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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/8/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Bae et al. does not teach controlling a driving circuit to apply a negative current to a motor to decelerate the motor as set forth in the prior Office action. Applicant is advised that the prior rejection of claim 4, which recited the aforementioned subject matter now amended into claim 1, contained a clerical error. The subject matter is taught by Jung at para. 54, not Bae et. al. at para. 54. It is also noted that the prior rejection of claim 1 stated that Jung teaches applying a negative current to decelerate a motor (see p. 4 of the Office action).
Applicant further asserts that the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest a washing machine that employes negative current braking and short circuit braking during an operating cycle. However, Choi teaches that short braking may assist in quickly braking a drum from a final rotation speed (paras. 86-87, 90), which is the scenario in which the presently claimed washing machine employs short braking. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Choi’s teachings that short braking would have been obvious to use with a reasonable expectation of success, particularly when braking from a higher, final rotation speed. Nothing in the cited prior art would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from using different braking methods for different purposes, in particular applying negative a current for intermediate deceleration and short braking for final braking.
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.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 claimed term “decelerating rotation speed” is interpreted not to be a rotation speed (rpm), but a rate of deceleration (e.g. rpm/sec), which is consistent with the disclosure (see para. 199). As such, “decelerating rotation speed” is interpreted as “deceleration rate” as more commonly referred to in the art.
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 1, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160222574 by Bae in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100031451 by Bae et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170233926 by Jung et al., and KR20140145223A by Choi et al.
As to claim 1, Bae teaches a washing machine comprising a rotating tub (drum 124, fig. 1) containing laundry; a motor connected to the tub (fig. 3); a driving circuit to apply a driving current to the motor (para. 48); and a controller 141 (para. 80) to control the driving circuit to decelerate the motor (step S43, fig. 9) in response to the motor reaching a target rotation speed (step S36) in a spin-drying course S40, and to rotate the motor at a final rotation speed S39 higher than the target rotation speed S36 for a preset period after the motor decelerates (fig. 9).
Bae teaches sensing the weight of laundry that may be measured “using various methods” (para. 84), but its exemplary method does not comprise a sensor to output a sensing value that varies by a weight of the laundry. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to employ a sensor. Bae et al. teaches that a laundry amount (weight) may be determined using a current sensor 220 that outputs a current sensing value that varies by a weight (para. 60). Bae et al. teaches that measuring weight using a current sensor provides an accurate measurement (para. 60); furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that measuring a weight of laundry using a motor current sensor is well-known and common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized that using a sensor to measure laundry weight would have been obvious.
Bae is silent as to a particular method of deceleration, and thus does not teach applying a negative current to the motor to decelerate the motor based on a target deceleration rate determined based on the weight of laundry. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to apply a negative current for deceleration and determine a target deceleration rate based on laundry weight. Jung teaches that motor control system comprising an inverter is typically used for precise control over the motor (para. 4), and braking (i.e. deceleration) is effectuated by applying a counter electromotive force (para. 8), specifically a negative current (para. 54). Jung recognizes that the amount of negative current must be regulated to prevent over-voltage of the capacitor (para. 54) and enable stable, rapid braking (para. 60). Jung further teaches that the maximum deceleration (braking) rate varies based on a weight of the laundry load (para. 84, the time for the motor to stop increases based on the weight of the load).
While Jung does not teach that its controller determines a target deceleration rate based on weight and controls deceleration based on the target rate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Jung’s teachings that the maximum allowable rate that prevents over-voltage of a capacitor is dependent on the weight of a laundry load. It would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine minimum deceleration times based on various weights of laundry (note that Jung teaches that deceleration time was experimentally determined for an exemplary weight of 15kg, para. 84) and a matter of routine mathematical calculations to determine corresponding target deceleration rates. Based on the teachings of Jung one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the principle behind the claimed controller configuration to decelerate the motor at a target deceleration rate based on weight of laundry, and applying such known principle as claimed would have been a matter of routine experimentation and mathematics. It has been held that substituting one known method for an equivalent method that yields predictable results may render the substitution obvious even in absence of express suggestion to substitute (see MPEP 2143(I)(B), in particular the discussion of Graham factors and Example 1). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that controlling deceleration using a target rate based on weight would have been an equivalent substitute for decelerating based on current and voltage sensing since the results would have been predictable, in particular that the realized deceleration rate would have been the same using either method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the target deceleration rate would be lower for a heavier weight of the laundry (see Jung, para. 84).
