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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Turning to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is noted that the terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989))
and limitations from a pending application's specification will not be read into the claims
(Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices. Inc.,
848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892
(1988); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference does not
require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or the recognition of
properties that are inherently possessed by the prior art reference. Verdegaal Brothers
Inc. v. Union Oil co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject
matter of a claim when that reference discloses each and every element set forth in the
claim (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990));
however, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what
Applicant is claiming, but only that the claims "read on” something disclosed in the
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984) (and overruled in part on another
issue), SRI Intel v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. Of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118, 227 USPQ
577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the
claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with
his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. See In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues “[t]here is no heat exchanger disclosed in Bilionis and instead only a heating element is disclosed”, further arguing that “[a] heating element does not have a refrigerant or other heat exchange medium.” However, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the invention as currently claimed. Claim 1 recites “a heat exchanger disposed in the duct and configured to heat the air in the duct”, with no further structural recitation defining the heating structure (note the recitation of “refrigerant” is recited in the alternative and thus is not a required element of the claims). Thus, such arguments are not commensurate in scope with the invention as currently claimed. Bilionis discloses a heating element, which manifestly exchanges heat with the air and has a “configuration” that heats the air in the duct. Notwithstanding this, various heating means for dryers are old and known in the art and generally not considered a patentably distinguishable feature absent clear and convincing arguments clarifying precisely how and why such heating means imparts patentability to the claims. Accordingly, the position is maintained that the heating means of Bilionis is readable on the generic recitation of “heat exchanger” as claimed.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 6, Applicant argues similar reasons which are not persuasive for reasons of record.
Applicant is silent with respect to any patentability arguments pointing out precisely how and why the invention as claimed serves to patentably distinguish over Bilionis, only merely reciting various cumulative steps with general allegations of patentability. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bilionis et al. (US 20180230640, “Bilionis”).
Bilionis teaches a pair of laundry treating appliances comprising the following:
For Claim 1:
A control method for a laundry treating apparatus including a washing machine and a dryer, wherein the washing machine includes a first cabinet, a tub disposed in the first cabinet and configured to receive water, a washing drum disposed in the tub and configured to receive laundry, a washing drum motor configured to rotate the washing drum, a water supply configured to supply the water to the tub, and a heater configured to heat the water in the tub, and the dryer includes a second cabinet configured to be disposed vertically above or below the first cabinet, a drying drum disposed in the second cabinet and configured to receive laundry, a duct configured to supply air to the drying drum, and a heat exchanger disposed in the duct and configured to heat the air in the duct, the control method comprising (see Figure 1, washing machine 10, tub 11, dryer 12, drum 13, motor 14, water pump 15, clothes drying drum 17, heating element 20, heating elements 43a & 43b. refer to cabinets of washing machine 10 & dryer 12). Examiner notes that the claim requires “configured to be disposed vertically above or below”, and does not necessitate this actual arrangement but merely the capability to be. Examiner considers the cabinets could be arranged in such a manner:
performing a drying course, the drying course including an operation of the heat exchanger (see Figures 6-7, steps 202, 206, 208, 210, 300, 306, 308. [0023]);
comparing an air temperature of air discharged from the drying drum or a refrigerant temperature of refrigerant with a first reference temperature when the dryer receives a low power mode request for reducing an exchange current per hour supplied to the heat exchanger, or continuing the drying course when the dryer does not receive the low power mode request (see Figures 6-7, steps S202, 206, 308); and
maintaining the exchanger current when the air temperature or the refrigerant temperature is less than or equal to the first reference temperature (see MPEP 2111.04, “CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS”).
For Claim 2:
The control method of claim 1, further comprising reducing the exchanger current when the air temperature or the refrigerant temperature is higher than the first reference temperature (see MPEP 2111.04, “CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS”).
For Claim 3:
The control method of claim 2, further comprising heating the water in the tub by operating the heater of the washing machine when reducing the exchanger current is performed (see MPEP 2111.04, “CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS”).
For Claim 4:
The control method of claim 3, further comprising finishing the low power mode when the dryer receives a heating end signal for indicating a completion of heating of the water in the tub of the washing machine (see MPEP 2111.04, “CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS”).
For Claim 6:
The control method of claim 2, wherein reducing the exchanger current comprises controlling a compressor of the heat exchanger to decrease a flow velocity of the refrigerant (see MPEP 2111.04, “CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS”).
For Claim 9:
The control method of claim 1, further comprising delaying heating the water in the tub when maintaining the exchanger current is performed (see MPEP 2111.04, “CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS”).
For Claim 10:
The control method of claim 9, further comprising reducing a motor current per hour supplied to the washing drum motor when delaying heating the water in the tub is performed (see MPEP 2111.04, “CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS”).
For Claim 11:
The control method of claim 10, further comprising notifying a user of an increase of a washing time through a washing machine interface when delaying heating the water in the tub is performed (see MPEP 2111.04, “CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights