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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 9/29/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-18 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are withdrawn from further consideration.
The rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thuruta et al. (US 4,779,430) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combinations of Thuruta, Kim (US 2012/0167314), Sans Rovira (US 2011/0185515), Roetker (US 2017/0022649), Kim et al. (US 2010/0058814), and Kim (US 2004/0006829) are also withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, new ground(s) of rejection are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuruta et al. (US 4,779,430) in view of Hurwitz (US 3,867,821).
Regarding claim 10, Thuruta discloses a method of operating a laundry treatment appliance, the laundry treatment appliance comprising a drum positioned within a tub (2, 11), the drum defining a wash chamber for receipt of articles for washing (11), the method comprising: supplying a first predetermined volume of water to the articles within the wash chamber (Figure 10: 204); soaking the articles in the first predetermined volume of water for a first predetermined time period (soaking inherently occurs upon supplying water in step 204); supplying a second predetermined volume of water to the articles within the wash chamber after the first predetermined time period in addition to the first predetermined volume of water to form a first fill volume of water (207); supplying a detergent to the wash chamber together with the second predetermined volume of water (207/208; col. 4, lines 11-17; col. 6, lines 35-39); performing a first agitation cycle comprising the first fill volume of water and the detergent (209 and/or 222); supplying a third predetermined volume of water to the articles within the wash chamber after performing the first agitation cycle in addition to the first fill volume of water to form a second fill volume of water (212); and performing a second agitation cycle comprising the second fill volume of water (213); draining a fill volume of water from the tub (214); and supplying a first predetermined rinse volume of water to the articles within the wash chamber after draining the fill volume of water, minus a portion of the fill volume absorbed by the articles within the wash chamber, from the tub (216; note that the water supplied inherently does not include the water already absorbed in the cloth).
Thuruta does not expressly disclose the step of draining the second fill volume of water is an amount that is the fill volume of water minus a portion of the fill volume of water absorbed by the articles within the wash chamber. Rather, Thuruta discloses drainage, dehydration, then supplying water for rinsing (214, 215, 216).
Hurwitz discloses a washing machine having a fill, wash, drain, spin, and rinse steps (col. 5, lines 5 – col. 6, lines 56), wherein the drain operation is continued for a time sufficient to completely empty the tub of water (col. 6, lines 1-19).
Because it is known in the art to drain for a time sufficient to completely empty the tub of water, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, discharging as much used water as possible, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the step of draining the second fill volume of water is an amount that is the fill volume of water minus a portion of the fill volume of water absorbed by the articles within the wash chamber. Note that the cloth/laundry will inherently have an absorbed amount of water after draining and after dehydration.
Regarding claim 11, modified Thuruta is relied upon as above and further discloses: soaking the articles in the first fill volume of water and detergent after performing the first agitation cycle and before supplying the third predetermined volume of water (soaking inherently occurs after step 209; also see steps 222 and 223).
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.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuruta et al. (US 4,779,430), in view of Hurwitz (US 3,867,821), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0167314).
Regarding claims 13, modified Thuruta is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose performing a first rinse agitation cycle after supplying the first predetermined rinse volume of water.
Kim discloses a washing machine for washing laundry having a rinse wherein rinse water is supplied (Figure 4: 112), then a rinsing operation is performed by agitating the drum generating streams of water (114; paragraph 85).
Because it is known in the art to agitate the laundry during a rinsing operation, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, enhanced rinsing of detergent and/or contaminants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performing a first rinse agitation cycle after supplying the first predetermined rinse volume of water
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuruta et al. (US 4,779,430), in view of Hurwitz (US 3,867,821), in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0167314), and further in view of Sans Rovira (US 2011/0185515).
Regarding claim 14, modified Thuruta is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose supplying a second predetermined rinse volume of water to the articles within the wash basket in addition to the first predetermined rinse volume of water to form a total rinse volume of water; and performing a second rinse agitation cycle after suppling the second predetermined rinse volume of water, the second rinse agitation cycle comprising the total rinse volume of water.
Sans Rovira discloses a rinsing method of a washing machine comprising spraying a predetermined amount of liquid A into the drum and on the load of clothes, wherein the predetermined amount of liquid is divided into fractions A1, A2, . . . An, and tumbling is performed between successive spraying steps, and followed by a centrifugation stage (paragraphs 26-27; Figure 1: A, A1-An, Vg, N). The method allows substantially complete and homogeneous impregnation of clothes and efficient application of rinse additives and complete (paragraphs 14, 16).
Because it is known in the art to perform alternate rinse liquid supply and tumbling until reaching a predetermined amount of liquid, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, enhanced rinsing of laundry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supplying a second predetermined rinse volume of water to the articles within the wash basket in addition to the first predetermined rinse volume of water to form a total rinse volume of water; and performing a second rinse agitation cycle after suppling the second predetermined rinse volume of water, the second rinse agitation cycle comprising the total rinse volume of water.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuruta et al. (US 4,779,430), in view of Hurwitz (US 3,867,821), in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0167314), in view of Sans Rovira (US 2011/0185515), and further in view of Roetker (US 2017/0022649).
Regarding claim 15, modified Thuruta is relied upon as above, but does not expressly result in: draining the total rinse volume of water from the tub minus a portion of the total rinse volume absorbed by the articles within the wash chamber; and performing a spin extraction cycle after draining the total rinse volume of water, minus the portion of the total rinse volume absorbed by the articles within the wash chamber, from the tub.
Roetker discloses a washing machine wherein one or more spin cycles can be performed after a wash cycle and/or the rinse cycle to wring wash fluid from the articles (paragraph 32). In a method of operating the washing machine, cycles are performed using water, then water is drained from the tub (Figure 4: 224, 242, 252), then an extraction cycle is performed (226, 244, 254). Hurwitz discloses a washing machine having a fill, wash, drain, spin, and rinse steps (col. 5, lines 5 – col. 6, lines 56), wherein the drain operation is continued for a time sufficient to completely empty the tub of water (col. 6, lines 1-19).
Because it is known in the art to perform draining followed by spin extraction and to fully drain the tub, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, removing water from the laundry/tub, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have: draining the total rinse volume of water from the tub minus a portion of the total rinse volume absorbed by the articles within the wash chamber; and performing a spin extraction cycle after draining the total rinse volume of water, minus the portion of the total rinse volume absorbed by the articles within the wash chamber, from the tub.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuruta et al. (US 4,779,430), in view of Hurwitz (US 3,867,821), in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0167314; hereafter, “Kim ‘314”), in view of Sans Rovira (US 2011/0185515), in view of Roetker (US 2017/0022649), and further in view Kim et al. (US 2010/0058814; hereafter, “Kim ‘814”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Thuruta, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the spin extraction cycle is performed at a rotational speed of between 400 revolutions per minute (RPM) and 500 RPM.
Kim ‘814 discloses a washing machine course for shoes and indicates that the spinning RPM speed should not be excessively high to take into account vibration and noise, and uses an example rotation speed of the drum at 400 rpm during spinning (paragraphs 62-63).
Because it is known in the art to wash shoes and control the spinning accordingly, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, preventing excess noise or vibration during a shoe course, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the spin extraction cycle is performed at a rotational speed of between 400 revolutions per minute (RPM) and 500 RPM.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuruta et al. (US 4,779,430), in view of Hurwitz (US 3,867,821), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0058814; hereafter, “Kim’ 814”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Thuruta is relied upon as applied above and further discloses receiving the laundry load within the wash basket prior to supplying the first predetermined volume of water (201); and determining a load size of the laundry load within the wash basket (206), but does not expressly disclose the laundry load comprising athletic equipment.
Kim ‘814 discloses a washing machine course wherein a user can select a shoe course, and a controller that controls the operation of the washing machine for the shoe course (abstract).
Because it is known in the art to use a washing machine to wash shoes (understood to be a type of athletic equipment), and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, cleaning a known type of equipment using a known apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the laundry load comprising athletic equipment.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuruta et al. (US 4,779,430), in view of Hurwitz (US 3,867,821), and further in view of Kim (US 2004/0006829; hereafter, “Kim ‘829).
Regarding claim 18, modified Thuruta is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first predetermined time period is between about 5 minutes and about 10 minutes.
Kim ‘829 discloses a method of controlling a shoe washing process of a washing machine and indicates that it is known in the prior art to perform a preliminary washing operation including soaking shoes in water, wherein the preliminary operation is performed prior to a main washing operation because the shoes may be dirtier in comparison with common clothes (paragraph 24). Kim ‘829 also indicates an embodiment wherein the shoes are soaked in water for a preset period of time thus removing dirt (paragraph 52).
Because it is known in the art to perform a preliminary soak of especially dirty articles, and to soak articles for a preset period of time such that dirt is removed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, preliminarily soaking to remove dirt according to a degree of dirtiness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first predetermined time period is between about 5 minutes and about 10 minutes. Also see MPEP 2144.05 (II) – Routine Optimization.
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 DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights