DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/19/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 2/19/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20190024687A) (machine translation attached in prior action) in view of Chungill (KR20190063254A) (machine translation attached in prior action).
Re claim 1, Choi discloses a washing machine (title) comprising:
a main body (ref. 10) that includes a laundry inlet (ref. 10a);
a water tub (ref. 20) arranged in the main body for storing water;
a drum (ref. 30) arranged to be rotatable in the water tub; a pulsator (ref. 40) arranged in the drum and rotating in an opposite direction from a rotational direction of the drum;
a first motor (ref. 111) configured to provide driving force to the pulsator;
a second motor (ref. 131) configured to provide driving force to the drum;
a first inverter (ref. 513a) configured to control a current applied to the first motor;
a second inverter (ref. 513b) that is configured to control a current applied to the second motor; and
a controller (ref. 400) configured to control the first inverter to reduce at least one of rotation speed of the first motor or rotation time per period of the first motor by reducing the current applied to the first motor (¶ [0041]-[0042], [0058]-[0059], [0062], [0073], [0115]).
Choi does not disclose determine whether the first motor and the second motor are operating simultaneously; and the second inverter includes a temperature detection function and controlling the first inverter in response to a determination that a temperature of the second inverter is equal to a preset first temperature when the first motor and the second motor are operating simultaneously. However, Chungill discloses it is known in the washing machine art (title) to provide a temperature sensor (¶ [0024], [0119]-[0120] temperature sensor) and to control an inverter that controls both the pulsator and the drum (ref. 420) to reduce current and temperature (¶ [0151] in response to a determination that a temperature of any part/portion of the inverter portion or a part/portion of the inverter control portion is equal to a preset first temperature (¶ [0024], [0119]-[0120]; see also ¶ [0014] detection part most likely to overcurrent and burn) during simultaneous operation of the both the pulsator and the drum (¶ [0056], i.e. determination of washing stroke or dehydration stroke ¶ [0151]).
Regarding “detect a temperature of the second inverter”, it is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the temperature detection function of Chungill on any part of an inverter for controlling the drum and pulsator, including similar inverters for controlling either of a drum or pulsator of Choi. That is, the detect the temperature of both the first inverter and the second inverter of Choi. And to simultaneously control the drum and/or pulsator in reducing current, speed and therefore temperature. That is, to then control both the first inverter and the second inverter of Choi to reduce the first motor and the second motor, to affect the same reduction control in power consumption and temperature as in Chungill.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second inverter of Choi to further include a temperature detection function, as suggested by Chungill, in order to prevent burnout and overheating of the motor.
Re claim 2-6, Regarding “wherein the controller is configured to control the first inverter to: reduce the rotation speed of the first motor to a second rotation speed less than a first rotation speed, in response to a first determination the temperature of the second inverter is equal to the preset first temperature; and reduce the rotation speed of the first motor to a third rotation speed less than the second rotation speed, in response to a second determination the temperature of the second inverter is equal to the preset first temperature again after the first determination”, Chungill further discloses changing the inverter current limit multiple times (¶ [0131]-[0132]). Regarding “wherein the controller is configured to control the first inverter to reduce the rotation speed of the first motor by a specified value each time the temperature of the second inverter is equal to the preset first temperature”, the use of a specified value for “reduce the current limit value” is prima facie obvious and/or readily obtainable variables for reduction to reduce temperature based on routine experimentation. Regarding “wherein the controller is configured to control the first inverter to reduce the rotation speed of the first motor to 0, in response to a determination the temperature of the second inverter is equal to a preset second temperature”, Chunghill discloses it is conventionally known to stop the motor upon overheating (¶ [0018]-[0019]) and it being obvious to maintain such for extreme temperatures or failure to reduce temperature under the current reduction (also consider Choi ¶ [0124] rotational speed 0 rpm). Regarding “wherein the controller is configured to maintain the reduced rotation speed of the first motor until the end of a course of the washing machine unless the controller obtains a determination that the temperature of the second inverter is equal to the preset first temperature”, Chunghill discloses increasing only when the temperature is lower (¶ [0027]). Regarding “an input interface configured to receive, from a user, an operation command to perform a same course as the course performed before the operation command is received; and a memory configured to store the reduced rotation speed the first motor maintained, wherein the controller is configured to, in response to receiving the operation command after the end of the course of the washing machine, start the same course of the washing machine at the reduced rotation speed the first motor maintained”, Choi further discloses store operation information including speed (¶ [0098]).
Re claims 7-11, Claims 7-11 differs from claims 2-6 only in the recitation of “rotation time per period”, here, Choi discloses control of rotation speed for a predetermined period (¶ [0174]) and it further being obvious the a PWM controlled motor is necessarily power input relative ta period.
Re claim 12, Chunghill further discloses the inverter comprises a temperature sensor configured to detect the temperature of the inverter (¶ [0024], [0119]-[0120] temperature sensor).
Re claims 13-20, Independent claim 13 reads as a method subcombination of controlling a washing machine according to controller programming of claim 1. As such, the limitations of claims 13-20 are obvious over the combination as shown above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/3/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding Chungill, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner highlights that
Chungill reduces current to BOTH the pulsator and the drum. As such, Examiner finds it prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi to reduce current to both the pulsator and the drum simultaneously, therefore reducing current at BOTH inverters (including at the first inverter), upon detecting any overheating of either inverter, i.e. a NET reduction of washing power upon detecting overheating of any component (including but not limited to overheating of the second inverter).
Examiner also notes for Applicant's convenience, that the current independent claim reads on simply a safety shut-off. Measuring any overheating temperature, e.g. at a second inverter, shut offs the device, i.e. reduces current in all electric components including the first inverter/first motor to zero. As noted in the prior rejection, Applicant has not claimed any control of the second inverter or alternatively, any relevant temperature detection of the first inverter, such to distinguish over the NET simultaneous control of BOTH the pulsator and the drum (using both inverters of Choi to affect the same control as in Chungill).
Conclusion
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