DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 06/20/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, 13-20, 25, 27, 29, 34, and 43 are currently pending.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, 13-20, 25, 27, 29, 34, and 43 are amended.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 12, 21-24, 26, 28, 30-33, 35-42, and 44-52 are cancelled.
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 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, the preamble states “a method according to any preceding claim 1.”
In claim 11, the preamble states “a method according to any to claim 8.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 8, 11, 18-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroshi et al. EP 2330244 (henceforth referred to as Hiroshi).
As to claim 1, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi teaches a method of assessing out of balance in a laundry apparatus comprising, during operation of the apparatus:
receiving output (paragraphs [0038] and [0039] the control unit 20 can receive an output from unbalanced vibration estimation unit 30 and unbalanced vibration detection unit 31) from one or more out of balance (OOB) sensors (FIG. 1 paragraph [0018] speed detection section 21 and unbalanced vibration detection unit 31 reads on the claimed OOB sensors),
determining from the OOB sensor output:
a rotating inertia (paragraph [0029] inertial moment),
a relative phase between a rotating assembly motion and non-rotating assembly motion (paragraph [0042] fabric disentangling adjustment section 24 determines the fabric disentangling operation by detecting the unbalanced vibration from the relationship between the rotation number (which reads on the rotating assembly motion) signal and three signals of the 3D sensor (which reads on the non-rotating assembly motion). The relationship would read on the relative phase.), and
generating one or more OOB outputs indicative of balance of laundry in the drum (paragraph [0038]-[0039] unbalanced vibration estimation unit 30 and unbalanced vibration detection unit 31 can send an OOB output to the control unit 20).
As to claim 2, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi teaches determining, from the OOB sensors, a speed of rotation of the rotating assembly (FIG. 1 paragraph [0018] speed detection section 21 detects the rotation speed of motor 12).
As to claim 8, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi further teaches determining from the OOB sensor output: a non-rotating assembly parameter (FIG. 1 paragraph [0018] unbalanced vibration detection unit 31, which reads on the claimed non-rotating assembly parameter, detects unbalanced vibration), and/or a rotating assembly parameter (FIG. 1 paragraph [0018] speed detection section 21 detects rotation speed), to generate one or more OOB outputs indicative of balance of laundry in the drum (paragraphs [0038] - [0041] vibration detection unit 31 can send an output to control unit 20, indicating there is an imbalance. This action would read on generating one more OOB outputs.).
As to claim 11, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi teaches the rotating assembly parameter is determined from the output of a drive motor, which is optionally one or more of current, voltage, torque, position and/or speed (FIG. 1 paragraph [0018] speed detection section 21 detects the rotation speed of motor 12).
As to claim 18, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi further teaches the OOB output comprises one or more of: a static OOB mass, a dynamic OOB mass, a dynamic OOB angle, a decision on existence of OOB (paragraph [0038] when unbalanced vibration estimation unit 30 can detect that the variation value is equal to or more than a threshold value during the acceleration. This would mean that it is making a decision on the existence of OOB), and/or a control signal to operate the laundry apparatus (paragraph [0038]-[0039] unbalanced vibration estimation unit 30 and unbalanced vibration detection unit 31 can send an OOB output to the control unit 20).
As to claim 19, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi further teaches determining whether an OOB condition exists (paragraph [0038]-[0039] unbalanced vibration estimation unit 30 and unbalanced vibration detection unit 31 can send an OOB output to the control unit 20), and/or determining the character or severity of the OOB condition if it exists (paragraph [0052] It is possible to judge whether it is the dynamic unbalance or the static unbalance on the basis of the rotation number. Dynamic or static unbalance would read on the character of the OOB condition).
As to claim 20, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi further teaches either or both of the steps of determining whether an OOB condition exists, and/or determining the character or severity of the OOB condition if it exists comprises comparing the one or more OOB outputs to a predetermined threshold or limit (paragraph [0044] unbalanced vibration estimation unit 30 detects that the variation current value is equal to or more than a threshold value. Paragraph [0051] Unbalanced vibration detection unit 31 detects the variation in any one of the three directions is equal to or more than a threshold value).
As to claim 25, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi further teaches the method is carried out during a spin cycle of the laundry apparatus operation (paragraphs [0049] and [0052] unbalance can be detected during acceleration. It is possible to judge whether it is the dynamic unbalance or the static unbalance on the basis of the rotation number), and optionally during a dehydration spin cycle (paragraph [0011] an object of the invention is to reduce an unbalanced vibration during a dewatering cycle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. EP 2330244 (henceforth referred to as Hiroshi) in view of Davis U.S. Publication 2018/0016728 (henceforth referred to as Davis).
As to claim 5, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi further teaches the relative phase is determined from a drive motor and/or a drum speed (Hiroshi FIG. 1 paragraph [0042] rotation number signals sends information to fabric disentangling adjustment section 24. Paragraph [0018] a rotation number is applied by driving section 23.).
Hiroshi differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a gyroscope.
Davis teaches a similar method (paragraph [0001] a method for monitoring load balance). Davis teaches a gyroscope (Davis paragraphs [0033]-[0034] a measurement device 130 may include a gyroscope to sense movement of the tub 64 relative to the cabinet 52).
The combination of the output of the gyroscope of Davis and the output from a drive motor and/or a drum speed from Hiroshi would result in a relative phase.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Hiroshi with a gyroscope as taught by Davis. It is known in the art to use a gyroscope to detect if a tub is out of balance (paragraph [0034]).
As to claim 9, (Currently Amended) Davis further teaches the non- rotating assembly (FIG. 2 paragraph [0034] the gyroscope are mounted to the tub at a single rotation, which reads on the claimed non-rotating assembly) parameter is determined from the output of a gyroscope (paragraph [0034] the gyroscope can measure movement along or about particular directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Hiroshi with a gyroscope as taught by Davis. It is known in the art to use a gyroscope to detect movement such as wobble or vibration of a tub.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. EP 2330244 (henceforth referred to as Hiroshi) in view of Janke et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0020482 (henceforth referred to as Janke).
As to claim 10, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the rotating inertia is determined from the output of a weight sensor and/or a drive motor.
Janke teaches a laundry treatment apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0016] a laundry treating appliance). Janke teaches the rotating inertia is determined from the output of a weight sensor and/or a drive motor (paragraph [0033] controller 96 may also be coupled with one or more sensors 104, the sensors can include a weight sensor, an imbalance sensor, a motor torque sensor etc. to determine a variety of system and laundry characteristics, such as laundry load inertia or mass).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Hiroshi with a way to determine inertia as taught by Janke. It would have been obvious to use a weight sensor to determine inertia as weight(mass) is a variable of inertia.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. EP 2330244 (henceforth referred to as Hiroshi) in view of Omer et al. WO2010026246 (henceforth referred to as Omer).
As to claim 15, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi differs from the instant claim in failing to teach relative phase between the rotating assembly motion and the non-rotating assembly motion comprises a phase difference between movement of one or more axes of an inner drum and a drive motor and/or a drum rotation.
Omer teaches a similar method (Abstract: the invention relates to a washer/dryer that detects the amount of the unbalanced load). Omer teaches relative phase between the rotating assembly motion and the non-rotating assembly motion comprises a phase difference between movement of one or more axes of an inner drum and a drive motor and/or a drum rotation (paragraph [0027] The control unit 8 regulates the operational process of the washer/dryer in accordance with the position of the unbalanced load Y detected by the difference of phase between the pulse signal D received from the position sensor 6 and the sinusoidal signal S received from the vibration sensor 7 and the amount of the unbalanced load Y detected from the amplitude of the sinusoidal signal S. The vibration sensor 7 can detect rotational frequency of the drum and position sensor 6 can generate a pulse signal at each rotation of the drum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Hiroshi with a phase difference calculation as taught by Omer. It is known in the art to calculate a phase difference in order to detect the angular position of the load (paragraph [0012]).
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. EP 2330244 (henceforth referred to as Hiroshi) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Borlin et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0096760 (henceforth referred to as Borlin).
As to claim 13, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the one or more OOB outputs are generated using a model.
Borlin teaches a similar method (paragraph [0012] the invention relates to reducing a likelihood of a container-tub contact due to imbalance). Borlin teaches the one or more OOB outputs are generated using a model (paragraph [0042] the mathematical model of the washing machine 10 uses outputs from a parameter estimator and sensors to describe the relationship between the magnitudes, position of the load mass and the balancing balls, and the torque, acceleration, speed and position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Hiroshi with a model as taught by Borlin. It is known in the art to use a mathematical model as taught by Borlin in order to determine a relationship, such as the relationship between motor torque for rotating the drum 16 and the parameters relevant to an off-balance laundry load (paragraph [0039]).
