see heat pump 220), a water level sensor (260) configured to measure a water level in the tub, and the controller controlling the heat exchanger during a drying operation (see Figs. 4-5 and associated text). Kim discloses a heat pump evaporator but does not expressly disclose a nozzle device configured to spray water to the heat exchanger to remove moisture in the air during a drying operation. Ryu teaches that it is known to provide a clothes treating apparatus with a heat exchanger having a nozzle device (spray member 100) for cleaning the heat exchanger.
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 heat exchanger of Kim with a nozzle device, such as that taught in Ryu, to yield the same and predictable results of cleaning the evaporator of a heat pump.
Regarding claim 5, Kim further discloses wherein controller is configured to: in response to a determination that the water level sensor is not in a failed state, determine the termination time point of the drying process based on the water level in the tub measured by the water level sensor (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 6-7, see claim 3 above regarding rate of changes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0115619 to Dunn et al., which discloses a dryer drying operation using drain pump rate.
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