Bae teaches that its motor is decelerated in response to the motor reaching a final rotation speed (fig. 9), but is silent as to the method in which the motor is decelerated, and thus does not teach that it is decelerated in a short braking method. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to employ a short braking method. Choi et al. teaches that when a spin-drying course at a final rotation speed concludes its motor is decelerated in using a short braking method (paras. 86-87). Choi et al. teaches that short braking, in combination with mechanical braking, the rotating tub may be quickly braked (para. 90). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of performing a short braking method to stop a rotating tub in response to a motor reaching a final rotation speed since Choi et al. teaches such method with the desired, intended result of stopping rotation of the tub.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 5, Bae teaches that the final rotation speed (1000rpm) that is in the range of 2 to 2.5 times the target rotation speed (400rpm) (fig. 9, para. 158).
As to claim 7, Bae at al. teaches that its sensor comprises a first sensor to output a value of a current applied to the motor (para. 60).
As to claim 8, Bae et al. teaches determining the weight based on a sensing value output in response to the motor reaching a preset rotation speed (para. 37, the speed may be, for example, 50rpm) that is lower than the target rotation speed (see Bae, fig. 2, the target rotation speed at S36 is 400rpm).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160222574 by Bae in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100031451 by Bae et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170233926 by Jung et al., and KR20140145223A by Choi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140115792 by Lee et al.
As to claims 9 and 10, neither Bae, Bae et al., nor Jung teach decelerating the motor according to a target deceleration rate in response to activation or a noise reduction mode and decelerating the motor in a short braking method in response to a deactivation of the noise reduction mode based on the motor reaching the target rotation speed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use the negative current braking method of Jung according to a target deceleration rate, as discussed above, in a noise reduction mode and a short braking method when a noise reduction mode is deactivated. Lee recognizes that a short brake method causes noise due to a large amount of current flowing at the motor (para. 9), and Jung teaches that its negative current braking method comprises limiting the current as necessary (paras. 54 and 60). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the teachings of Lee and Jung that a short brake method may produce more noise than the current-limited negative current braking method taught by Jung, and thus would have recognized as obvious that a noise reduction mode would use a negative current and target deceleration rate method, and a deactivated noise reduction mode may use a short brake method. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160222574 by Bae in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100031451 by Bae et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170233926 by Jung et al., and KR20140145223A by Choi et al.
As to claim 11, Bae teaches a controlling method for a washing machine including a rotating tub (drum 124, fig. 1) containing laundry; a motor connected to the tub (fig. 3); and a driving circuit to apply a driving current to the motor (para. 48), the method comprising during a spin-drying course, determining the weight of laundry (fig. 7, step S15 weight sensing immediately prior to a spin-drying pattern may reasonably be interpreted as being performed during a spin-dry course); and controlling the driving circuit to decelerate the motor (step S43, fig. 9) in response to the motor reaching a target rotation speed (step S36) in a spin-drying course S40, and rotating the motor at a final rotation speed S39 higher than the target rotation speed S36 for a preset period after the motor decelerates (fig. 9).
Bae teaches sensing the weight of laundry that may be measured “using various methods” (para. 84), but its exemplary method does not comprise a sensor to output a sensing value that varies by a weight of the laundry. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to employ a sensor. Bae et al. teaches that a laundry amount (weight) may be determined using a current sensor 220 that outputs a current sensing value that varies by a weight (para. 60). Bae et al. teaches that measuring weight using a current sensor provides an accurate measurement (para. 60); furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that measuring a weight of laundry using a motor current sensor is well-known and common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized to determine laundry weight using a sensor to measure laundry weight would have been obvious.
