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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 8-9, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-5, 8-9, and 17-19 recite a “first RPM” and a “second RPM”, which should be revised as “first rotational speed” and “second rotational speed” as “RPM” is a unit of rotational speed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “a memory to store one or more programs” in line 5 and “a controller electrically connectable with… the memory, … one or more instructions of the one or more programs stored in the memory is executed” in lines 6-9. It is unclear whether the memory on which the one or more programs are stored is part of the controller.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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) 1-5, 8-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003320194 A to Komatsu (Komatsu et al.) in view of EP 0796942 A2 to Kawabata et al. (Kawabata).
In reference to independent claim 1, Komatsu discloses:
A washer, comprising:
a first heater (69) to heat water (see [0048]);
a second heater (57) to heat air (see [0044]);
a fan (56) to guide air to an inside of a drum (54) (see [0044]);
a memory to store one or more programs (“pre-stored control program”; see [0021]); and
a controller (35) electrically connectable with the first heater, the second heater, the fan, and the memory so that while the controller is connected with the first heater, the second heater, the fan, and the memory, one or more instructions of the one or more programs stored in the memory is executed to thereby control the washer by the controller to sequentially perform a washing cycle, a first rinsing cycle, a second rinsing cycle, a spin-drying cycle, and a drying cycle (see [0022]),
wherein the second rinsing cycle includes heating the washing water through the first heater (69) and spinning the drum (54) (see [0048], [0051]), and
wherein the spin-drying cycle includes heating the air through the second heater (57) in at least some sections and guiding the heated air to the inside of the drum using the blower fan (56) (see [0044], [0051]).
Komatsu is silent regarding, during the spin-drying cycle, the air is heated through the second heater is based on a spin speed of the drum.
Kawabata teaches a similar washing-drying machine including a drum (5) that is spun at high speed to spin-dry laundry therein while feeding hot air into the drum during the spin-drying process, and turning on an air heater (45) when the rotational speed of the spinning drum (5) approaches a steady-state value (see [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the washing-drying machine of Komatsu to include heating the air through the second heater based on a spin speed of the drum as taught by Kawabata so that the power consumption of the machine can be limited without prolonging the drying time (see [0027]).
Independent claim 16 recites a method of operating the washer of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
In reference to dependent claims 2 and 17, Kawabata further teaches: the controller spins the drum at a first RPM or less in the second rinsing cycle (see [0042]) and spins the drum at a second RPM or less in at least some sections of the spin-drying cycle (see [0050]-[0051]).
Komatsu and Kawabata are silent regarding the first RPM being set to a value smaller than the second RPM.
However, it is well-known that rotation of a washing machine is less during a rinsing cycle than a spin-drying cycle as evidenced by KR 20210001723 A to Bae et al. (see [0007]). Thus is would be evident to one of ordinary skill in the prior art that the first rotational speed during the rinsing cycle would be less than the second rotational speed during the spin cycle.
In reference to dependent claims 3 and 18, Kawabata further teaches: the at least some sections of the spin-drying cycle where the second heater operates is identified as a section during which a spin speed of the drum is the second RPM or less (i.e. at the steady-state value or less).
In reference to dependent claim 4, Kawabata further teaches: the second RPM is set in a range of 10 to 400RPM (the loosening cycle is performed mid-spin-cycle in which the basket 5 is spun at low rpm; see [0050]-[0051]).
Komatsu and Kawabata are silent regarding the first RPM being set in a range of 0 to 200RPM.
As discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 17 above, it is known that the rotational speed during a rinsing cycle is less than that during a spin-drying cycle. Given a set range of rotational speed of a spin-drying cycle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the first rotational speed to be within a range of 0 to 200RPM since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In reference to dependent claims 5 and 19, Kawabata further teaches the controller operating the fan (41) while the spin-drying cycle is performed, and operating the second heater (45) during a section where a spin speed of the drum is the second RPM or less among sections during which the spin-drying cycle is performed (see [0044]-[0045]).
In reference to dependent claim 8, Kawabata further teaches: the spin-drying cycle includes N spin-drying operations (where N is a natural number of 2 or more) and a laundry untangle operation (“loosening cycle”), and wherein the controller performs the laundry untangle operation between an N-1th spin-drying operation and an Nth spin-drying operation (see [0048]), and wherein the laundry untangle operation includes spinning the drum at a second RPM or less (see [0050]-[0051]) and supplying air heated by the second heater (45) to the inside of the drum (5) (see [0048]).
In reference to dependent claim 9, Kawabata further teaches: the spin-drying cycle includes N spin-drying operations (where N is a natural number of 2 or more), and wherein the controller further increases at least one of a maximum RPM or an execution time as an order of the spin-drying operations increases (see [0070]).
In reference to dependent claim 10, Komatsu further discloses: the second rinsing cycle is performed for a preset time or until a temperature of the inside of the drum (e.g. about 30°C) or laundry in the inside of the drum reaches a target temperature (see [0028]).
In reference to dependent claim 11, Komatsu further discloses: the first heater (69) and the second heater (57) are disposed on an inner circumferential surface of a tub (52) to face each other (see Fig. 5).
In reference to dependent claim 12, Komatsu further discloses: the first heater (69) is disposed on a lower inner circumferential surface of a tub (52), and the second heater (57) is disposed on an upper inner circumferential surface of the tub (52) (see Fig. 5).
In reference to dependent claim 13, Komatsu further discloses: the second heater (57) is disposed adjacent to the fan (56) (see Fig. 5).
In reference to dependent claim 15, Komatsu further discloses: the second rinsing cycle is performed for at least twice as long as the first rinsing cycle, for three times as long as the first rinsing cycle, or performed for up to 10 minutes (the “second rinse” cycle takes place, i.e. occupying time, and thus is performed for up to 10 minutes).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is 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:
In reference to dependent claim 14, Komatsu further discloses: the washing water supplied to an inside of a tub in the second rinsing cycle is greater in amount than the washing water supplied in the first rinsing cycle (see [0028]).
The prior art of record does not disclose or teach the washer as recited in claim 1 and its method of operation as recited in claim 16 including the washing water supplied to an inside of a tub in the second rinsing cycle is smaller in amount than the washing water supplied in the first rinsing cycle.
In reference to dependent claims 6, 7, and 20, Komatsu further discloses
the second rinsing cycle (“second rinse”) is performed includes a first section (“agitation”) during which the first heater (69) is operated (“rinse heating”; see [0049], [0051]) and a second section (“spin-drying”) during which the second heater (57) is operated (see [0051]). Moreover, JP 2018015251 A to Kanazawa et al. (Kanazawa) teaches a similar washing-drying machine in processes are executed based on temperatures measured by temperature sensors (31, 32) (see [0061]-[0062]). However, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the first heater being operated during the second section of the second rinsing cycle and the first section and the second section are identified based on a temperature of the inside of the drum or laundry in the inside of the drum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights