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 12/23/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 15-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 11-20 were provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over U.S. Patent Application No. 18/480,990 (the Reference Application; now U.S. Patent No. 12,509,811). Applicant has indicated that a terminal disclaimer may be filed if necessary. Since the double patenting rejection still appears to be appropriate, a modified rejection over U.S. Patent No. 12,509,811 is applied below.
The rejections of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uludag et al. (WO 2022/146306) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hombroek et al. (US 2023/0416966) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, new/modified ground(s) of rejection are applied below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,509,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter with the instant claims generally being broader in scope and having only minor differences in language or minor obvious differences when compared to the conflicting claims. For instance, the instant claims differ from the conflicting claims by detecting the presence of chlorine bleach, but this is considered to be obvious to a PHOSITA (also, see the following prior art rejection which shows this is known in the art).
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) 11-15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uludag et al. (WO 2022/146306) in view of Zattin et al. (US 2018/0073177).
Regarding claims 11, 13, and 15, Uludag discloses a washing machine appliance comprising; a tub (3); a conductivity sensor disposed at the tub (9); and a controller (10), the controller configured to store instructions, that when executed, causes the controller to execute operations, the operations comprising: initiating a wash cycle of the washing machine appliance (page 7, lines 2-4); sensing, with the conductivity sensor, a conductivity measurement of a wash fluid within the tub (page 7, lines 19-26; page 11, lines 8-13).
Uludag does not expressly disclose determining, based on the sensed conductivity measurement and a baseline conductivity measurement, a change in conductivity value; and detecting, based on the change in conductivity value, a presence of chlorine bleach within the wash fluid; wherein detecting the presence of chlorine bleach is further based on a minimum threshold value; wherein detecting the presence of chlorine bleach comprises detecting the change in conductivity value as greater than the minimum threshold value. Rather, Uludag merely discloses that the type of bleach, such as chlorine bleach or oxygen-based bleach, is detected according to conductivity (page 7, lines 19-26; page 11, lines 8-13).
Zattin discloses a washing appliance in which a detergent type is detected, which can be by conductivity sensor, and preferably conductivity is measured by calculating a difference between conductivity of tap water and one of washing liquid having the detergent dissolved therein because conductivity of water from the water mains can change (abstract; paragraphs 50, 187).
Because it is known in the art to determine conductivity as a difference compared with a baseline, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, determining the conductivity accurately even as tap water changes, 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, based on the sensed conductivity measurement and a baseline conductivity measurement, a change in conductivity value; and detecting, based on the change in conductivity value, a presence of chlorine bleach within the wash fluid; wherein detecting the presence of chlorine bleach is further based on a minimum threshold value; wherein detecting the presence of chlorine bleach comprises detecting the change in conductivity value as greater than the minimum threshold value.
Claims 12, 19, and 20 are considered to be met by the combination of Uludag, in view of Zattin, as applied above and which results in: wherein initiating a wash cycle comprises flowing a fill of liquid water into the tub (Uludag: page 6, line 15 – page 7, line 18); wherein the presence of chlorine bleach is not detected within the wash fluid in response to the change in conductivity value being less than or equal to the threshold value, further comprising continuing the wash cycle (Uludag: page 2, lines 7-15; page 7, line 19 – page 8, line 12, see when chlorine bleach has not been detected); wherein the washing machine appliance comprises a bleach dispenser (Uludag: 14, 15), wherein the presence of bleach is detected within the wash fluid in response to the change in conductivity value being greater than the threshold value (Uludag: page 7, lines 19-26; page 11, lines 8-13; Zattin: abstract; paragraphs 50, 187), and wherein in response to the presence of bleach being detected, the bleach dispenser is flushed with water (Uludag: page 4, lines 11-20, considered to be met by the rinsing cycle).
Regarding claim 14, Uludag, in view of Zattin, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the minimum threshold value is approximately two hundred micro-Siemens per centimeter. However, Uludag discloses that the type of bleach, such as chlorine bleach or oxygen-based bleach, is detected according to conductivity (page 7, lines 19-26; page 11, lines 8-13). Since Uludag discloses sensing conductivity to detect the same chlorine bleach, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate minimum threshold value as claimed, and the results would be predictable. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II) – Routine Optimization.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uludag et al. (WO 2022/146306), in view of Zattin et al. (US 2018/0073177), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0244836).
Regarding claim 16, Uludag, in view of Zattin, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the operations further comprise providing a first notification in response to the presence of chlorine bleach being detected within the wash fluid.
Kim discloses a washing machine having a display to display an operational status of the washing machine (14; paragraph 33), an electrode device (60) to sense a turbidity of detergent water, and during rinsing if a current detector (73) connected to the electrode device determines a current equal or greater than a reference value, a number of rinsing times is changed and a washing time is extended, and a message that excess detergent has been added is displayed on the display (paragraphs 39, 56).
Because it is known in the art to display an operation status including a detergent status, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, informing the user of the status of the washing machine such as the bleach/additive status, 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 operations further comprise providing a first notification in response to the presence of chlorine bleach being detected within the wash fluid.
Regarding claim 17, Uludag, in view of Zattin, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is further operable for wherein the operations further comprise adjusting the wash cycle in response to the presence of chlorine bleach being detected within the wash fluid, wherein adjusting the wash cycle comprises adding extra time to the wash cycle.
Kim discloses a washing machine having a display to display an operational status of the washing machine (14; paragraph 33), an electrode device (60) to sense a turbidity of detergent water, and during rinsing if a current detector (73) connected to the electrode device determines a current equal or greater than a reference value, a number of rinsing times is changed and a washing time is extended, and a message that excess detergent has been added is displayed on the display (paragraphs 39, 56).
Because it is known in the art to change the number of rinses and length of time of the cycle based on a detection of detergent, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, effectively rinsing the bleach/additive from the 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 wherein the controller is further operable for wherein the operations further comprise adjusting the wash cycle in response to the presence of chlorine bleach being detected within the wash fluid, wherein adjusting the wash cycle comprises adding extra time to the wash cycle.
Regarding claim 18, Uludag, in view of Zattin, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is further operable for wherein the operations further comprise adjusting a rinse cycle in response to the presence of chlorine bleach being detected within the wash fluid, wherein adjusting the rinse cycle comprises providing a water volume adjustment, providing an additional rinse cycle, a time modification to the rinse cycle, or a combination thereof.
Kim discloses a washing machine having a display to display an operational status of the washing machine (14; paragraph 33), an electrode device (60) to sense a turbidity of detergent water, and during rinsing if a current detector (73) connected to the electrode device determines a current equal or greater than a reference value, a number of rinsing times is changed and a washing time is extended, and a message that excess detergent has been added is displayed on the display (paragraphs 39, 56).
Because it is known in the art to change the number of rinses and length of time of the cycle based on a detection of detergent, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, effectively rinsing the bleach/additive from the 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 wherein the controller is further operable for wherein the operations further comprise adjusting a rinse cycle in response to the presence of chlorine bleach being detected within the wash fluid, wherein adjusting the rinse cycle comprises providing a water volume adjustment, providing an additional rinse cycle, a time modification to the rinse cycle, or a combination thereof.
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