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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 10-18, in the reply filed on 12 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
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 10-18 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear how the recited steps are being performed thereby rendering the claims vague and indefinite. Each of the steps lacks adequate function as to how they are being performed in order to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
How is the laundry operation initiated? Is this a user initiation, automated operation of the appliance or other form of initiation?
How is the fault detected? Is this merely an observation by user or a sensor/detector operation?
How is the postmortem diagnostic sequence being performed? Is this a user operation or a controller operation?
What is meant by “analyzing” the diagnostic report? How is the report “analyzed”? It this a user’s mental operation, a neural network operation, or other type of operation?
How is the responsive action being implemented? Is this a mental process by user, a controller operation, or some other implementation operation?
Clarification and correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0375991 to Smith et al. (“Smith”).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 14-18, Smith discloses a method of operating a laundry treatment appliance (clothes/laundry cleaning machine 100; see ¶ [0026] and [0131]), the laundry treatment appliance comprising a tub and one or more operational components (inherent/implicit for clothes cleaning machine), each of the one or more operational components being configured to monitor a function within the laundry treatment appliance, the method comprising:
initiating a laundry operation within the laundry treatment appliance (see Fig. 7B and ¶ [0097]; note operation of cleaning cycles);
detecting a fault within the laundry treatment appliance while performing the laundry operation (see ¶ [0096]-[0097]; note detecting anomalous operations as faults);
performing a postmortem diagnostic sequence at the one or more operational components upon detecting the fault, the postmortem diagnostic sequence comprising generating a diagnostic report (see ¶ [0081]-[0084], note diagnostics report of anomalous operation);
analyzing the diagnostic report (required to suggest recommended actions of the fault in ¶ [0081]-[0084]); and
implementing a responsive action after analyzing the diagnostic report (see recommended actions subsequent to diagnostic report in ¶ [0081]-[0084]),
wherein performing the postmortem diagnostic sequence comprises:
classifying the detected fault based on a location of the detected fault; and initiating a first predetermined postmortem diagnostic sequence of a plurality of postmortem diagnostic sequences in response to classifying the detected fault (see ¶ [0093]-[0094] and use of classifiers to anomalous operations; also note the plural fault detections of various components above manifestly include plural fault locations),
wherein initiating the first predetermined postmortem diagnostic sequence further comprises: activating a first operational component of the one or more operational components based on the classified detected fault; receiving a signal from the first operational component; and generating the diagnostic report based on the received signal (see above, note the anomalous fault detection is based on the fault of plural operational components for generating the diagnostic report),
wherein analyzing the diagnostic report comprises: determining a malfunction of at least one of the one or more operational components (manifestly, a component fault reads on a malfunction; note also anomalous operation as a malfunction in ¶ [0075]),
wherein implementing the responsive action comprises: storing the diagnostic report within a memory of the laundry treatment appliance (see memory storage in ¶ [0079] and [0133]),
wherein implementing the responsive action comprises: transmitting the diagnostic report to a remote connected device (see communication of acoustic monitoring with “any other remote or local computing device(s)” in ¶ [0078]),
wherein implementing the responsive action comprises: canceling the laundry operation after performing the postmortem diagnostic sequence (see restarting or shutting down the machine in ¶ [0075], which read on canceling the original laundry operation),
wherein implementing the responsive action comprises: providing a notification to a user, the notification comprising the detected fault (see corrective action by notification of user in ¶ [0075]).
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of US2015/0101668 to Janke et al. (“Janke”).
Smith, supra, discloses the claimed invention including detecting faults in plural operational components of a cleaning machine, as well as the cleaning machine being a clothes/laundry cleaning machine (note that valves and drain pumps are standards and conventional components of washing machines). Smith does not expressly disclose details such as particular detectors used. Janke teaches an art-related laundry washing machine and the conventional use of various sensors to monitor component operations, including a speed sensor (¶ [0029]), pressure sensor (¶ [0043]), current sensor (¶ [0030]), and flow sensor (¶ [0023]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the laundry cleaning machine of Smith with plural component sensors, such as that taught in Janke, to yield the predictable results of monitoring various operational components during a cleaning cycle.
Conclusion
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