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 of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 24 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “control the motor driver to perform a plurality of material detection process” is indefinite because it is unclear how a motor driver can perform material detection. What structures and/or structural configurations perform material detection in the claimed apparatus? How is the material detection performed? Clarification and correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0102685 to Im et al. (“Im”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Im discloses a washing machine, comprising:
a drum (42);
a motor (9) configured to rotate the drum;
a motor driver (71) comprising circuitry configured to supply a drive current to the motor;
a current sensor (75) configured to detect the drive current;
a water supplier comprising a conduit (6 or 8) configured to supply water to the drum; and
at least one controller (60) configured to control the water supplier to perform a plurality of water supply processes, and control the motor driver to perform a plurality of material detection processes (note water supply step S20 for wetting laundry S30, subsequently determining laundry weight and quality, which includes the material of laundry per ¶ [0081] and performing plural resupplying of water ¶ [0152]-[0156], as well as performing current detection during acceleration which includes plural detection processes (note various data charts showing detected current versus speed during acceleration, e.g., Figs. 4-5, as well as ),
wherein one or more of the at least one controller is configured to:
perform one of the plurality of material detection processes in response to one of the plurality of water supply processes (note water is supplied and subsequently current detected to determine laundry quality),
generate a plurality of pieces of input data based on drive current values detected during the plurality of material detection processes (note controller receiving current data above to convert to laundry material determination necessarily includes input data; also note Fig. 10, ¶ [0134]-[0137], and plural pieces of input data), and
identify a material of laundry, accommodated in the drum, based on the plurality of pieces of input data (see above regarding laundry quality/material determination; also see Fig. 12 and steps S6-S7, ¶ [0095],[0199]-[0200]).
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) 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0102685 to Im et al. (“Im”) in view of US 2018/0313014 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 2, Im discloses the claimed invention including using plural pieces of input data from motor current detection to determine a laundry characteristic, such as material, but does not provide further details of the input data wherein the plurality of pieces of input data include at least one of data about a frequency component of the drive current values detected during the plurality of material detection processes and data about an alignment pattern in which the drive current values are aligned in order of magnitude. Kim teaches an art-related washing machine using a current detector (¶ [0135]), as well as determining magnitude and frequency of detected current (¶ [0032]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to use magnitude and frequency of detected current (as in Kim) in the washing machine of Im for motor control using detected current data.
Regarding claim 3, Im further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one controller is configured to store a classifier pre-trained by machine learning, wherein: the classifier is configured to output output data indicating the material of the laundry accommodated in the drum, in response to the plurality of pieces of input data being input (see ¶ [0030] wherein current values of the motor are determined using an artificial neural network pre-trained based on machine learning using inputted current value to output laundry quality).
Regarding claim 4, Im further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one controller is configured to determine a number of the plurality of water supply processes based on a weight of the laundry accommodated in the drum (see ¶ [0081] where laundry weight is also determined).
Regarding claim 5, Im further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one controller is configured to cancel a water supply process, in response to a water supply time or an amount of water supply for one of the plurality of water supply processes satisfying a specified condition (see ¶ [0153]-[0155] wherein the water level is stopped based on sensed water level).
Regarding claim 6, Im further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one controller is configured to control the motor driver to rotate the drum at a constant speed to perform the plurality of material detection processes (see ¶ [0025]-[0026] where current values are sensed based on a constant speed value).
Regarding claims 7-8, Im discloses use of a stored pre-trained classifier and detecting material and weight, but Im does not expressly disclose the plurality as claimed. However, providing duplicate pre-trained classifiers to determine multiple laundry characteristics, such as weight and material, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 9-10, Im further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one controller is configured to, in response to the plurality of material detection processes being performed, identify the material of the laundry based on the plurality of pieces of input data, and determine a process condition related to at least one of a washing process, a rinse process, or a spin-dry process based on the identified material of the laundry (note Im discloses constructing operation settings and performing laundry operations (S8 or S60) based on material detection processes (S7 or S57).
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