DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 16-31 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The present claims recite subject matter that is essentially method process steps, but the claims are directed to an apparatus. The recited operations are intended uses that further limit the structural subject matter of the claims. The prior art need only disclose or teach structural limitations of the apparatus that are capable of functioning as claimed. For the functional limitations to be required features of the claims, there must be structural features recited that require the apparatus to perform the functions.
If prior arts disclose all claimed structural limitations so that the structural limitations of the arts are capable to operate in desired functions as required, the prior art would anticipate or teach the claimed structural limitations. Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530. The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238. Purpose to which apparatus is to be put and expression relating apparatus to contents thereof during the intended operation are not significant in determining patentability of an apparatus claim, Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647.
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.
Claims 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130312202 by Balinski et al. in view of U.S. Patent 6539753 granted to Ito et al.
As to claim 16, Balinski teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising a cabinet 12 (fig. 1) having an opening in the front; a door 25 coupled to the cabinet to open and close the opening; a drum 18 inside the cabinet; a driving portion 30 to rotate the drum; and a control panel 70 comprising a power supply portion (power button, fig. 14) to receive a command to supply power, a selection portion (fig. 14) to receive a command for selecting a course, a display portion (fig. 1, para. 33) capable of displaying a weight of the laundry (fig. 16, para. 88) and an execution time of a course (fig. 16), and a time adjustment portion 266 capable of receiving an input of a command for extending or reducing an execution time of the course (fig. 17, para. 90), wherein the drive portion is capable of rotating the drum based on an inputted command to supply power (para. 23, power must necessarily be on for the drum to rotate), wherein the display portion is capable of displaying a weight of the laundry (fig. 16, para. 88) and an execution time of a course (fig. 16) after the drum starts to rotate, wherein the display portion is capable of displaying an execution time that is extended or shortened in response to an input of a time adjustment command, and wherein the control panel includes an execution portion (start/stop button, fig. 14) capable of receiving an execution command for executing a course for an execution duration determined based on an input through the selection portion or time adjustment portion and a weight or execution time is displayed.
Balinski does not teach a locking portion to lock the door and that the drive portion is capable of rotating the drum in a state in which the door is unlocked. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a locking portion such that the drum is capable of rotating while the door is unlocked. Ito teaches a locking portion (device 28, col. 6, ln. 66 – col. 7, ln. 10) to facilitate the unlocking and locking of a door, a lock state being desirable for safety purposes during certain portions of a cycle (col. 10, ll. 54-67). It was also known from the teachings of Ito that a door may be unlocked during drum rotation for the purpose of putting additional laundry in the drum (fig. 8, period Tr; col. 10, ll. 17-20).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a locking portion in the laundry apparatus taught by Balinski for safety purposes, as taught by Ito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that a driving portion may be capable of rotating a drum when the door is unlocked to facilitate insertion of laundry, as demonstrated by Ito.
Upon the obvious modification discussed above to have a locking portion, the locking portion would be capable of locking the door based on an execution command being input.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
As to claim 17, Balinski teaches that a course may comprise washing, rinsing, and dewatering cycles (para. 33), and its apparatus is capable of extending or reducing an execution time of a washing, rinsing, or dewatering cycle when a command to extend or reduce the execution time of the course is input.
As to claim 18, the driving portion of Balinski is capable of varying an rpm and operation rate of the drum in a washing, rinsing, or dewatering cycle based on an input of a command to extend or reduce the execution time.
As to claim 19, the driving portion of Balinski is capable of changing an operation rate of the drum in a washing cycle based on an input of a command to extend or reduce the execution time.
As to claim 20, the driving portion of Balinski is capable of decreasing an operation rate of the drum in a washing cycle based on an input of a command to extend the execution time.
As to claim 21, the driving portion of Balinski is capable of increasing an operation rate of the drum in a washing cycle based on an input of a command to reduce the execution time.
As to claim 22, the apparatus of Balinski is capable of increasing the execution time or a count of a rinsing cycle based on an input of a command to extend the execution time.
As to claim 23, the apparatus of Balinski is capable of maintaining the execution time or a count of a rinsing cycle based on an input of a command to reduce the execution time.
As to claim 24, the driving portion of Balinski is capable of decreasing an rpm of the drum in a dewatering cycle based on an input of a command to extend the execution time.
As to claim 25, the driving portion of Balinski is capable of maintaining an rpm of the drum in a dewatering cycle higher than an rpm in which laundry is separated from an inner wall of the drum.
As to claim 26, the driving portion of Balinski is capable of increasing an rpm of the drum in a dewatering cycle based on an input of a command to reduce the execution time.
As to claim 27, the apparatus of Balinski is capable of extending or shortening the execution time of the washing, rinsing, and dewatering cycles based on an input of a command to extend or reduce the execution time.
As to claim 28, the course selection portion of Balinski is capable of allowing input of a command to select a course while the weight and execution time is displayed (para. 48).
As to claim 29, the display portion of Balinski is capable of displaying a signal to prompt a user to input a time adjustment command when the execution time is equal to or greater than a reference time.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130312202 by Balinski et al. in view of U.S. Patent 6539753 granted to Ito et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150051738 by Lee et al.
As to claim 31, Balinski teaches a controller 68 (para. 33) that is configured to control the display portion to display the execution time that is extended or shortened in response to a time adjustment command being input after the weight of the laundry is detected (paras. 85, 87, 90), but does not teach that the controller is configured to detect the weight of laundry by controlling the driving portion to rotate the drum less than one revolution when the door is unlocked. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the washing machine taught by Balinski so that its controller is configured to detect the weight of laundry as claimed.
Balinski teaches that the weight of laundry may be detected by various types of sensors and sets forth non-limiting examples (para. 30). It was well-known in the art that a weight may be determined by sensing motor current (see Lee, para. 9). Lee further teaches that a laundry weight is detected by controlling a driving portion to rotate a drum less than one revolution (paras. 48, 56, 63, 64, 76) and that its method detects a laundry amount accurately even when the laundry is not distributed uniformly (para. 12). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to detect laundry weight by rotating a drum less than one revolution based on the teachings of Lee and would have been motivated to modify the controller configuration taught by Balinski to detect the weight as taught by Lee for the benefits taught by Lee.
In view of the teachings of Balinski that a laundry weight is advantageously detected during loading and the teachings of Ito that teach that a door may be unlocked for the purpose of loading, as discussed above, and further in view of the teachings of Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure a controller to detect the weight when the door is unlocked and display an extended or shortened execution time after the weight of laundry is detected when the door is unlocked.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711