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 5/11/2026. Claims 6-13, 16, and 17 are pending. Claims 6-8 have been amended.
The rejections of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite are withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim(s) 6-9, and 11-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0136431) in view of Matsumi et al. (US 5,048,139). Claim(s) 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0136431), in view of Matsumi et al. (US 5,048,139), and further in view of Hombroek et al. (US 2018/0002859). Claim(s) 17 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0136431; hereafter, “Lee ‘431”), in view of Matsumi et al. (US 5,048,139), and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0095408; hereafter, “Lee ‘408”).
Claim 6 has been amended to recite “wherein said laundry treatment cycle is a function of said scalar property . . . and disseminating a user stimulus when said scalar property operably determines a next process step in said laundry treatment cycle.” Applicant argues that Lee, in view of Matsumi, does not disclose these features, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee is considered to broadly and reasonably teach those features because the control unit C determines a preferable recommended additional rinsing count based on the turbidity of the rinsing water, data sensed by the turbidity sensor and the information on the additional rinsing count can be displayed on the first display unit (80) and the second display unit (280), and after checking the information displayed the user can set up a rinsing count or an additional rinsing count (paragraphs 104-116). Also see Figures 5 and 6 and paragraphs 117-143 further describing this process. For example, Figures 5 and 6 show on the second display unit (280), a wash completion text information (281), a notification that “residues remain in laundry considerably” (282), a graph information of turbidity (283) of the rinsing water, a user input for “additional rinsing” (287) or “wash end” (287) to be selected by a user’s touch, and upon selecting “additional rinsing” a screen allowing the user to select a specific rinsing count may be displayed (288).
In response to Applicant’s amendments, new/modified ground(s) of rejection are applied below.
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: “an output device” in claim 6.
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 § 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 6-13, 16, and 17 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said laundry treatment cycle" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 6-9, 11-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0136431) in view of Matsumi et al. (US 5,048,139).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses a process for displaying the effectiveness of a laundry machines wherein the laundry machine comprises: a cabinet having an interior (10); a tub positioned within said interior, wherein said tub has an interior volume (40); a drum within said tub (30); and a motor engaged with said drum (55); a sensor in operative engagement with said interior volume and sensing a scalar property of a liquid within said tub, wherein said laundry treatment cycle is a function of said scalar property (130; Figure 5: 281, 282, 286, 287; Figure 6: 288; paragraphs 135-143); an output device communicatively coupled to said sensor that reports said scalar property or an indexed value thereof to an environment that is outside of said cabinet (Figure 4: 100, 190, 80, 90, 280, 290); and the process for displaying the effectiveness of the laundry machine comprises the steps of: initiating a laundry treatment cycle of said laundry washing machine (paragraphs 18-23); sensing said scalar property of said liquid within said tub during said laundry treatment cycle (paragraphs 18-23, 56, 65, 71, 74); and displaying said scalar property or indexed value thereof to said environment that is outside of said cabinet (Figure 5: 283; paragraphs 135-136); and disseminating a user stimulus when said scalar property operably determines a next process step in said laundry treatment cycle (Figures 5, 6: 281-284, 286, 287, 288).
Lee does not expressly disclose that the output device reports said scalar property or an indexed value thereof as a function of time; and the scalar property is sensed multiple times during said laundry treatment cycle. Rather, Lee discloses that graph information on the turbidity of the rinsing water may be displayed on the display unit in form of a bar graph (paragraph 136; 283).
Matsumi discloses a washing machine with a turbidimeter (16) and a computing means for computing temporal rate of change in the detected values for determining the end of an operation cycle (col. 3, lines 31-40). Figure 7 shows a graph of turbidity versus time for a typical cycle, and an end point can be determined by the rate of change in turbidity decreased to below a predetermined value (Figure 7; col. 7, lines 9-18).
Because it is known in the art to depict a graph of turbidity and it is known to use a graph of turbidity versus time, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, tracking/displaying turbidity versus time to determine/convey useful information, 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 output device reports said scalar property or an indexed value thereof as a function of time; and the scalar property is sensed multiple times during said laundry treatment cycle.
Claims 7-9, 11, and 12 are considered to be met by Lee, in view of Matsumi, as applied above and which result in: wherein said cabinet has an exterior surface opposite said interior, wherein said output device comprises a display engaged with said exterior surface (Lee: Figure 4: 100, 80, 90); wherein said output device comprises a wireless device having a display (Lee: Figure 4: 100, 280, 290; paragraph 94); wherein said sensor is a turbidity sensor (Lee: 130); wherein said scalar property or indexed value thereof is displayed as an instantaneous value at a particular time (Masumi: Figure 7); wherein said scalar property or indexed value thereof is displayed as a graph of said scalar property as a function of time (Masumi: Figure 7).
Claims 13 and 16 are considered to be met by Lee, in view of Matsumi, as applied above and which result in: wherein when said scalar property at the end of said laundry treatment cycle is in nonconformance with a threshold value or acceptable range of values, displaying an indicia to a user of a supplemental action to be taken by said user (Lee: Figure 5: 282, 286, 287; paragraphs 135-137); wherein said laundry treatment machine is configured to disseminate a user stimulus when said scalar property or indexed value thereof reaches a predetermined acceptable value (Lee: 281, 282, 286, 287; also note this is not a process step, but a configuration of the laundry machine considered to be met by having the displays).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0136431), in view of Matsumi et al. (US 5,048,139), and further in view of Hombroek et al. (US 2018/0002859).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, in view of Matsumi, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein said sensor is a conductivity sensor.
Hombroek discloses a laundry washing machine having a fluid property sensor (68), e.g., a turbidity sensor to measure the turbidity or clarity of the fluid in a wash tub (16), wherein the turbidity sensor may also measure other properties of the fluid in the wash tub, e.g., conductivity and/or temperature (paragraph 39).
Because it is known in the art to have a single sensor to measure turbidity, conductivity, and temperature, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, measuring multiple properties using a single sensor, 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 said sensor is a conductivity sensor.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0136431; hereafter, “Lee ‘431”), in view of Matsumi et al. (US 5,048,139), and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0095408; hereafter, “Lee ‘408”).
Lee ‘431, in view of Matsumi, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein said laundry treatment cycle is a function of said scalar property, wherein said laundry treatment machine is configured to compute and disseminate an estimated or computed time remaining in said laundry treatment cycle based at least partially on said scalar property.
Lee ‘408 discloses a laundry treating apparatus and control method including a conductivity sensor (140) to detect a contamination level of the washing water (paragraph 36) and a turbidity sensor (150) to determine the contamination level of the washing water (paragraph 37). In an embodiment, a first contamination data is collected and an expected washing time is calculated (Figure 5: S30, S40; paragraph 50). The display (42) may display the expected washing time (Figure 4; Figure 9; paragraph 59).
Because it is known in the art to determine and display an expected washing time based on the sensed contamination level, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, indicating expected washing time 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 said laundry treatment cycle is a function of said scalar property, wherein said laundry treatment machine is configured to compute and disseminate an estimated or computed time remaining in said laundry treatment cycle based at least partially on said scalar property.
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