DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1a, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 06 October 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is allegedly no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because a search burden exists based on a different field of search, as each species includes structural limitations and configurations not required for the others, i.e. they are mutually exclusive. In accordance with MPEP §803: "For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. That prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant." In the instant case, the Examiner has provided a prima facie showing of different field of search as shown in the Restriction Requirement. Applicant's allegations of coextensive search and no "serious burden" include no appropriate showings or evidence and, therefore, are not persuasive. Accordingly, the restriction is considered proper in accordance with MPEP §803.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0131013 to Lee et al. (“Lee”) in view of KR 10-2018-0124623 A to Jang et al. (“Jang”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee (in Figs. 1-3 and associated text) discloses a washing machine comprising:
a tub (12);
a drum (13) rotatable inside the tub;
a pulsator (13a) rotatable inside the drum;
a motor assembly (21), including a rotor (212), to supply a driving force;
a reduction gear module (24) couplable to the rotor of the motor assembly so that while at least a portion of the reduction gear module is coupled to the rotor, the at least a portion of the reduction gear module is rotatable at an angular velocity that is less than an angular velocity at which the rotor is rotated based on the driving force of the motor assembly (see ¶ [0087]; note the sun gear of gear module 24 connected to rotor 212 is smaller than the planet gears and ring gear, which results in less rotary velocity of the pulsator shaft relative to the rotor);
a washing shaft (23) couplable to the pulsator and couplable to the portion of the reduction gear module so that while the washing shaft is coupled to the pulsator and the portion of the reduction gear module (see Fig. 2), the pulsator is rotatable at an angular velocity that is less than the angular velocity at which the rotor is rotated based on the driving force of the motor assembly (see above regarding ¶ [0087]);
a spin-drying shaft (25) couplable to the drum so that while the spin-drying shaft is coupled to the drum, the drum is rotated (see Figs. 2-3 and ¶ [0069] regarding dewatering shaft 25 connected to the rotatable drum/tub); and
a coupler (28) couplable to the spin-drying shaft and the rotor so that while the coupler is coupled to the spin-drying shaft and the rotor, the spin-drying shaft is rotatable at the angular velocity at which the rotor is rotated based on the driving force of the motor assembly (see above regarding the shafts and motor coupling, particularly Figs. 1-2 and associated text).
Lee discloses the claimed coupler but does not expressly disclose wherein the coupler includes a coupler body having a receiving space to receive the reduction gear module. However, such configurations are old and known in the art. For instance, Jang teaches an art-related washing machine having a coupling unit (20) including a coupling body (21) having a receiving space to receive a gear reduction module (23) in order to provide a reduction coupling unit between the motor and the washing machine rotary shaft (see Figs. 6-8 and associated text).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to modify the coupling unit of Lee with the coupling unit and coupling body of Jang to provide the same and predictable results of gear reduction for a washing machine drive system.
Regarding claims 2-3, Jang further discloses wherein the motor assembly includes a mounting space to receive the coupler while the reduction gear module is received in the receiving space of the coupler (see Fig. 5 of Jang) and wherein the reduction gear module is located between the coupler and the rotor (see configuration in Figs. 5-8 of Jang showing such configuration).
Regarding claim 4, Lee and Jang each further discloses wherein the washing machine is configured to perform a washing operation and a spin-drying operation, wherein the coupler comprises: a first toothed member to be engaged with the spin-drying shaft in the spin-drying operation of the washing machine; a second toothed member to be engaged with the reduction gear module in the spin-drying operation of the washing machine; and a third toothed member to be engaged with the rotor in the spin-drying operation of the washing machine (note both Lee and Jang teach various toothed members in the form of planetary gears, sun gear, and ring gear, which are configured to couple the motor/rotor to the washing machine rotary shaft for spin-drying operations and washing operations).
Regarding claim 5, Jang further discloses operating the coupler in the manner claimed wherein the coupler (28) is configured to be moved between: a first position, in which the third toothed member is spaced apart from the rotor to limit a rotation of the spin-drying shaft while the washing machine performs the washing operation, and a second position, in which the third toothed member is engaged with the rotor to rotate the spin-drying shaft while the washing machine performs the spin-drying operation (see ¶ [0129]-[0138] with teeth on the coupler engaging and disengaging the dewatering shaft, as well as Figs. 12A-12B).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Lee further discloses wherein the reduction gear module includes: a sun gear (241) couplable to the rotor and configured to be rotated by the rotor; a plurality of pinion gears (242) to be engaged with the sun gear to be rotated around the sun gear; a ring gear (243) to surround the plurality of pinion gears and be engaged with the plurality of pinion gears to be rotated with the plurality of pinion gears, the ring gear including a ring toothed member configured to be engaged with the second toothed member; and a carrier (244) couplable to a rotation axis of each of the plurality of pinion gears, and couplable to the washing shaft to be rotated together with the washing shaft (see ¶ [0082]-[0087]), wherein the reduction gear module includes: a first gear bearing configured to support the sun gear and the ring gear to allow the sun gear and the ring gear to be rotated independently of each other; and a second gear bearing configured to support the sun gear and the carrier to allow the sun gear and the carrier to be rotated independently of each other (see Fig. 2, note bearings below the sun gear, planet gears, and ring gear thereinbetween gears).
Regarding claims 7-8, Lee further discloses wherein the coupler is couplable to the spin-drying shaft coupled to the drum and the ring gear to limit movement of the ring gear while the washing machine performs the washing operation and wherein, while the washing machine performs the spin-drying operation, the coupler is rotated at a speed at which the rotor is rotated; the ring gear is rotated with the coupler as the coupler is rotated; and the spin-drying shaft and the washing shaft are rotated at a speed at which the ring gear and the carrier are rotated (see above regarding washing operation of the reduction gears and spin-drying operation; and coupler operation ¶ [0088]-[0103] wherein the dewatering shaft is coupled to the drum via the coupler and the ring gear remains limited in movement).
Regarding claims 9-11, the combination of Lee and Jang above (which includes all of the claimed structural features) would result in the configuration wherein the second toothed member is located inside the coupler body to allow the ring gear to be received in the receiving space. Even if assuming, arguendo, that the claimed arrangement would not be taught by Lee and Jang, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to rearrange the configuration in such manner to achieve the same and predictable washing and spin-drying results, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of Lee and Jang fail to teach or reasonably suggest wherein the rotor comprises a rotor toothed member configured to be engaged with the third toothed member, wherein the spin-drying toothed member is located closer to the drum than the ring toothed member; wherein the rotor toothed member is located farther from the drum than the ring toothed member; wherein the coupler is configured to be at a first position while the washing machine performs the washing operation, the first toothed member is coupled to the spin-drying toothed member, the second toothed member is coupled to the ring toothed member, and the third toothed member is disengaged from the rotor toothed member; and wherein the coupler is configured to be at a second position, which is farther from the drum than while the coupler is at the first position, while the washing machine performs the spin-drying operation, the first toothed member is coupled to the spin-drying toothed member, the second toothed member is coupled to the ring toothed member, and the third toothed member is coupled to the rotor toothed member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights