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 Invention I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the process as claimed cannot be performed by a materially different apparatus. This is not found persuasive because, for example, the apparatus requires a washing module (interpreted under 112(f)), and the process as claimed does not require a washing module. The process as claimed could be performed, for example, by using a pressure washing machine, car washing machine, or dish washing machine without the claimed washing module.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a washing module” in claim 1; “a communication module” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Aisa et al. (US 6,169,964) in view of Kwak et al. (US 2017/0356116).
Regarding claim 1, Aisa discloses a washing machine comprising: a washing module (col. 3, lines 65-67; col. 7, lines 32-39); a water level sensor configured to detect a water level (3; col. 2, lines 51-58); a display (1; col. 2, lines 47-50); memory (M; abstract; col. 3, lines 22-47); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the washing module, the water level sensor, the display, and the memory, wherein the memory store one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the washing machine (LC; abstract; col. 3, lines 22-47; Figure 1) to: control, based on a user input for starting washing (col. 4, lines 36 – col. 5, line 9; col. 5, lines 48-59), determine an amount of the water introduced into the washing machine, as at least one cycle of the washing progresses, accumulate the determined amount of water, and based on completion of the washing, display on the display the accumulated amount of water as water usage during the washing (Figures 2-5, see LR which represents actual water consumption; col. 7, lines 62-67; col. 8, lines 47-54).
Aisa does not expressly disclose the washing module introduces water into the washing machine. Rather, Aisa does indicate that water is present and increases in volume during the operation of the machine (see Figures 2-5, see LR which represents actual water consumption; see col. 5, lines 48-59; col. 6, lines 43-45, 64-67; col. 7, lines 62-67; col. 8, lines 47-54).
Kwak discloses a washing machine having a tub (20), a drum (30), and a water supply valve for supplying water to the tub which is controlled by a control unit (70, 100; paragraphs 37, 49).
Because it is known in the art to supply water into the tub using a water valve, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing the water using a known structure, 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 the washing module introduces water into the washing machine.
Aisa does not expressly disclose that determining the water level is based on a water level frequency of a water level sensor.
Kwak discloses a washing machine having a tub (20), a drum (30), and wherein a control unit (100) determines a water level in the tub (20) according to a frequency received from the water level sensor and an amount of the supplied water may be displayed on a display unit after the water level is sensed by the water level sensor (paragraphs 47, 56).
Because it is known in the art to determine an amount of water supplied using a frequency based water level sensor, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, determining the amount of water used with a known technique, 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 determining the water level is based on a water level frequency of a water level sensor.
Regarding claim 3, modified Aisa is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein the at least one cycle of the washing comprises a washing cycle and at least one rinse cycle, and wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to determine a sum of an amount of water used during the washing cycle and an amount of water used during the at least one rinse cycle as water usage during the washing (Aisa: see Figures 2-5; indicator S indicating “wash” and “rinse” cycles, and element L indicating an actual water consumption LR).
Regarding claim 7, modified Aisa is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to recommend at least one of a wash course or a wash option, based on receiving a user input for receiving a washing method recommendation for controlling the water usage during the washing (Aisa: col. 5, lines 30-43; col. 5, line 52 – col. 6, line 29; col. 9, lines 5-31).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Aisa et al. (US 6,169,964), in view of Kwak et al. (US 2017/0356116), and further in view of Asagoe et al. (JP 07-31786).
Regarding claim 2, modified Aisa is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to: when one of the at least one cycle is started, introduce water into the washing machine, in response to determining that the water level has reached a target water level, determine an amount of main fill water, based on the water level frequency and a weight of laundry, drive a pulsator of the washing module, determine an amount of refill water replenished into the washing machine, based on a variation in the water level frequency, which is caused by the driving of the pulsator, and determine an amount of water used in the started cycle by accumulating the determined amount of refill water onto the determined amount of main fill water. Rather, Aisa discloses indicating an actual water consumption up to a particular moment (LR; col. 7, lines 62-67; col. 8, lines 47-54).
Asagoe discloses a washing machine wherein a quantity of cloth is detected using a cloth quantity detecting means (27), water is supplied up to a set level based on the cloth quantity detecting means, a pulsator is driven and based on the water level fluctuation an additional quantity of water may be supplied, (abstract; machine translation: page 4, paragraphs 4-5). The amount of additional water supplied may be a fixed amount or may correspond to the output fluctuation range of the water level detecting means (translation: paragraph 7).
Because it is known in the art to provide additional water as claimed and to record the accumulated usage as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, recording the total accumulated usage when resupplying water, 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 one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to: when one of the at least one cycle is started, introduce water into the washing machine, in response to determining that the water level has reached a target water level, determine an amount of main fill water, based on the water level frequency and a weight of laundry, drive a pulsator of the washing module, determine an amount of refill water replenished into the washing machine, based on a variation in the water level frequency, which is caused by the driving of the pulsator, and determine an amount of water used in the started cycle by accumulating the determined amount of refill water onto the determined amount of main fill water.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Aisa et al. (US 6,169,964), in view of Kwak et al. (US 2017/0356116), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0175317).
Regarding claim 4, Aisa is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to display, based on the water usage during the washing, an average water usage of the washing machine for a preset time period.
Kim discloses a clothes washing machine and control system including a display unit (4) with an external terminal (2) which displays a use history of the clothes treating device, including a history of energy consumption, water consumption and amount of detergent, at a use date, during a predetermined period, or according to a season (paragraphs 140-149. Figure 8). The information displayed on the terminal gives examples of water consumption being 25L at the use date, and 30L, 34L, and 26L for August, September, and October, respectively, and based on the quantities displayed would be understood to represent averages for those months (Figure 8).
Because it is known in the art to provide the user with historical water consumption data for different time periods using values understood to represent an average consumption, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing historical water consumption data to a user, 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 one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to display, based on the water usage during the washing, an average water usage of the washing machine for a preset time period.
Claim(s) 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Aisa et al. (US 6,169,964), in view of Kwak et al. (US 2017/0356116), and further in view of Park et al. (WO 2010/095866; cited by Applicant) and Im et al. (US 2010/0154132).
Regarding claim 5, modified Aisa is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to: detect a weight of laundry in the washing machine by driving a pulsator of the washing module, and display estimated water usage, based on the detected weight of the laundry and a set washing method.
Park discloses a washing machine and control method including a sensing step (S100) including a laundry amount sensing step (S110), and a predicted consumption displaying step (S200) to display predicted consumption of water based on a washing course data and the laundry amount data (Figure 4; paragraphs 78-84). Im discloses a washing machine having a pulsator (13), and a weight of laundry is sensed based on rotational velocity or rotary force of a washing motor (19) due to a stirring operation of the pulsator (paragraph 68).
Because it is known in the art to estimate laundry weight using a pulsator and to estimate a water consumption based on a sensed laundry amount, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, estimating the water consumption based on an actual laundry weight, 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 one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to: detect a weight of laundry in the washing machine by driving a pulsator of the washing module, and display estimated water usage, based on the detected weight of the laundry and a set washing method.
Claim 6 is considered to be met by modified Aisa as applied above and which results in:
an input interface configured to change a washing method, wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to: receive, via the input interface, a user input for changing the washing method set for the washing, recalculate estimated water usage, based on the detected weight of the laundry and the changed washing method, and display the recalculated estimated water usage. (Aisa: col. 9, lines 5-51; Park: S110).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the washing machine as defined by the combination of claims 1, 5, and 8; the washing machine as defined by the combination of claims 1, 2, and 9; or the washing machine as defined by the combination of claims 1, 2, and 10. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Aisa et al. (US 6,169,964), to further include a communication module, wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to: receive target water usage from a server via the communication module, and based on the estimated water usage exceeding the target water usage, output a notification indicating that the estimated water usage exceeds the target water usage. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Aisa et al. (US 6,169,964), to further include wherein the cycle comprises a washing cycle, and wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to: when the washing cycle starts, control the pulsator of the washing module to determine the weight of the laundry, and in response to determining that the water level has reached the target water level, determine a result of subtracting a volume of the laundry corresponding to the weight of the laundry from a volume of the water corresponding to the water level frequency to be the amount of main fill water for the washing cycle. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Aisa et al. (US 6,169,964), to further include wherein the cycle comprises a rinse cycle, and wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions to, in response to determining that the water level has reached the target water level, determine a result of subtracting a volume of the laundry corresponding to the weight of the laundry and an amount of remaining moisture in the laundry corresponding to the weight of the laundry from the volume of the water corresponding to the water level frequency to be an amount of main fill water for the rinse cycle.
Conclusion
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