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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stucheli et al. herein referred to as “Stucheli” (USPPN 2021/0207308, previously cited on IDS filed 1/23/2025).
As to claim 1, Stucheli discloses a washing machine (1) comprising: a housing (19); a tub accommodated in the housing and configured to retain water; a drum accommodated in the tub and configured to be rotatable (rotatable drum 3 is located inside a typically cylindrical housing 25, which is carried by a drum cradle arrangement 27); and a plurality of leg portions configured to be couplable to the housing to support the housing on a mounting surface, wherein each leg portion of the plurality of leg portions includes: a support leg, a reinforcement bracket configured to be couplable to a lower surface of the housing, and a weight measurement device configured to be couplable to the reinforcement bracket (load sensors 9 that together sense the load on the drum; para 23: a suspension arrangement 29, 31, comprising dampers 29 and springs 31 connecting the cradle arrangement to a bottom part 33 of the machine that rests on the base structure/floor 7. Typically, one damper/spring combination is used in each corner.), wherein the each leg portion is configured so that, when the weight measurement device is coupled to the reinforcement bracket (see brackets 11, 13) and the reinforcement bracket is coupled to the lower surface of the housing: the housing is supported on the support leg so that a lower surface of the housing is spaced apart from the mounting surface, and the weight measurement device is supported on the support leg and located between the lower surface of the housing and the reinforcement bracket, and measures a weight applied on the each leg portion (at Figs. 8-9, see load sensor 9 formed between lower surface of the housing and reinforcement brackets 11, 13).
As to claim 2, Stucheli discloses wherein the reinforcement bracket, the support leg, and the weight measurement device integrally form a unit leg portion (see Figs. 8-9).
As to claim 5, Stucheli discloses wherein the weight measurement device includes: a straining body having a first end, a second end, and a central portion, and a strain gauge coupled to the straining body and configured to detect deformation of the straining body, and when the weight measurement device is coupled to the reinforcement bracket and the reinforcement bracket is coupled to the lower surface of the housing, the first end of the straining body and the second end of the straining body are fixed to the reinforcement bracket, and the central portion of the straining body is fixed to the support leg (para 5: the load sensing device may be a planar beam load cell attached to the first and second structural elements; planar beam load sensors rely on strain gauges as their sensing element).
As to claim 13, Stucheli discloses a control device configured to perform, based on a measurement result of the weight measurement device on the each leg portion, a laundry weight measurement process to measure a weight of laundry accommodated in the drum (paras 4 and 6, the load sensor provides improved load sensing data, which is useful in adaptive control of the washing machine).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stucheli, as applied to claims above.
As to claim 3, it is unclear in Stucheli whether an accommodation concave portion is recessed on the lower surface of the housing to accommodate the weight measurement device. As shown in Stucheli at Fig. 8, there certainly is an accommodation portion formed above load sensor 9 which is substantially a similar shape at load sensor 9, thus forming a compact shape. However, based on the illustrations, it is unclear whether this has a concave shape as claimed. It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Stucheli, having a compact shape is identified and important to the design of its apparatus, which not only capable of maintaining its purpose of measuring load sensing data, but also is compact because the load sensor requires only a small space between the drum and suspension arrangement (Stucheli at para 6). Thus having a concave shape would be a mere change in shape that would not affect the function but rather support the goal of compact design.
As to claim 4, Stucheli discloses wherein when the weight measurement device is coupled to the reinforcement bracket and the reinforcement bracket is coupled to the lower surface of the housing, the reinforcement bracket covers the accommodation concave portion and the weight measurement device is accommodated in the accommodation concave portion (Fig. 8 of Stucheli, the load sensor 9 is coupled to the bracket 13, which is coupled to the lower surface of bracket 11 and formed in an accommodation portion as discussed above with regard to claim 3).
Claim 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stucheli as applied to claims above, and further in view of Knoll (USPN 4,813,504).
As to claims 6-7, Stucheli is silent regarding the material composition of its straining body including chrome molybdenum steel. However, in the art of load sensors, as taught by Kroll’s disclosure of a load cell having strain gauges, wherein the material selection of chrome-molybdenum steel is known and identified as useful for its high strength and reliable deflection (Kroll at col. 10, para at line 54). Kroll further discloses making its scale water resistant, moisture resistant and usable under various temperature and moisture conditions (Kroll at col. 4, paras at line 9 and 25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a known material, such as chrome-molybdenum, and further use processes to ensure rust resistance, as taught by Kroll in Stucheli, for the known benefits of high strength, reliable deflection, and water resistance, thus resulting in a longer lasting sensor.
As to claims 8-9, and as noted above, Stucheli is silent regarding details of its weight measurement device. In particular, Stucheli is silent regarding use of an amplification circuit. However, in Kroll, use of an amplifier is disclosed wired to the load cell (col. 5, para at line 20). The use of an amplifier in Stucheli, as taught by Kroll, is a known component in amplifying an electrical signal to a usable level for controllers, thus reducing interference and making accurate and reliable measurements. Additionally, in Kroll, the wiring of the load cells 14 as shown in Fig. 2, for example, provides lines connecting the load cells 14 with a supporting structure thereunder (reads on lead line guide).
As to claims 10-12, as discussed above, the details of the load sensor wiring are not shown in Stucheli, therefore the details of Kroll are relied on. In Kroll there are pairs of arm portions of its load cell 14. Given the limited configurations of two arms of the strain gauge, having them lateral with the base would be an obvious design choice to cover the area being used for measuring load. The selection of shape has an obvious effect on the load measuring effects, in that a shape that mimics the connection point to the leg shape will allow for improved measuring results based on the area in which force is applied. No new or unobvious effects are achieved by having the arms formed laterally.
Stucheli discloses a shaft support boss that is insertable into a boss fixing hole in the base portion of the straining body wherein the support leg includes: a screw shaft portion that is insertable in a shaft hole in the shaft support boss, and a ground plate coupled to a lower end of the screw shaft portion, and configured to be supportable on the mounting surface (Stucheli at Fig. 8, see attachment plate 41, use of screw and bolt combination 53, 55, 57; the ground plate formed on 57).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stucheli as applied to claims above, and further in view of Funakoshi et al. herein referred to as “Funakoshi” (USPN 10,927,488).
As to claims 14-15, Stucheli is silent regarding how its system performs a vibration suppression process. However, as known in the art and taught by Funakoshi’s washing machine system that relies on feedback from its weight sensor 33, controller 50, vibration monitoring 52, calculating section 53, and memory 54, it performs a resonant vibration suppression process (Fig. 10), in which the rotational speed is decreased S108 when the vibration amount is too high. It would have been obvious to incorporate these operation steps, as taught by Funakoshi in Stucheli for reducing excessive vibrations that may cause undesirable eccentric vibration and damage the washing machine. Also, by lower the rotational speed during a perceived imbalance, the machine operates quieter, which is a desirable trait for consumers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5pm EST.
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.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711