Bae is silent as to a particular method of deceleration, and thus does not teach applying a negative current to the motor to decelerate the motor based on a target deceleration rate determined based on the weight of laundry. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to apply a negative current for deceleration and determine a target deceleration rate based on laundry weight. Jung teaches that motor control system comprising an inverter is typically used for precise control over the motor (para. 4) and braking (i.e. deceleration) is effectuated by applying a counter electromotive force (para. 8), specifically a negative current (para. 54). Jung recognizes that the amount of negative current must be regulated to prevent over-voltage of the capacitor (para. 54) and enable stable, rapid braking (para. 60). Jung further teaches that the maximum deceleration (braking) rate varies based on a weight of the laundry load (para. 84, the time for the motor to stop increases based on the weight of the load).
While Jung does not teach determining a target deceleration rate based on weight and decelerating based on the target rate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Jung’s teachings that the maximum allowable rate that prevents over-voltage of a capacitor is dependent on the weight of a laundry load. It would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine minimum deceleration times based on various weights of laundry (note that Jung teaches that deceleration time was experimentally determined for an exemplary weight of 15kg, para. 84) and a matter of routine mathematical calculations to determine corresponding target deceleration rates. Based on the teachings of Jung one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the principle behind decelerating the motor at a target deceleration rate based on weight of laundry, and applying such known principle as claimed would have been a matter of routine experimentation and mathematics. It has been held that substituting one known method for an equivalent method that yields predictable results may render the substitution obvious even in absence of express suggestion to substitute (see MPEP 2143(I)(B), in particular the discussion of Graham factors and Example 1). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that decelerating using a target rate based on weight would have been an equivalent substitute for decelerating based on current and voltage sensing since the results would have been predictable, in particular that the realized deceleration rate would have been the same using either method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the target deceleration rate would be lower for a heavier weight of the laundry (see Jung, para. 84).
Bae teaches that its motor is decelerated in response to the motor reaching a final rotation speed (fig. 9), but is silent as to the method in which the motor is decelerated, and thus does not teach that it is decelerated in a short braking method. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to employ a short braking method. Choi et al. teaches that when a spin-drying course at a final rotation speed concludes its motor is decelerated in using a short braking method (paras. 86-87). Choi et al. teaches that short braking, in combination with mechanical braking, the rotating tub may be quickly braked (para. 90). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of performing a short braking method to stop a rotating tub in response to a motor reaching a final rotation speed since Choi et al. teaches such method with the desired, intended result of stopping rotation of the tub.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 16, Bae et al. teaches determining the weight based on a sensing value output in response to the motor reaching a preset rotation speed (para. 37, the speed may be, for example, 50rpm) that is lower than the target rotation speed (see Bae, fig. 2, the target rotation speed at S36 is 400rpm).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160222574 by Bae in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100031451 by Bae et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170233926 by Jung et al., and KR20140145223A by Choi et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140115792 by Lee et al.
As to claims 17 and 18, neither Bae, Bae et al., nor Jung teach decelerating the motor according to a target deceleration rate in response to activation or a noise reduction mode and decelerating the motor in a short braking method in response to a deactivation of the noise reduction mode based on the motor reaching the target rotation speed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use the negative current braking method of Jung according to a target deceleration rate, as discussed above, in a noise reduction mode and a short braking method when a noise reduction mode is deactivated. Lee recognizes that a short brake method causes noise due to a large amount of current flowing at the motor (para. 9), and Jung teaches that its negative current braking method comprises limiting the current as necessary (paras. 54 and 60). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the teachings of Lee and Jung that a short brake method may produce more noise than the current-limited negative current braking method taught by Jung, and thus would have recognized as obvious that a noise reduction mode would use a negative current and target deceleration rate method, and a deactivated noise reduction mode may use a short brake method. 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