As to claim 14, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi and Borlin further teach the model is a function of: the mass and/or rotating inertia (Borlin paragraph [0039] m = mass of the laundry load imbalance, J = inertia), and the relative phase between the rotating assembly motion and non- rotating assembly motion (Hiroshi paragraph [0042] fabric disentangling adjustment section 24 determines the fabric disentangling operation by detecting the unbalanced vibration from the relationship between the rotation number (which reads on the rotating assembly motion) signal and three signals of the 3D sensor (which reads on the non-rotating assembly motion). The relationship would read on the relative phase.), and optionally a drive motor speed (Borlin paragraph [0039] ω = rotational speed).
As to claim 16, (Currently Amended) Borlin further teaches the model comprises one or more of: equation(s), algorithm(s), numerical method(s), look-up table(s) and/or other mathematical construct(s) (paragraphs [0039] and [0042] the mathematical model uses equation (1)) which can be used to process the OOB sensor output to generate the one or more OOB outputs (paragraph [0039] the equation (1) uses the outputs of a parameter estimator and sensors).
As to claim 17, (Currently Amended) Borlin further teaches processing the OOB sensor output to generate OOB outputs comprises one or more of: simultaneously solving dynamic motion equations (paragraphs [0039]-[0045] the controller 88 uses information from the parameter estimator and sensors to solve Equations (1) and (2)), and using look-up tables to retrieve appropriate values from pre-solved dynamic motion equations (paragraph [0031] memory 96 can be used to store information, such as a database or table. The database or table can be used to store the various operating parameters for the one or more cycles of operation, including factory default values and any adjustments made by the control system or by user input).
Claims 27, 34, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. EP 2330244 (henceforth referred to as Hiroshi) in view of Davis U.S. Publication 2018/0016728 (henceforth referred to as Davis).
As to claim 27, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi teaches a laundry apparatus comprising, a drum to receive laundry (FIG. 1 paragraph [0017] a rotation drum 11 in which clothes are placed), and a drive motor to drive rotation of the drum (FIG. 1 paragraph [0017] a motor), one or more out of balance (OOB) sensors (FIG. 1 paragraph [0018] speed detection section 21 and unbalanced vibration detection unit 31 reads on the claimed OOB sensors), and a controller (paragraph [0017] control unit 20), wherein the controller is configured to implement the method as claimed in claim 1 (see above rejection).
Hiroshi differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a gyroscope.
Davis teaches a similar laundry apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0019] washing machine appliance 50). Davis teaches a gyroscope (Davis paragraphs [0033]-[0034] a measurement device 130 may include a gyroscope to sense movement of the tub 64 relative to the cabinet 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Hiroshi with a gyroscope as taught by Davis. It is known in the art to use a gyroscope to detect if a tub is out of balance (paragraph [0034]).
As to claim 34, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi further teaches:
a non-rotating assembly suspended within an outer cabinet (FIG. 1 the unbalanced vibration detection unit 31 is on the tub 13, which reads on being within an outer cabinet), and
a rotating assembly within the non-rotating assembly, comprising the drum for laundry (FIG. 1 the speed detection section 21 is connected to motor 12, which connects to the drum 11. The drum is within the non-rotating assembly),
wherein the rotating assembly can be rotated relative to the non-rotating assembly by the drive motor (paragraph [0017] motor 12 rotates the drum 11. The tub, on which the non-rotating assembly is located, would not rotate.).
As to claim 43, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi further teaches the drive motor is coupled to directly drive rotation of the drum (FIG. 1 the motor 12 is directly connected to drum 11).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. EP 2330244 (henceforth referred to as Hiroshi) and Davis U.S. Publication 2018/0016728 (henceforth referred to as Davis) as applied to claim 27 above, in further view of Borlin et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0096760 (henceforth referred to as Borlin).
As to claim 29, (Currently Amended) Hiroshi and Davis differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the drum has a substantially horizontal axis drum.
Borlin teaches a similar laundry apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0015] laundry treating appliance 10). Borlin teaches the drum has a substantially horizontal axis drum (FIG. 1 paragraph [0015] horizontal-axis washing machine 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Hiroshi and Davis with an apparatus as taught by Borlin. It is known in the art to have a horizontal axis drum as it is a common configuration for a laundry treatment apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711