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 .
Claims 1-3, 6 and 12-13 have been presented for examination.
Claims 4-5, 7-11 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Examiners Note
Based on applicants’ response, the election has been changed from group I to group III and thus, claims 1-3, 6 and 12-13 are now being examined on the merits below. See attached interview summary.
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: “controller” in claim 1, and “obtaining an application” in claims 12 and 13.
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.
“Controller” as defined in the specification is interpreted as an integrated circuit [page 12 line 21] or 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 12-13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5 and 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/208499 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 6 and 12-13 of the instant application are anticipated by copending claims 1, 3-5 and 14-15 in that the copending claims contain all the limitations of the instant application claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application 18/211780
Application 18/208499
Claim 1
A drive apparatus comprising:
Claim 1
A drive apparatus comprising:
a drive unit including at least one of an actuator or a heater
a drive unit that includes at least one of an actuator or a heater, and drives energy conversion that is at least one of conversion of electrical energy into physical motion by the actuator or conversion of electrical energy into thermal energy by the heater
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
a controller programmed to execute an application including a plurality of blocks of programming code, and to execute the application to control the drive unit in accordance with the plurality of blocks of programming code
a first sensor that detects a first driving state of the drive unit
a first sensor that measures physical quantities related to an end condition of a first block among the plurality of blocks for ending driving of the drive unit by the first block and detects a first driving state of the drive unit
a second sensor that detects a second driving state of the drive unit, wherein
a second sensor that measures physical quantities of the drive apparatus related to a block insertion condition and detects a second driving state of the drive apparatus, wherein the block insertion condition is met when the measured physical quantity is a threshold or higher
each of the plurality of blocks includes an end condition for ending driving of the drive unit by the block, and
each of the plurality of blocks includes an end condition for ending driving of the drive unit by the block
the controller starts execution of the first block among the plurality of blocks including driving the energy conversion of the drive unit
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 block insertion condition, the controller:
when, during execution of the 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 the block insertion condition, the controller:
inserts a new block before a second block contiguous to the first block in the application
reconstructs the application by inserting a new block with a specified function to adjust one or more control parameters related to the second driving state of the drive apparatus for preventing the second driving state from meeting the block insertion condition so that an order relative to one or more subsequent blocks after the first block in the application is a given order
after the first block ends, controls the drive unit in accordance with the new block and the second block.
after the first block ends, executes the one or more subsequent blocks and the new block arranged in the given order to control the drive unit in accordance with the one or more subsequent blocks and the new block arranged in the given order
continues to execute the reconstructed application
wherein the drive apparatus is directed to driving devices including home appliances.
While the instant application claims that the new block is inserted before a second block contiguous to the first block the ‘499 application does not explicitly claim that detail. The ‘499 application does though teach a first block and one or more subsequent blocks. While not explicitly taught that the blocks are contiguous, such is implied. Blocks of code to be executed are contiguous in nature due to the fact that the instructions that make up the code blocks are held in an instruction queue. Claim 1 of the ‘499 application inserts the new block after the first block (i.e., “after the first block ends, executes the one or more subsequent blocks and the new block… in the given order”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the block could be inserted before, after or possibly within the second block and one of skill would have tried each of the finite number of variants as a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Referring to claims 2-3, 6 and 12-13, these are further rejected in view of claims 3-4, 7 and 14-15 of the ‘499 application respectively. It should also be noted that withdrawn claims 4-5, 7-11 also appear to be covered by claims 5-6 and 8-13 of the ‘499 application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood et al [Harwood] US Pat No 5768728 in view of Hoffman et al [Hoffman] US Pat. No. 4178957.
Referring to claim 1, Poyner teaches the drive apparatus comprising:
a drive unit including at least one of an actuator or a heater [54 Fig. 7, col. 7 lines 16-25].
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 [cols. 2-3 and 56-45]. Each of the
a first sensor that detects a first driving state of the drive unit [col. 7 lines 54-57].
a second sensor that detects a second driving state of the drive unit [37 Fig. 6, cols. 7-8 lines 64-21], wherein:
each of the plurality of blocks includes an end condition for ending driving of the drive unit by the block [col. 7 lines 54-63].
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 block insertion condition [9 Fig. 1; 25-27 Fig. 4, col. 8 lines 34-40], the controller:
inserts a new block before a second block contiguous to the first block in the application [col. 8 lines 34-47].
after the first block ends, controls the drive unit in accordance with the new block and a second block [col. 8 lines 28-47].
In summary, Harwood teaches a washing machine that includes a plurality of stages which include, in part, ramping up an agitator until a plateau speed is reached [33-34 Fig. 5], determining an adequate water level based on measuring if an overshoot velocity of the motor meets or exceeds a threshold value [35-39 Fig. 5]. If the motor velocity is determined to be less than the threshold velocity [25, 27 Fig. 4; 38, 40 Fig. 5], the agitation is stopped and more water is added [26 Fig. 4]. It should be noted that Fig. 4 represents the sense agitate cycle (8) in Fig. 1 while Fig. 5 represents the agitation stroke (30) in Fig. 4. Once the water level is corrected, contiguous block [9 Fig. 1] commences to initiate the wash cycle.
Referring to claim 2, Harwood teaches the first driving state is related to determining a peak motor velocity which occurs by starting a timer once the velocity reaches a plateau speed. The timer is set to a fixed time (tovershoot) and once the fixed time expires, sample the motor velocity which represents the peak velocity [35-36 Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and col. 7 lines 54-63].
Referring to claim 3, Harwood teaches the second driving state by the second sensor is a rotation speed [37 Fig. 5, col. 7 lines 64-67].
Referring to claims 12-13, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Harwood teaches the apparatus and therefore teaches the method and program performing the same.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, Claim 6 which discloses the first sensor detecting a duration spent agitating by the drive unit, the second sensor detecting the rotation speed of the agitating and the block insertion condition is that the rotation speed is a threshold or higher and a standby block does not allow driving of the drive unit before draining or supplying water.
Harwood teaches that indicated above except it is taught that the block insertion condition is a rotation speed being below a threshold and the in response, agitation is stopped and water is added which all occurs before a wash cycle commences [abstract, 8-9 Fig. 1; 26 Fig. 4; 35-37 Fig. 5; Fig. 6; cols. 7-8 lines 54-40]. Specifically, Harwood teaches that the motor velocity is determined with respect to the present load. This represents that an agitation operation is occurring. Determining the peak velocity occurs with a present load and thus, the tovershoot time represents an end condition for an agitating operation. But Harwood explicitly states that if “overshoot velocity is less than the threshold velocity… the water level is too low”. If the water level is too low, “the water level is raised to the next highest discrete water level and sense agitate is started afresh at block 29.”
PGPUB 2021/0235964 to AlHaffar teaches a dishwasher that includes a prefill stage that includes steps to prevent overfilling [0042].
US Pat No 4178957 to Hoffman teaches a timer to determine water fill duration [abstract].
WO 9833106 to Krishnan teaches injecting new code into an existing application [abstract].
WO 2016058366 to Song teaches a cloud controlled appliance that downloads program code from a cloud server to a smart home appliance [Fig. 6 and pgs. 10, 14-15].
JP2020-802 cited by applicant and indicated as an X reference in the supplied foreign search report teaches operation of a washing machine which includes detecting load weight, dirt detection, rinse/wash/dry cycles and a detergent adding procedure. The application does not appear to teach inserting a block in an application in response to a detected block insert condition.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 4/3/26
Prosecution Insights