DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the application filed 5/28/2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
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 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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101692731B1 (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) (“KR’731”) in view of JP H10127979 A (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) (“JP’979”).
Re claim 1, KR’731 discloses an electronic device (title, abstract “washing machine”) comprising:
a tub (ref. 120) configured to receive water;
a washing tub (ref. 130) arrangeable inside the tub to accommodate laundry;
a motor (ref. 140) configured to rotate the washing tub;
a water supply module (ref. 90) configured to supply water to the washing tub;
a drainage module (ref. 100) configured to drain the water from the tub;
a water level sensor (inherent in capability to “set…water level”) configured to measure a water level in the tub;
control the water supply module to supply water to the washing tub that is arranged in the tub (¶ [0061]-[0063] water level (C) higher than (A)), the water supplied by the water supply module being at a wash water level higher than a wash water level in a standard wash cycle,
control a wash operation of the laundry accommodated in the washing tub by driving the motor according to a wash operation rate that is set (¶ [0064]-[0065] washing step),
control the drainage module to drain the water from the tub, control a spin-dry operation of the laundry by driving the motor according to a set spin-dry revolutions per minute (RPM) (¶ [0075]-[0077] first drainage and dewatering), and
control the water supply module to supply water to the washing tub and control a rinsing operation of the laundry according to a set rinse operation rate (¶ [0079] rinsing step/cycle).
KR’731 does not explicitly disclose a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions that are executed by the processor, wherein the processor based on the instructions being executed. However, JP’979 discloses it is very old and well-known in the washing machine art (title) to provide a processor and memory (microcomputer chip 45 having a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, ¶ [0041]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic device of KR’731 to further include a processor and memory, as suggested by JP’979, in order to programmatically control the washing machine operations.
Re claim 2, Regarding “wherein the wash operation rate is set lower than a wash operation rate in the standard wash cycle”, KR’731 further discloses selecting a washing time thus enabling setting lower than standard wash cycle (¶ [0054]) (see also ¶ [0070]-[0074] discussing minimizing wear with strong mechanical force when higher water level).
Re claims 3-5¸ KR’731 further discloses wherein the processor is configured to control the drainage module to drain the water to a water level higher than a reset water level in the standard wash cycle (¶ [0076] high water level (J) than the reference level after the complete (H)). Regarding “wherein the processor is configured to: control the drainage module to drain in a smaller amount than in the standard wash cycle and then spin and drain to a reset water level while rotating at a predetermined RPM, and based on the reset water level being reached, control the spin-dry operation of the laundry according to a spin-dry RPM in the standard wash cycle”, KR’731 teaches a second or third rinse cycle based on the water level (H) and the wash drain completely (¶ [0079]). wherein the processor is configured to, based on the water level in the tub reaching the reset water level, control the spin-dry operation of the laundry according to the spin-dry RPM in the standard wash cycle (second or third rinse cycle ¶ [0078]-[0079]).
Re claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to control the water supply module to supply water to a rinse water level higher than a rinse water level in the standard wash cycle (¶ [0075]-[0076] first rinse at high water level (J)).
Re claim 7, Regarding “wherein the processor is configured to: based an operation of rinsing the laundry being completed, control the drainage module to drain the water from the tub to a water level higher than a reset water level in the standard wash cycle, and control the spin-dry operation of the laundry according to a spin-dry RPM in the standard wash cycle”, KR’731 teaches rinse cycle can be three times. As such, the duplication of the first two rinse cycles at high water level (J) would satisfy claim 7, as claimed, i.e. the second rinse is based on completing the first rinse, and is at a high water level (J) as to reference water level (H) (¶ [0079]).
Re claims 10-15, Independent claim 10 defines over the above only in the recitation of “a washing method”, KR’731 discloses a method (¶ [0001] control method for a washing machine which can minimize damage of the washing object). Claims 11-15 recite limitations rejected above and are therefore satisfied by the combination KR’731/JP’979.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101692731B1 (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) (“KR’731”) in view of JP H10127979 A (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) (“JP’979”), as applied above, and further in view of JP 2020203015 A (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached) (“JP’015”).
Re claims 8-9, KR’731/JP’979 discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to: control at least one of the wash operation rate or a time to wash the laundry according to an amount of pet hair identified by a camera module configured to detect pet hair on a surface of water, and control the drainage module to drain the water to a rinse water level determined according to the amount of pet hair. However, JP’015 discloses it is well-known in the washing machine art (title, abstract) to detect and monitor the amount of pet hair by camera, adjust wash operation guidance, and notify a user (¶ [0006]-[0009]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of KR’731/JP’979 to further include a camera to identify pet hair, as suggested by JP’015, in order to ensure sufficient cleaning and removal of allergens.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20180080158A1 note settings for delicate mode, water volume higher, motor lower than standard.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711