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
Newly submitted claim limitations of “a hinge actuator mounted on the shaft of the door hinge…” is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The elected Species of Figure 6 does not describe such hinge actuator configuration, and the specification describes such hinge actuator configuration as “alternative embodiments” in ¶ [0045] after the description of Figure 6.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 13 and 16-22 are further withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Cumulatively, claims 3, 13, and 15-22 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected Species.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s “apparent Official Notice”, Examiner submits that contrary to Applicant’s alleged “Official Notice”, Examiner did not rely on any “Official Notice” regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts. As indicated in the rejection, Examiner cited MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and precedential caselaw as a rationale for obviousness. Notwithstanding this, Examiner has provided US 2018/0092507 to Wilson (at ¶ [0061]) and CN 117888325 to Sun et al. (at Fig. 4B and associated text) for teaching the known use of a proximity sensor below a washing machine door for foot actuation.
Regarding the § 102 rejection of claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the amendment overcoming the rejection. However, based on the incorporation of limitations from dependent claims 7-10 into claim 1, the rejection has been necessitated by amendment and modified as indicated below.
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that Arankalle alone or combined with Park do not teach the claimed proximity sensor or temperature sensor positioned below the door. This is not persuasive because, as indicated in the previous rejection and response above, a prima facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and precedential caselaw for obviousness rationale for Rearrangement of Parts.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arankalle.
Regarding claim 1, Arankalle (in Figs. 1-5 and associated text) discloses a washing machine appliance (100) comprising:
a cabinet comprising a front panel (104) defining a chamber opening (see Fig. 2);
a wash tub (109) positioned within the cabinet and defining a wash chamber;
a door (106) rotatably mounted to the front panel and moveable between an open position for providing access to the wash chamber and a closed position for prohibiting access to the wash chamber (see opening and closing operations in ¶ [0019]); and
an automatic door opening assembly for selectively rotating the door from the closed position to the open position, the automatic door opening assembly comprising:
a linear actuator (piston 130) comprising a rod (142) moveable between a retracted position and an extended position in which the rod moves the door from the closed position (see Fig. 3 and associated text);
a sensor (206) for detecting a contactless user input to move the door from the closed position to the open position (see Fig. 5), the sensor comprising a proximity sensor for detecting user motion (note gesture sensor 206 reads on a proximity sensor) or a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature differential associated with a presence of the user (alternatively recited, not required); and
a controller (202) operatively coupled to the sensor and the linear actuator, the controller configured to control an operation of the linear actuator to move the rod from the retracted position to the extended position upon detection of the contactless user input by the sensor (see controller opening door based on gesture sensor 206 detection of hand movement in ¶ [0032]).
Arankalle discloses the claimed invention including a proximity sensor positioned on the front panel of the washing machine. Arankalle discloses the sensor positioned above the door rather than below the door as recited in claim 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to rearrange the sensor location as desired to achieve the same and predictable results of proximity sensing a user to control automatic door opening, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 2, Arankalle further discloses the automatic door opening assembly further comprising: a door hinge (112a/112b) coupled to the door and the front panel for facilitating rotation of the door between the open position and the closed position; and a hinge actuator coupled to the door hinge for moving the door to the open position after the linear actuator moves the door from the closed position (see ¶ [0019] - “[t]he hinge assembly may be capable of disengaging the door from the latch in order to open the door”; see also ¶ [0023] where the controller controls the hinge to open and closed the door based on a command).
Regarding claim 4, Arankalle further discloses wherein the hinge actuator is configured as a motor operable to move the door to the open position after the linear actuator moves the door from the closed position (hydraulic pump 122 reads on a hydraulic “motor” that converts hydraulic pressure into movement).
Regarding claim 5, Arankalle further discloses wherein the controller is operatively coupled to the motor, the controller further configured to: after controlling the operation of the linear actuator to move the rod from the retracted position to the extended position, control an operation of the motor to move the door to the open position (note the hydraulic pump (motor) in Arankalle moves the rod from retracted position to an extended position, and subsequently to an open position).
Regarding claim 7, Arankalle further discloses the controller is further configured to control the operation of the linear actuator to move the rod from the retracted position to the extended position when the motion is detected by the proximity sensor (see Fig. 5 and associated text).
Regarding claims 11-12, Arankalle further discloses wherein: the sensor is configured as a microphone for receiving a voice command; and the controller is further configured to: determine when the voice command is a command to open the door; and control the operation of the linear actuator to move the rod from the retracted position to the extended position when determined that the voice command is a command to open the door (see ¶ [0022] and [0029]-[0030] wherein a microphone is used to give audible commands for the door to open or close); wherein the controller is further configured to: determine when the voice command is a command to open the door from a specific user; and control the operation of the linear actuator move the rod from the retracted position to the extended position when determined that the voice command is a command to open the door from the specific user (see ¶ [0031] wherein the received user commands may include user authentication).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arankalle in view of US 2020/0087846 to Park et al. (“Park”).
Regarding claim 9 Arankalle, supra, discloses the claimed invention including a sensor configured to detect a user. Arankalle does not expressly disclose a temperature sensor for such operation. However, Park teaches that it is known in the laundry treating art to provide either a motion detection sensor or temperature sensor in order to identify a human (see Park at ¶ [0018]).
Because both Arankalle and Park teach laundry treating appliances using sensors for detecting humans, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one sensor (i.e. a motion detecting sensor) for the other (i.e. a temperature sensor) to achieve the same and predictable result of identifying the presence of a human.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights