DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the wherein clause ends with a period instead of a colon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “below the inwards radial force” should be “below the inward radial force”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and angular span” should be “an angular span”. 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 5-7, 12 and 14 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.
Claim 5 refers to “the angular position,” which is introduced in claim 3 as an optional limitation. It is unclear if the determining step recited in claim 5 is optional, in part or in its entirety, since the determining relies on subject matter (the angular position) that is optional.
Claim 5 refers to “laundry load” (last line). It is unclear whether the entire load or only some of the load drops under gravity. Based on the language of a similar limitation recited in claim 1 the limitation in claim 5 is assumed to mean “to selectively allow at least some of the laundry load”.
Claim 6 refers to “the angular extent” of the target zone, which is introduced in claim 5. However, the angular extent is relative to the angular position, which is an option limitation as set forth in claim 3. It is unclear if the limitations directed to the angular extent recited in claim 6 are optional since they rely on subject matter (the angular position) that is optional and since it is unclear if the determining step of claim 5 is optional, as discussed above.
Claim 7 refers to “the radial extent” of the target zone, which is introduced in claim 5 as an option limitation. It is unclear if the limitations directed to the radial extent recited in claim 7 are optional since they rely on subject matter (the angular position) that is optional and since it is unclear if the determining step of claim 5 is optional, as discussed above.
Claim 12 ends with a semicolon and it is unclear if limitations are missing or if the semicolon should be a period.
Claim 14 refers to “laundry load” (two instances). It is unclear whether the entire load or only some of the load drops under gravity. Based on the language of a similar limitation recited in claim 1 the limitation in claim 14 is assumed to mean “selectively allows at least some of the laundry load”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the target zone". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-14, 18, 23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5765402 granted to Ikeda et al.
As to claim 1, Ikeda discloses a method of mitigating an out of balance laundry load in a laundry machine with a horizontal axis drum (fig. 1A) comprising the steps of spinning the drum above a satellisation speed (fig. 5, speed N1, step S14; col. 9, ll. 42-44); and within a single revolution of the drum (col. 11, ll. 19-21), varying the drum speed by sequentially decreasing the speed (to speed N4, step S16) and then increasing the speed (to speed N1, step S10) below satellisation (speed N4; col. 10, ll. 50-53) and then above satellisation (speed N1; col. 9, ll. 42-44) to selectively allow at least some of the load to drop under gravity (col. 10, ll. 50-53).
As to claim 3, Ikeda discloses determining an angular position of an out of balance mass of the load (col. 6, ll. 1-7; col. 10, ll. 29-34; fig. 6B).
As to claim 4, Ikeda discloses that varying the drum speed coincides rotation of the drum below satellisation speed with the position of the out of balance mass being at, near, or passing through a high point in its rotation about the axis of the drum (fig. 6C, col. 10, ll. 27-38).
As to claim 5, Ikeda discloses determining a target zone with an angular extent relative to the angular position of the out of balance mass (col. 11, ll. 35-39) and a radial extent relative to the radius of the drum (col. 10, ll. 50-65), and within a single revolution of the drum (col. 11, ll. 19-21), varying the drum speed by sequentially decreasing the speed (to speed N4, step S16) and then increasing the speed (to speed N1, step S10) below satellisation (speed N4; col. 10, ll. 50-53) and then above satellisation (speed N1; col. 9, ll. 42-44) to selectively allow at least some of the load within the target zone to drop under gravity (col. 10, ll. 50-53).
As to claim 6, Ikeda discloses that the angular extent of the target zone is between about 0 to 90 degrees in either direction relative to the position of the out of balance mass (col. 11, ll. 35-39).
As to claim 7, Ikeda discloses a radial extent that is between about 25 to 100 percent of the radius of the drum (fig. 6C).
As to claim 8, Ikeda discloses that a motor current is used as inputs to determine the position of the out of balance mass (col. 6, ll. 1-8).
As to claim 9, Ikeda discloses that the position of the out of balance is determined using motor current data (col. 6, ll. 1-8).
As to claim 10, Ikeda discloses that the position of the out of balance mass is determined using only motor data (col. 6, ll. 1-8).
As to claim 11, Ikeda discloses that during the step of varying the drum speed the speed is controlled using a control signal with a profile that varies from a previous normal and/or constant profile and has a pulsed profile (fig. 5; col. 8, ln. 65 – col. 9, ln. 2).
As to claim 12, Ikeda discloses that the control signal varies based on a motor current, a time, and a drum position (col. 8, ln. 51 – col. 9, ln. 2).
As to claim 13, Ikeda discloses that the control signal comprises an angular start, span, and stop position of speed decease and subsequent increase; and a time at which speed decrease and subsequent increase is initiated and/or concluded (col. 4, ll. 32-41; col. 8, ln. 51 – col. 9, ln. 2).
As to claim 14, Ikeda discloses that the control signal profile creates a speed profile that selectively causes at least some of the laundry load to drop under gravity (col. 10, ll. 50-53).
As to claim 18, Ikeda discloses a method of mitigating an out of balance washing load in a washing machine with a horizontal axis drum (fig. 1A) comprising determining an indication of an OOB mass (fig. 5, step S11), and controlling rotational speed of the drum so that as the drum and OOB mass rotates a speed of the drum is varied (fig. 5, from speed N1 to speed N4, steps S14 and S16), within one revolution of the drum (col. 11, ll. 19-21), relative to a usual speed (speed N1) based on the OOB mass so that an outward radial force on the load reduces below the inward radial force and/or gravity (col. 10, ll. 50-53).
As to claim 23, Ikeda discloses that the speed is controlled using a control signal with a profile that varies from a normal control signal (fig. 5; col. 8, ln. 65 – col. 9, ln. 2).
As to claim 26, Ikeda discloses that the control signal profile creates a speed profile that creates a target region which redistributes an OOB mass and/or washing load in the target region (col. 8, ln. 65 – col. 9, ln. 2).
As to claim 27, Ikeda discloses that the target region comprises an angular span (col. 11, ll. 35-39) and a radial extent (col. 10, ll. 50-65).
As to claim 28, Ikeda discloses a laundry appliance comprising a drum 54 (fig. 1A), a motor 22 to rotate the drum, one or more sensors (rotation sensor 24, fig. 2), and a controller 10 that receives input from the sensors and controls the motor to rotate the drum (fig. 2), wherein the controller is configured to mitigate an out of balance washing load according to claim 18 (see above).
As to claim 29, Ikeda discloses spinning the drum at a constant speed N1 above satellisation speed prior to and following the step of varying the speed (to speed N4) within a single revolution of the drum (fig. 5).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5765402 granted to Ikeda et al.
As to claim 2, Ikeda does not explicitly teach that the rate at which the speed is decreased to below satellisation is more rapid than the rate at which the speed is subsequently increased to above satellisation. However, Ikeda teaches sending a pulse signal for a short, momentary speed reducing time to decrease the speed, the speed reducing time being about 0.15 seconds (col. 4, ll. 32-38; col. 10, ll. 27-39; col. 11, ln. 18). Ikeda further teaches that once the speed is reduced it is difficult to promptly restore (increase) and stabilize the speed (col. 4, ll. 59-61). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that acceleration back up to speed N1 (see fig. 5) would take longer than the rapid deceleration to speed N4 for the short speed reducing time due to inertia and load. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the rate at which the speed is decreased to below satellisation would be more rapid than the rate at which the speed is subsequently increased to above satellisation based on the teachings of Ikeda, in particular its emphasis on rapid deceleration to target an eccentric portion of the load at a highest point of the drum so that it may drop, and one of ordinary skill in the art’s common understandings of drum braking and acceleration. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711