DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 10/6/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16 and 18 are pending, Claims 10-11, 13-16 and 18 have been withdrawn, and Claims 1-3 and 5-9 have been examined.
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 § 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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salvi et al. (US 2021/0140086 A1) in view of Musone (US 7,942,025 B1).
Re claim 1, Salvi discloses a method of treating a load of articles in a wash basket of a washing machine appliance (abstract, title, ¶ [0001]), the method comprising:
washing the load of articles in the wash basket prior to rotating the wash basket within the washing machine appliance (¶ [0032]-[0033] after the wash cycle and/or the rinse cycle), wherein washing the load of articles in the wash basket comprises flowing a volume of water into a wash tub of the washing machine appliance, rotating the wash basket at an extraction speed after flowing the volume of water into the tub, and activating a drain pump (¶ [0033]) of the washing machine appliance whereby wash liquid is removed from the wash tub of the washing machine appliance after flowing the volume of water into the tub (¶ [0032]-[0033] conventional washing/rinsing);
drying the load of articles in the washing machine appliance after washing the load of articles in the wash basket (inherent, a prior wash necessarily occurs to necessitate the drying) by rotating the wash basket within the washing machine appliance (¶ [0043]-[0045] see fig. 7 S310, S320);
monitoring a humidity within the washing machine appliance while rotating the wash basket (¶ [0045] moisture or humidity below a desired threshold necessarily includes a method of monitoring; see also ¶ [0041] one or more humidity sensors);
comparing the monitored humidity within the washing machine appliance to a humidity threshold (¶ [0045] below a desired threshold); and
terminating the drying in response to the monitored humidity within the washing machine appliance less than or equal to the humidity threshold (¶ [0045] total drying time to reduce moisture or humidity below a desired threshold).
Salvi does not explicitly disclose wherein washing and drying the load of articles are performed in a single continuous one-step process. However, Musone discloses it is very old and well-known in the washing machine art to include a combined washer dryer (abstract) wherein washing and drying the load of articles are performed in a single continuous one-step process (col. 1 lines 15-19 “sequentially wash and dry”). Musone also discloses the washing step (col. 5 lines 61 to col. 6 line 11 “fill…drain”) and drying step by humidity (col. 6 lines 35-46; col. 7 lines 39-40 “desired humidity”).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Salvi to include washing and drying the load of articles in a single continuous one-step process, as suggested by Musone, in order to provide a combined washer-dryer for automated washing and drying.
Re claim 2, Salvi further discloses wherein the washing machine appliance comprises a cabinet (ref. 102), an aperture (ref. 190) defined through the cabinet, a wash tub (ref. 124) positioned within the cabinet, and a door (ref. 134) pivotably mounted to the cabinet at an opening in the cabinet, whereby the door is pivotable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the wash basket is rotatably mounted within the wash tub, wherein the door permits access to the wash basket through the opening when in the open position and encloses the wash basket within the cabinet when in the closed position (see fig. 3), wherein the aperture is open to an ambient environment external to the cabinet when the door is in the closed position (see fig. 3), and wherein rotating the wash basket comprises drawing a flow of ambient air through the aperture from the ambient environment into the wash basket (¶ [0045] rotate the wash basket).
Re claim 3, Salvi further discloses further comprising, prior to rotating the wash basket, opening a damper (ref. 200 vent door or another suitable damper system ¶ [0038] cycle may include opening vent door…) positioned within the cabinet of the washing machine appliance between the door and the wash basket to provide fluid communication between the wash basket and the ambient environment external to the cabinet, wherein the damper is downstream of the aperture and upstream of the wash basket with respect to the flow of ambient air from the ambient environment external to the cabinet through the washing machine appliance (¶ [0038]-[0040]).
Re claim 5, Salvi further discloses further comprising determining a remaining moisture content of the load of articles, wherein terminating the method is in response to the monitored humidity within the washing machine appliance less than or equal to the humidity threshold and in response to the determined remaining moisture content (¶ [0045] moisture…below a desired threshold).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salvi in view of Musone, as applied above, in view of Cook, IV et al. (US 2022/0380966 A1).
Re claim 6, Salvi/Musone discloses as shown above including determining the remaining moisture content, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the remaining moisture content of the load of articles is determined based on a weight of the load of articles. However, Cook discloses it is well-known in the laundry drying (abstract) and washing machine art (¶ [0029]) to determine a remaining moisture content of the load of articles based on a weight of the load of articles (¶ [0062], [0068] determine a remaining moisture content of the load of clothes based at least in part on the dry load weight).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of moisture of Salvi/Musone to further include based on a weight of the load of articles, as suggested by Cook, in order to provide an improved estimate of the amount of moisture.
Re claim 7, Cook further discloses wherein determining the remaining moisture content of the load of articles comprises comparing a weight of the load of articles with a dry weight of the load of articles (¶ [0062], [0068] subtracting the dry load weight), the weight of the load of articles measured after the monitored humidity within the washing machine appliance less than or equal to the humidity threshold (here, the combination of multiple known methods of determining moisture/humidity is prima facie obvious, for the purpose of obtaining improved estimates; alternatively, this limitation is met by the fact the measurement of wet weight-dry weight is for the purpose of determining humidity, thus the weight of the load of articles is measured up and until the monitored humidity is less than or equal to the humidity threshold), and the dry weight of the load of articles measured in the washing machine appliance prior to washing the load of articles in the washing machine appliance (¶ [0058]).
Re claim 8, Regarding “wherein the step of determining the remaining moisture content of the load of articles is performed in response to the monitored humidity within the washing machine appliance less than or equal to the humidity threshold”, the use of multiple known methods of monitoring moisture/humidity is prima facie obvious for the exact purpose of using an improved estimate of the moisture amount, and to further account for sensor failures. Alternatively, the final determination of remaining moisture content satisfies “in response to” monitoring the humidity within the washing machine appliance less than or equal to the humidity threshold, i.e. it continuously determines remaining moisture content up and until it is less than or equal to the humidity threshold.
Re claim 9, Regarding “wherein humidity threshold is based on a user-selected dryness level”, Cook further discloses user input of settings and parameters (¶ [0068], [0075]-[0077]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in the rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to the restriction requirement, rejoinder will be considered at the time allowable subject matter is identified.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights