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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/5/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach that the locking portion is configured to lock the door based on the execution command after the drum has rotated less than one revolution when the door is unlocked. However, the present disclosure sets forth that the controller of the washing machine is configured to lock the door (see paras. 145, 178). In other words, the present disclosure does not suggest that the locking portion makes a determination of when to lock or unlock the door; rather, the present locking portion is merely capable of locking or unlocking the door upon a command from the washing machine controller. Likewise, the locking portion of Ito is capable of locking and unlocking the door as claimed. The claims do not require a washing machine controller configuration that commands or causes the locking portion to operate as recited in the claims. As such, the locking portion taught by Ito is only required to be merely capable of operating as claimed, just as the locking portion of the present invention is only capable of operating as claimed.
The recited configuration of the locking portion is not a structural feature of the apparatus; rather, it is a function in which the apparatus is intended to perform. As stated in the prior Office action, 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.
Here, the locking portion configured to lock the door based on the claimed execution command would be structurally identical to a locking portion not configured to lock the door based on the claimed execution command. Thus, the claimed function is merely intended use. The cited prior art, in particular Ito, teaches a locking portion that is structurally capable of performing the claimed functions.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 25 and 33-38 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-23, 31-34, 36, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities: “drive portion” should be “driving portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-28 and 30-38 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 21, 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 including a power supply portion (power button, fig. 14) to receive a power supply command and an execution portion to receive an execution command for executing a course (fig. 14); wherein the drive portion is capable of rotating the drum based on a power supply command being input (para. 23, power must necessarily be on for the drum to rotate).
Balinski does not teach a locking portion to lock the door and that the drive portion is capable of rotating the drum less than one revolution 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 to have a locking portion, the locking portion would be capable of locking the door based on an execution command being input after the drum has rotated less than one revolution when the door is unlocked.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
As to claim 22, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating a drum less than an angle at which laundry is separated from an inner wall of the drum or a location of the laundry is changed when the door is unlocked, in particular since Balinski teaches a horizontal drum which is well-known to have this capability.
As to claim 23, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating a drum by less than 90 degrees when the door is unlocked.
As to claim 24, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating a drum within a range of 10-45 degrees and return it to its original state when the door is unlocked.
As to claim 25, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating a drum for 0.3 seconds to 1 second from when the door is unlocked.
As to claim 26, Balinski teaches display portion to display information on an outside of the control panel (fig. 1, para. 33) 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.
As to claim 27, the display portion of Balinski is capable of displaying a weight or execution time before the drum stops.
As to claim 28, Balinski teaches that the execution portion is capable of allowing input of the execution command when the weight or execution time is displayed (para. 57).
As to claim 30, Balinski teaches a course selection portion (fig. 14) to receive a command for selecting a course, wherein the course selection portion is capable of allowing input of the selection command while the weight or execution time is displayed (para. 48).
As to claim 31, Ito teaches a sensing portion to detect whether the door is open or closed and its drive portion is capable of rotating the drum after the door opens and closes (col. 8, ll. 40-50).
As to claim 32, the drive portion of Balinski would be capable of rotating the drum again based on the door being opened and closed again after the drum has stopped.
As to claim 33, the drive portion of Balinski would be capable of rotating the drum when the door is unlocked and to rotate the drum again after the door is locked.
As to claim 34, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating the drum longer when the door is locked than when the door is unlocked.
As to claim 35, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating the drum at a larger angle when the door is locked than when the door is unlocked.
As to claim 36, the drive portion of Balinski is capable of rotating the drum one rotation or more when the door is locked.
As to claim 37, Balinski teaches a display portion to display information on an outside of the control panel (fig. 1, para. 33) 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) when the door is unlocked and to display again a weight or execution time when the door is locked.
As to claim 38, the display portion of Balinski is capable of changing the execution time to a remaining time when the door is locked.
Claim 39 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 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150051738 by Lee et al.
As to claim 39, Balinski teaches a controller 68 (para. 33) that is configured to detect a weight of the laundry (para. 30), 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.
Upon the obvious modification of Balinski to have a locking portion in view of Ito, one of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized as obvious to control the locking portion to lock the door in response to an execution command being input after the weight of the laundry is detected when the door is unlocked. Balinski teaches that weight is detected during loading, which would require the door to be unlocked (para. 45), and prior to an execution (start) command is input (paras. 43, 57); and Ito specifically teaches 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). Ito further teaches that a lock state is desirable for safety purposes during certain portions of a cycle (col. 10, ll. 54-67).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the controller configuration taught by Balinski such that it is configured to lock the door after laundry weight is detected and a user inputs an execution command to start a laundry course since Balinski contemplates that loading is complete upon execution of a course (see para. 57, noting that an optimal laundry fill amount is indicated before start of a course), which satisfies the purpose taught by Ito of a door being unlocked, and also since Ito teaches that it is desirable for a door to be locked during certain portions of a cycle.
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