DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach the amended limitations of claim 16. However, the amendments are directed to intended uses of the locking portion and display portion. The locking portion and display portion as disclosed are not specifically configured to perform the recited functions – they are capable of performing the functions, but neither the locking portion nor the display portion have any structural features or software programming that is specifically directed to the claimed functions. For example, the disclosed locking portion would be identical to a locking portion without the claimed configurations since the recited functions are simply manners of using the locking portion. A laundry treating apparatus controller, on the other hand, may have specific configurations in the form of software programming to enable particular functions. Such programming configuration is considered to be a positive structural limitation and claimed functions must be examined against prior art or otherwise established to be obvious. However, the present claims do not recite a controller configuration.
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 16-29 and 31 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 32 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The apparatus as claimed is capable of performing materially different processes such as locking the door during weighing and not displaying a weight or time.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 32 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 in response to an execution command being input after the display portion displays the weight and/or execution time and maintaining the door in a locked state during a cycle.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights