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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 3/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no appreciable search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because there is a search and/or examination burden at least when the claims require a different field of search, for example, by employing different search queries. Furthermore, what is required to anticipate an apparatus versus a method differs greatly, and as prosecution proceeds, further divergence of the claim scopes will increase the burden of search and examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6, based on a reading of the specification, appears to have misplaced arrows/paths. First, Figure 6 shows two paths from element 208, with one path connected to element 211 and another path to element 210. The path from 208 to 211 appears to be extraneous, and the “no” path from element 210 to element 222 appears to be intended to be between 210 and 211. Secondly, element 220 and element 236 are connected by a path, but, based on the specification, these “yes” branches appear to be intended to connect to the element 240, not to each other. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an agitation element” in claim 1; “a measurement device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2020/0109505).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a washing machine appliance, comprising: a tub positioned within a cabinet (102, 108); a basket rotatably mounted within the tub, the basket defining a wash chamber for receipt of articles for washing (112); an agitation element positioned in the wash basket (132); a motor in mechanical communication with the wash basket and the agitation element, the motor being configured for selectively rotating the wash basket and the agitation element within the tub (140; paragraph 31); a measurement device mounted to the tub for detecting a displacement amount of the tub (172); and a controller operatively coupled to the motor and the measurement device (156; paragraphs 9, 45), the controller configured to: control an operation of the motor to rotate the agitation element for a first agitation stroke distance (Figure 8: 304); determine the displacement amount of the tub, based on the displacement amount of the tub detected by the measurement device, relative to a first tub displacement threshold and a second tub displacement threshold (Figure 8: 306, 310, 332, 336; paragraphs 55, 70, 73; also see Figure 6: loop at 230 results in plural steps of 206/210); and perform an out-of-balance agitation cycle based on the determined displacement amount relative to the first and second tub displacement thresholds (Figure 8: see “NO” branch of 336, and note steps 316, 330; also see Figure 6: 216 or 230).
Regarding claims 2-3, 10, 12-14, Smith discloses wherein the controller is configured to: perform a first out-of-balance agitation cycle when the determined displacement amount exceeds the first tub displacement threshold (“NO” branch of 310, 316, 330); further comprising: a water control valve for regulating a flow of water from a water supply source into the tub (162, 166), wherein, performing the first out-of-balance agitation cycle, comprises: controlling an operation of the water control valve to dispense a volume of water into the tub (316; see paragraphs 58, 70); wherein the controller is configured to: initiate a spin cycle when the determined displacement amount falls below the second tub displacement threshold (336, 312); wherein the measurement device comprises an accelerometer or a gyroscope (paragraph 44); wherein the controller is configured to: calculate a trendline based on the determined displacement amount of the tub (308); wherein the trend line is calculated utilizing a linear regression technique (paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 11, Smith is relied upon as above, but does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the first tub displacement threshold is greater than the second tub displacement threshold. Rather, Smith gives examples of a setting a movement threshold to a suitable value, such as a displacement amplitude of 0.1 inches or 0.2 inches (paragraphs 55, 73). Smith also teaches that a decreasing trend line indicates a decrease in tub motion over time and that the load is becoming more evenly distributed (Figure 7; paragraph 54). Because it is known in the art that during balancing a load can become more evenly distributed over time such that the tub motion decreases over time, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, setting the movement thresholds to lower the unbalance over time prior to spin drying, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the first tub displacement threshold is greater than the second tub displacement threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the washing machine as defined by the combination of claims 1-4, or by the combination of claims 1 and 5. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Smith (US 2020/0109505), to further include wherein, after the volume of water is dispensed into the tub, the controller is configured to: control the operation of the motor to rotate the agitation element for the first agitation stroke distance; determine the displacement amount of the tub based on the displacement amount of the tub detected by the measurement device; and perform a second out-of-balance agitation cycle when the determined displacement amount falls between the first tub displacement threshold and the second tub displacement threshold; or wherein the controller is configured to: perform a second out-of-balance agitation cycle when the determined displacement amount falls between the first tub displacement threshold and the second tub displacement threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights