DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 . Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: On line 3, it appears that “A controller is configured operate” should read A controller is configured to operate. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 6, line 3, it appears that “to determine the out of balance condition” should read to determine that the out of balance condition and on line 5, it appears that “to determining the out of balance condition” should read to determining that the out of balance condition. In claim 18, line 2, it appears that “to determine the out of balance condition” should read to determine that the out of balance condition and on line 4, it appears that “to determining the out of balance condition” should read to determining that the out of balance condition. Appropriate corrections 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.
Claims 1, 5 - 10, 12, 13 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mashal et al. (2022/0307186, hereinafter Mashal).
Regarding claim 1, Mashal discloses a method and apparatus comprising a wash tub 108 positioned within a cabinet 102 (See Fig. 3), a drain pump 138 fluidly coupled to the wash tub, a wash basket 114 rotatably mounted within the wash tub, a motor 140 mechanically coupled to the wash basket, a pressure sensor 170 fluidly coupled to the wash tub; and a controller 156 operably coupled to the drain pump, the motor, and the pressure sensor, the controller being configured to operate the motor to agitate a laundry load in the wash basket with a total volume of wash fluid in the wash tub; operate the drain pump to drain a portion of the total volume of the wash fluid from the wash tub until a remaining portion of the wash fluid remains in the wash tub; operate the motor to rotate the wash basket at a sensing speed; obtain a pressure signal from the pressure sensor; analyze the pressure signal to identify an out of balance condition; and implement a responsive action in response to identifying the out of balance condition (See Pg. 2, Paras. 0020 – 0025 and Pg. 3, Para. 0027 – 0034).
Regarding claim 5, the analysis to identify the out of balance condition is performed before a spin cycle (See Pg. 3, Para. 0030 and Pg. 4, Paras. 0038, 0042 and 0043). Regarding claim 6, the controller is further configured to analyze the pressure signal to determine that the out of balance condition does not exist; and perform a spin cycle in response to determining that the out of balance condition does not exist (See Pg. 4, Paras. 0042 – 0043 and Pg. 5, Para. 0044).
Regarding claim 7, implementing the responsive action comprises performing a load redistribution procedure (See Pg. 7, Paras. 0062 – 0063). Regarding claim 8, implementing the responsive action comprises providing a user notification of the out of balance condition (See Pg. 3, Paras. 0029 – 0030 and Pg. 5, Paras. 0046 – 0049).
Regarding claim 9, the user notification is provided through a user interface panel 150 (See Fig. 1, See Pg. 3, Para. 0029).
Regarding claim 10, the controller is in operative communication with a remote device through an external network, and wherein the user notification is provided through the remote device (See Pg. 3, Para. 0030).
Regarding claim 12, the washing machine appliance is a top load washing machine appliance (See Pg. 4, Para. 0042).
Regarding claim 13, the device comprises a wash tub 108 positioned within a cabinet 102, a drain pump 138 is fluidly coupled to the wash tub, a wash basket 114 is rotatably mounted within the wash tub, a motor 140 is mechanically coupled to the wash basket, and a pressure sensor 170 is fluidly coupled to the wash tub, the method comprises operating the motor to agitate a laundry load in the wash basket with a total volume of wash fluid in the wash tub; operating the drain pump to drain a portion of the total volume of the wash fluid from the wash tub until a remaining portion of the wash fluid remains in the wash tub; operating the motor to rotate the wash basket at a sensing speed; obtaining a pressure signal from the pressure sensor; analyzing the pressure signal to identify an out of balance condition; and implementing a responsive action in response to identifying the out of balance condition (See Pg. 2, Paras. 0020 – 0025 and Pg. 3, Para. 0027 – 0034).
Regarding claim 17, the analysis to identify the out of balance condition is performed before a spin cycle (See Pg. 3, Para. 0030, Pg. 4, Paras. 0038, 0042 and 0043). Regarding claim 18, the pressure signal is analyzed to determine that the out of balance condition does not exist; and a spin cycle is performed in response to determining that the out of balance condition does not exist (See Pg. 4, Paras. 0042 – 0043 and Pg. 5, Para. 0044).
Regarding claim 19, implementing the responsive action comprises performing a load redistribution procedure (See Pg. 7, Paras. 0062 – 0063). Regarding claim 20, implementing the responsive action comprises providing a user notification of the out of balance condition (See Pg. 3, Paras. 0029 – 0030 and Pg. 5, Paras. 0046 – 0049).
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashal in view of Suel, II (9,267,226). Regarding claim 3, Mashal discloses a method and apparatus comprising a wash tub 108 positioned within a cabinet 102 (See Fig. 3), a drain pump 138 fluidly coupled to the wash tub, a wash basket 114 rotatably mounted within the wash tub, a motor 140 mechanically coupled to the wash basket, a pressure sensor 170 fluidly coupled to the wash tub; and a controller 156 operably coupled to the drain pump, the motor, and the pressure sensor, the controller being configured to operate the motor to agitate a laundry load in the wash basket with a total volume of wash fluid in the wash tub; operate the drain pump to drain a portion of the total volume of the wash fluid from the wash tub until a remaining portion of the wash fluid remains in the wash tub; operate the motor to rotate the wash basket at a sensing speed; obtain a pressure signal from the pressure sensor; analyze the pressure signal to identify an out of balance condition; and implement a responsive action in response to identifying the out of balance condition (See Pg. 2, Paras. 0020 – 0025 and Pg. 3, Para. 0027 – 0034). Mashal fails to disclose that the sensing speed is lower than an extraction speed where the wash fluid is extracted from the laundry load. However, Suel, II discloses an apparatus comprising a wash basket 32 and a speed sensor 114 that measures the speed of the wash basket, wherein the speed is lower than an extraction speed where the wash fluid is extracted from the laundry load (See Fig. 6, See Col. 4, lines 13 – 46, Col. 5, lines 43 – 67 and Col. 6, lines 1 – 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Mashal according to the teachings of Suel, II for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device dynamically monitors the load size and calculates a power filter to limit power or torque based on the load size (See Suel, II, Col. 1, lines 61 – 67). Regarding claim 15, in Mashal, the device comprises a wash tub 108 positioned within a cabinet 102, a drain pump 138 is fluidly coupled to the wash tub, a wash basket 114 is rotatably mounted within the wash tub, a motor 140 is mechanically coupled to the wash basket, and a pressure sensor 170 is fluidly coupled to the wash tub, the method comprises operating the motor to agitate a laundry load in the wash basket with a total volume of wash fluid in the wash tub; operating the drain pump to drain a portion of the total volume of the wash fluid from the wash tub until a remaining portion of the wash fluid remains in the wash tub; operating the motor to rotate the wash basket at a sensing speed; obtaining a pressure signal from the pressure sensor; analyzing the pressure signal to identify an out of balance condition; and implementing a responsive action in response to identifying the out of balance condition (See Pg. 2, Paras. 0020 – 0025 and Pg. 3, Para. 0027 – 0034).
Mashal fails to disclose that the sensing speed is lower than an extraction speed where the wash fluid is extracted from the laundry load. However, in Suel, II, a wash basket 32 is provided and a speed sensor 114 is provided that measures the speed of the wash basket, wherein the speed is lower than an extraction speed where the wash fluid is extracted from the laundry load (See Fig. 6, See Col. 4, lines 13 – 46, Col. 5, lines 43 – 67 and Col. 6, lines 1 – 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Mashal according to the teachings of Suel, II for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device dynamically monitors the load size and calculates a power filter to limit power or torque based on the load size (See Suel, II, Col. 1, lines 61 – 67).10. Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashal in view of Bhandwale et al. (8,813,288, hereinafter Bhandwale).
Regarding claim 4, Mashal fails to disclose that the sensing speed is less than 50 revolutions per minute. However, Bhandwale discloses a method and apparatus comprising a wash basket 70 having a sense speed that is less than 50 rpm (See Col. 6, lines 47 – 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Mashal according to the teachings of Bhandwale for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device detects an out of balance condition of a washing machine by using an inverter drive control system (See Bhandwale, Col. 1, lines 49 – 54). Regarding claim 16, Mashal fails to disclose that the sensing speed is less than 50 revolutions per minute. However, in Bhandwale, the wash basket 70 has a sense speed that is less than 50 rpm (See Col. 6, lines 47 – 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Mashal according to the teachings of Bhandwale for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device detects an out of balance condition of a washing machine by using an inverter drive control system (See Bhandwale, Col. 1, lines 49 – 54). 11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashal in view of Sungyong et al. (KR20200022705, hereinafter Sungyong).
Regarding claim 11, Mashal fails to disclose that the pressure sensor is a piezoelectric pressure sensor that is positioned at a user interface panel and is fluidly coupled to a pressure port at a lower portion of the wash tub. However, Sungyong discloses an apparatus comprising a piezoelectric pressure sensor 224 that is positioned at a user interface panel 116 and that is fluidly coupled to a pressure port at a lower portion of a wash tub 120 (See Figs. 4 – 6, See Pg. 3, Para. 6, Pg. 6, Para. 2 and Pg. 8, Para. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Mashal according to the teachings of Sungyong for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is capable of sensing vibration and water level during washing (See Sungyong, See Pg. 2, Para. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 14 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.13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not anticipate or make obvious the provisions of “analyzing the pressure signal to identify the out of balance condition comprises identifying a maximum pressure and a minimum pressure from the pressure signal; determining an oscillation amplitude of the pressure signal from the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure; and identifying the out of balance condition when the oscillation amplitude exceeds a predetermined amplitude threshold” (referring to claim 2) in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 1 and “analyzing the pressure signal to identify the out of balance condition comprises identifying a maximum pressure and a minimum pressure from the pressure signal; determining an oscillation amplitude of the pressure signal from the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure; and identifying the out of balance condition when the oscillation amplitude exceeds a predetermined amplitude threshold” (referring to claim 14) in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 13. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. 15. Latham et al. (12,546,047) disclose washing machine appliance load type detection. Ewing et al. (12,529,178) disclose a method of sensing remaining moisture content in a washing machine appliance. Ewing (2025/0333896) disclose a method of sensing load imbalances in a washing machine appliance. Smith (2020/0024787) discloses a washing machine appliance and methods for out-of-balance detection and mitigation. Smith (10,975,512) discloses a washing machine appliance and methods for preventing spin out-of-balance conditions. Worley et al. (12,054,871) disclose washing machine appliance load size detection using deceleration time. Ewing (2025/0066970) discloses top load washer spinning with water.16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/20/26
Prosecution Insights