DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/26 have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks directed to the drum directly driven by an electric motor are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of the amendment that introduced the limitations. Applicant’s remarks regarding determining an angular position of an out of balance mass using only motor data are not persuasive. Ikeda discloses that the position of the out of balance mass is determined using motor data (col. 6, ll. 1-8), in particular that a positive peak in motor current indicates an angular position of an out of balance mass (col. 8, ll. 33-36). While Ikeda teaches detection of a rotation marker generated by a rotation sensor, it does not teach that the marker is necessary for determining the angular position. Nonetheless, newly cited reference Janke sets forth that an angular position of an out of balance may be determined using only motor data; Janke also teaches that position of a drum may be determined based on motor data, obviating the need for a rotation sensor (para. 68).
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the objections to claims 8, 18, and 27 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 5-7, 12, and 14 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-14, 18, 23, and 26-29 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim 2 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-14, 18, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5765402 granted to Ikeda et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170145615 by Janke et al.
As to claim 1, Ikeda teaches 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); 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) using only motor data (col. 6, ll. 1-8), in particular that a positive peak in motor current indicates an angular position of an out of balance mass (col. 8, ll. 33-36) (also see Janke which sets forth that an angular position of an out of balance may be determined using only motor data, para. 68); 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) below satellisation (speed N4; col. 10, ll. 50-53) 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), and then increasing the speed (to speed N1, step S10) 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).
While Ikeda teaches that its drum is driven by a belt and pully system, Janke recognizes that a direct drive motor was a known and acceptable alternative (para. 43). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious to perform the method taught by Ikeda in a laundry machine with a drum directly driven by an electric motor based on Janke’s teachings of suitability of performing a similar method in a machine with a direct drive motor (para. 66).
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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.
As to claim 5, Ikeda teaches 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) below satellisation (speed N4; col. 10, ll. 50-53) 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), and then increasing the speed (to speed N1, step S10) 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 6, Ikeda teaches 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 teaches a radial extent that is between about 25 to 100 percent of the radius of the drum (fig. 6C).
As to claim 8, Ikeda teaches 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 11, Ikeda teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 26, Ikeda teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 spin the drum above a satellisation speed (fig. 5, speed N1, step S14; col. 9, ll. 42-44); determine an angular position of an out of balance mass of the load (col. 6, ll. 1-7; col. 10, ll. 29-34; fig. 6B) using only motor data (col. 6, ll. 1-8), in particular that a positive peak in motor current indicates an angular position of an out of balance mass (col. 8, ll. 33-36) (also see Janke which sets forth that an angular position of an out of balance may be determined using only motor data, para. 68); and within a single revolution of the drum (col. 11, ll. 19-21), vary the drum speed by sequentially decreasing the speed (to speed N4, step S16) below satellisation (speed N4; col. 10, ll. 50-53) 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), and then increasing the speed (to speed N1, step S10) 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).
While Ikeda teaches that its drum is driven by a belt and pully system, Janke recognizes that a direct drive motor was a known and acceptable alternative (para. 43). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious to perform the method taught by Ikeda in a laundry machine with a drum directly driven by an electric motor based on Janke’s teachings of suitability of having a similar controller configuration in a machine with a direct drive motor (para. 66).
As to claim 29, Ikeda teaches 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights