DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The invention of claim 1, taken as a whole, is essentially a modern implementation of the invention taught by Smith. Smith explicitly teaches the primary principles behind the present invention – 1) that a load unbalance may naturally decrease as water is extracted, and 2) that a spin speed should be increased as a load unbalance naturally decreases since a higher spin speed is desirable. Smith also teaches that the spin speed is dynamically controlled such that vibration is kept just below its limit – the speed is increased when vibration is below the threshold limit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had clear motivation to take a modern washing machine with a vibration sensor, such as the one taught by Chi, and improve upon it my incorporating the teachings of Smith, in particular to adjust the spin speed based on an amount of vibration. While Applicant asserts that teachings of Wong are distinguished over the present claimed invention, Applicant is advised that Wong was relied on solely for its teachings regarding using a delta constant when adjusting a speed based on vibration measurements, in particular to avoid many small adjustments.
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 1, 4-8, and 16 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.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 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, 4, 5, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180148877 by Chi et al. in view of U.S. Patent 3285419 granted to Smith and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120089258 by Wong et al.
As to claim 1, Chi teaches a washing machine comprising a tub 1 (fig. 1); a drum rotationally arranged in the tub (while Chi does not explicitly state that its washing machine comprises a drum, a drum is common and inherent to the type of machine taught by Chi, see paras. 2-3 describing a drum; also note the drum and tub configuration taught by Smith); a drum motor (while Chi does not explicitly state that its washing machine comprises a drum motor, a drum motor is common and inherent to the type of machine taught by Chi; see para. 4, describing a drum motor, para. 7, describing a high-speed dewatering phase; also note the drum motor taught by Smith); a vibration sensor 2 to detect vibration of the tub (fig. 1, para. 41); and a processor (para. 9) configured to control a rotation speed of the drum motor based on a sensing value of the vibration sensor (fig. 2).
Chi does not teach maintaining a rotation speed of the drum motor based on a sensed vibration value reaching a certain value corresponding to a maximum tolerable vibration displacement of the tub during dehydration; determining a variation value corresponding to an amount of change in the sensing value and the certain value; and in response to the sensing value reaching the certain value, maintaining the rotation speed while the variation value is less than a preset constant, or increase the speed to a first rotation speed when the variation value is reduced from the certain value by the preset constant or more. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the processor of Chi to perform these functions.
Chi teaches performing a load redistribution if a vibration level exceeds a preset threshold, but Smith recognizes that an unbalance, and the resulting excessive vibration, is due in part to water contained in unevenly distributed clothes and that it is possible that continued rotation may extract enough water to reduce the unbalanced condition to allow higher rotational speeds without excessive vibrations (col. 1, ll. 43-50). Smith teaches that it is undesirable to stop rotation in such situation since continued fluid extraction at a maximum permissible speed may eliminate the excessive vibration (col. 1, ll. 51-64). Smith teaches that the rotation speed is dynamically controlled to a maximum speed commensurate with the amount of vibration caused by an unbalance (col. 1, ll. 11-15). The teachings of Smith suggest that the speed is controlled to be maintained, decreased, and/or increased to keep vibration at a certain maximum vibration value corresponding to a maximum tolerable vibration displacement of the tub (“without excessive vibrations,” col. 1, ln. 43 – col. 2, ln. 8).
Smith’s washing machine was invented prior to implementation of modern processor-controlled machines and thus did not have the capability to sense a vibration value from a sensor to control the speed of its drum motor. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that its method of speed control may be performed by a processor configuration on the washing machine taught by Chi by using the vibration sensor of Chi, as would be readily understood as an improvement over the system of Smith.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the processor configuration of Chi to maintain a rotation speed at a certain, maximum allowable vibration value once the certain value is reached, and increase the speed as the sensed vibration is reduced from the certain value, based on the teachings and suggestions of Smith. Smith teaches that continued rotation may reduce vibration as water is extracted, and it was well-known that a speed during dehydration should be maintained at a target high rotation speed (see Chi, para. 17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the teachings of Smith that as sensed vibration varies (reduces) during water extraction, the speed may be maintained and/or increased based on the vibration variation to maintain a desired, maximum speed during dehydration.
Smith teaches controlling the rotation speed based on a variation of a sensed vibration value, but does not suggest maintaining the speed while the variation is less than a preset delta constant or increasing the speed when on the sensed vibration is reduced from the certain value by the preset delta constant or more. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to maintain a speed based on a vibration variance less than a delta constant and to increase the speed when the variance is reduced from the certain value by the constant. Wong teaches that a balance state, and corresponding sensed vibration values, may change quite rapidly as water is extracted from a load during dehydration (para. 133), and noise on input parameters could result in many unnecessary small corrections and it is thus desirable to have a minimum threshold correction level before making a correction (para. 128). Based on the teachings of Wong, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a preset delta constant of vibration variation so that small, unnecessary corrections due to noise and rapid vibration change are avoided. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that in the case of maintaining a rotation speed, the speed would be maintained if a variation value of sensed vibration is smaller than the preset delta constant, and in the case of increasing a rotation speed, increase the speed if the variation value deviates from the certain value by the constant. Utilizing a delta constant in these instances would achieve advantageous outcomes suggested by Wong, in particular avoiding small, unnecessary speed changes.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
As to claim 4, based on the teachings of Chi, Smith, and Wong discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to, after an increase in rotation speed, maintain the first increased speed if the variation value is less than the constant, or increase the speed to a second increased speed when the variation value is reduced from the certain value by the constant. The claim is essentially directed to repeating the respective operations recited in claim 1 to maintain the vibration variation value at a certain value, which is suggested by Smith. Smith teaches that the rotation speed is dynamically controlled to a maximum speed commensurate with the amount of vibration cause by an unbalance (col. 1, ll. 11-15), which suggests maintaining or increasing the rotation speed throughout the spin cycle to maintain a desired maximum vibration value.
As to claim 5, Wong teaches that vibration and unbalance is monitored at preset intervals (para. 166).
As to claim 8, Chi teaches that its vibration sensor comprises an acceleration sensor to measure 3-axis acceleration of the tub and is installed in at least a front or rear position on an outer surface of the tub (fig. 1, para. 46).
As to claim 16, upon the obvious modification discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the processor to constantly determine whether to maintain or increase the speed of the drum motor based on the value of variation of the sensed vibration until an end of the dehydrating operation. Smith teaches that the speed is dynamically controlled in response to the level of vibration such that the speed is maintained or increased during a dehydrating operation (col. 1, ll. 52-59; col. 1, ln. 70 – col. 2, ln. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious to configure a processor accordingly.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180148877 by Chi et al. in view of U.S. Patent 3285419 granted to Smith and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120089258 by Wong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP0236857A2 by Wipperfurth.
As to claim 6, neither Chi nor Smith teach that a certain, maximum vibration value is selected based on an amount and type of laundry. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized to base the value on an amount and type of laundry. Wipperfurth teaches that dehydration time and speed is optimized when a laundry amount and type are taken into consideration when determining an unbalance limit, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood correlations to a vibration amount (para. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to take the laundry amount and type into account when selecting the certain, maximum vibration value in order to optimize dehydration time and rotation speed, as taught by Wipperfurth. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180148877 by Chi et al. in view of U.S. Patent 3285419 granted to Smith and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120089258 by Wong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190390389 by Lee et al.
As to claim 7, neither Chi, Smith, nor Wong suggest that a preset delta constant is based on an amount of laundry and a type of laundry. However, Lee teaches that vibration characteristics of a washing machine vary based on the type and quantity of laundry in the drum (para. 84). Based on this teaching of Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that vibration characteristics, known in the art to include effects such as noise, ripple, and variance within a time period, would differ based on an amount and type of the laundry. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a preset delta constant based on the amount and type of laundry to account for different vibration characteristics to avoid many unnecessary small corrections (see Wong, para. 128). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
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