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 argues that Kawamura does not disclose changing the parameter of a second block, among the plurality of blocks, that is executed after the first block, the second block including a parameter different from the first block or defining processing different from the first block, the parameter change condition being a condition indicating that executing the second block in the second driving state would affect the safety of the drive unit, and the parameter of the second block being (i) a duration that driving by the drive unit affecting the temperature of the drive apparatus is continued in accordance with the second block, (ii) a temperature resulting from driving of the drive unit, or (iii) heating power resulting from driving of the drive unit, the examiner respectfully disagrees, Kawamura discloses After performing the drying operation of circulating the drying air after dehumidifying the drying air, the clothing drying machine performs the cooling down operation in which the rotation of the drum is continued and the cooling air is sent into the drum. Temperature detecting means for detecting a temperature; b) first temperature determining means for determining whether a temperature detected by the temperature detecting means is equal to or less than a first specified value during a cool-down operation; c) cool-down A second temperature determining means for determining whether or not the temperature detected by the temperature detecting means exceeds a second specified value higher than the first specified value during a period which is a predetermined time earlier than the end of the operation time; D) the number Operating time extending means for extending the cool-down operation time when the detected temperature exceeds the second specified value by the temperature determining means; e) detecting the detected temperature by the first temperature determining means; And an operation control means for terminating the cool-down operation when it is determined that the cool-down operation time is equal to or less than a prescribed value of 1 or when a predetermined cool-down operation time has elapsed” (Kawamura, see [0007]). Kawamura discloses extending cool-down operation time (i.e. changing the parameter of a second block), among the plurality of blocks, that is executed after drying operation (i.e. the first block), the second block defining cooldown operation (i.e. processing different from the first block), the parameter change condition being a condition indicating that executing the second block in the second driving state would affect the safety of the drive unit (i.e. the temperature exceeding a threshold would affect the safety of the dryer), and the parameter of the second block being duration of cooldown time (i.e. a duration that driving by the drive unit affecting the temperature of the drive apparatus is continued in accordance with the second block), therefore Kawamura discloses the limitation.
Applicant argues that Kawamura does not disclose changing the airflow duration used for subsequent airflow during the drying of the clothes, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Kawamura discloses “After performing the drying operation of circulating the drying air after dehumidifying the drying air, the clothing drying machine performs the cooling down operation in which the rotation of the drum is continued and the cooling air is sent into the drum. Temperature detecting means for detecting a temperature; b) first temperature determining means for determining whether a temperature detected by the temperature detecting means is equal to or less than a first specified value during a cool-down operation; c) cool-down A second temperature determining means for determining whether or not the temperature detected by the temperature detecting means exceeds a second specified value higher than the first specified value during a period which is a predetermined time earlier than the end of the operation time; D) the number Operating time extending means for extending the cool-down operation time when the detected temperature exceeds the second specified value by the temperature determining means; e) detecting the detected temperature by the first temperature determining means; And an operation control means for terminating the cool-down operation when it is determined that the cool-down operation time is equal to or less than a prescribed value of 1 or when a predetermined cool-down operation time has elapsed” (Kawamura, see [0007]), it is noted that [0007] of Kawamura is a summary of [0018]-[0039] of Kawamura, Kawamura discloses extending (i.e. changing) the airflow duration used for subsequent airflow during the drying of the clothes when the temperature inside the drum exceeds a threshold, therefore, Kawamura discloses the limitation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-3 and 9-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality blocks includes a parameter used in control of the drive unit by the block” in lines 7-8, “the second block including a parameter different from the first block” in lines 13-14, and “the parameter of the second block” in line 19, it is not clear whether the parameter in “the parameter of the second block” in line 19 is referring to parameter in ““each of the plurality blocks includes a parameter used in control of the drive unit by the block” in lines 7-8 or parameter in ““the second block including a parameter different from the first block” in lines 13-14, or both? Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 is indefinite and unclear.
Claim 9 is a method claim corresponds to the apparatus claim 1 with similar issue, therefore, claim 9 is rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 is a CRM claim corresponds to the apparatus claim 1 with similar issue, therefore, claim 10 is rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first sensor and second sensor in claims 1 and 5-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by translation of JPH11009898 to Kawamura et al. (hereinafter “Kawamura”), provided in the 6/5/23 IDS.
As per claim 1, Kawamura discloses a drive apparatus (Kawamura, see [0018]-[0023]) comprising:
a drive unit including at least one of an actuator or a heater (Kawamura, see [0018]-[0023]);
a controller that obtains an application including a plurality of blocks, and executes the application to control the drive unit in accordance with the plurality of blocks (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039]);
a first sensor that detects a first driving state of the drive unit (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039] for the timer detecting time duration of the drive unit being active);
a second sensor that detects a second driving state of the drive unit (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039] for temperature sensor sensing the temperature in the dryer); wherein
each of the plurality of blocks includes a parameter used in control of the drive unit by the block, and an end condition for ending driving of the drive unit by the block (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039]);
when, during execution of a first block among the plurality of blocks, the first driving state detected by the first sensor meets the end condition of the first block and the second driving state detected by the second sensor meets a parameter change condition (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039] for detecting the end time (i.e. end condition) of a part of the operation program is satisfied and if the temperature in the dryer satisfies the first specified value or less), the controller:
changes the parameter of a second block, among the plurality of blocks, that is executed after the first block, the second block defining processing different from the first block (Kawamura, see [0007] and [0025]-[0039]); and
controls the drive unit in accordance with the second block including the parameter changed (Kawamura, see [0007] and [0025]-[0039]),
the parameter change condition is a condition indicating that executing the second block in the second driving state would affect safety of the drive unit (Kawamura, see [0007] and [0025]-[0039]), and
the parameter of the second block is a duration that driving by the drive unit affecting a temperature of the drive apparatus is continued in accordance with the second block (Kawamura, see [0007] and [0025]-[0039]).
Claim 9 is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 is a CRM claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Kawamura further discloses the first driving state detected by the first sensor is a duration spent driving the drive unit in accordance with the first block (Kawamura, see [0007] and [0025]-[0039]).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Kawamura further discloses wherein the second driving state detected by the second sensor is temperature (Kawamura, see [0007] and [0025]-[0039]).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Kawamura f a drive apparatus (Kawamura, see [0018]-[0023]) comprising:
a drive unit including at least one of an actuator or a heater (Kawamura, see [0018]-[0023]);
a controller that obtains an application including a plurality of blocks, and executes the application to control the drive unit in accordance with the plurality of blocks (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039]);
a first sensor that detects a first driving state of the drive unit (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039] for the timer detecting time duration of the drive unit being active);
a second sensor that detects a second driving state of the drive unit (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039] for temperature sensor sensing the temperature in the dryer); wherein
each of the plurality of blocks includes a parameter used in control of the drive unit by the block, and an end condition for ending driving of the drive unit by the block (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039]);
when, during execution of a first block among the plurality of blocks, the first driving state detected by the first sensor meets the end condition of the first block and the second driving state detected by the second sensor meets a parameter change condition (Kawamura, see [0025]-[0039] for detecting the end time (i.e. end condition) of a part of the operation program is satisfied and if the temperature in the dryer satisfies the first specified value or less), the controller:
changes the parameter of a second block, among the plurality of blocks, that is executed after the first block (Kawamura, see [0007] and [0025]-[0039]); and
controls the drive unit in accordance with the second block including the parameter changed (Kawamura, see [0007] and [0025]-[0039]),
the drive apparatus is a clothes dryer, the first sensor detects, as the first driving state, a duration spent drying clothes by the drive unit in accordance with the first block, the second sensor detects, as the second driving state, an internal temperature of the drive apparatus, the end condition is that the duration spent drying the clothes reaches a projected time to completion of the drying of the clothes by the drive unit, the parameter change condition is that the internal temperature is a threshold or higher, and the controller changes the parameter of the second block by extending a duration, stipulated by the second block, that airflow is generated by the drive unit (Kawamura, see [0007] and [0018]-[0039]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura, in view of translation of JPH05123482 to Urabe et al. (hereinafter “Urabe”), provided in the 6/5/23 IDS.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Kawamura does not explicitly disclose the drive apparatus is a washing machine, the first sensor detects, as the first driving state, a duration spent agitating by the drive unit in accordance with the first block, the second sensor detects, as the second driving state, a rotation speed of the agitating, the end condition is that the duration spent agitating reaches a projected time to completion of the agitating by the drive unit, the parameter change condition is that the rotation speed is a threshold or higher, and the controller changes the parameter of the second block by extending a duration, stipulated by the second block, that the drive unit waits in standby.
However, Urabe in an analogous art discloses the drive apparatus is a washing machine, the first sensor detects, as the first driving state, a duration spent agitating by the drive unit in accordance with the first block, the second sensor detects, as the second driving state, a rotation speed of the agitating, the end condition is that the duration spent agitating reaches a projected time to completion of the agitating by the drive unit, the parameter change condition is that the rotation speed is a threshold or higher, and the controller changes the parameter of the second block by extending a duration, stipulated by the second block, that the drive unit waits in standby (Urabe, see [0009]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Urabe into the apparatus of Kawamura. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to secure the safety when the timing of releasing the lid lock is applied during dehydrating operation (Urabe, see [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are allowed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117