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 .
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: “component interface” in claims 1-4.
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 § 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 1-4 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.
In claim 2, applicant states “transmit control signals to the at least one component to perform the dedicated washing cycle” and later states parameters. Although it is understood how different parameters of temperature and spin speed are controlled when more than one component is present, it is unclear how control of multiple parameters is performed when the number of types of parameters controlled is less than the number of components (e.g., in the instance of a single component how are both temperature and spin speed controlled). Similar issues is taken with claim 3, where additional parameter of water volume is included.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "e.g.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim limitation “component interface” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure to perform the function in the claims. The phrase “component interface” is not a common term of art in the art with a known structure. Thus, it is unclear as to what the structure of a “component interface” is, and what the corresponding metes and bounds of the claim are. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to be met by any element which allows for transferring of a signal including electrical wiring, intermediary control unit, wireless communication elements, etc. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaumann (US20200048813A1) in view of Im (US20110099732A1) and Murray (US20040211009A1).
As to claims 1 & 4, Schaumann discloses a washing machine (Fig.1 ref 11) and washing machine control unit (refs 37 & 34) configured to control components of a washing machine to perform a dedicated washing cycle specifically adapted to reduce detachment of microfibers [0040], wherein the washing machine control unit comprises: a processor (ref 37, see also [0012] indicating microprocessor); a component interface (ref 32) configured to be connected with at least one component of the washing machine and to transmit a control signal to the at least one component [0036]; and a memory (ref 37) configured to store processor-executable instructions (implicit). Schaumann does not disclose the processor receiving a user input to apply the cycle adapted to reduce microfiber detachment and transmitting signals to components to perform the said dedicated cycle.
Im discloses an art related washing machine wherein it is disclosed that clothing made of synthetic fibers are more fragile [0305], which is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean the microfibers are more likely to detach from such loads. Thus, a controller can allow for a user to provide an input to select a synthetic course to account for different fabric characteristic [0381-0382 & 0384-0385]. A course for synthetic garments includes low drum spin speed (e.g., rolling) for laundry wetting [0397-0398 & 0403]; utilizing a water temperature of 40°C [0409] while utilizing a tumbling motion [0410]; performing a tumbling and swing motion during washing [0416] and rinsing [0424]; and performing a spinning cycle with an rpm of 400-600 [0429].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Schaumann to allow a user to provide an input to select a synthetic course and transmit a signal to components for performing the synthetic course, thereby allowing operations to be performed in order to reduce of prevent damage to the synthetic fibers (Im [0305, 0381-0382, & 0384-0385]). Such a modification would allow for utilizing a temperature of 40°C, performing tumbling while heating the water, and performing tumbling during a washing and rinse process, and performing a spin operation with an rpm between 400-600 (Im [0409-0410, 0416-0424, & 0429]).
Assuming arguendo that neither Schaumann or Im explicitly disclose the memory for the processor storing instructions for performing a process, such a feature is so generic and well-known in the art that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a feature to be inherent. Further, the use of memory for storing instructions for a processor to execute in order to control the washing machine is well-known as seen by Murray.
Murray discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known that a memory stores program instructions of a processor for controlling operation of the washing machine [0036]. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to store instructions within the memory, which the processor executes in order to control the washing machine (Murray [0036]), as is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaumann (US20200048813A1) in view of Im (US20110099732A1) and Murray (US20040211009A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (KR20110022363A) and Hahm (US20200299892A1).
As to claim 2, Modified Schaumann teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the spinning speed is within the claimed range (see Im [0429]), and the temperature utilized is 40°C. Modified Schaumann does not disclose the specific rpm range for tumbling during heating, washing, and rinsing. However, tumbling action is known to occur within the claimed range, as seen by Hahm. Further, assuming arguendo that Modified Schaumann merely indicates that the temperature utilized is 40°C and not a maximum temperature, it is known to utilize a maximum temperature of 40°C when processing a synthetic fiber load, as seen by Park.
Hahm discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known that tumbling can be performed within the range of 40-100 rpm [0208]. Hahm also indicates that such tumbling is also capable at speeds of 45-60 rpm [0195].
Park discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), relating to the processing of clothing made of synthetic fibers (page 3, 7, 9, & 27). Park further indicates that it is known to utilize a maximum temperature of 40° C in order to avoid damage to laundry (pages 8, 27, & 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Schaumann to utilize a maximum water temperature of 40°C to prevent damage to the laundry load (Park pages 8, 27, & 30). Further, a skilled artisan would also find it obvious to operate the drum in the range of 45-60 rpm when performing the tumbling operation, as such is a known rpm for performing tumbling (Hahm [0195]). Accordingly, such a modification would store such information within the memory to allow the processor to execute such instructions and control the relevant components when dealing with a synthetic fiber load.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaumann (US20200048813A1) in view of Im (US20110099732A1), Murray (US20040211009A1), Park (KR20110022363A) and Hahm (US20200299892A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wan (EP1913192B1), Oh (US20140082959A1), Constance (US20220034015A1), and Wee (US20130118210A1).
As to claim 3, Modified Schaumann teaches the control unit of claim 2, wherein the spinning speed is between 400-600 rpm (Im [0429]). Modified Schaumann does not disclose the amount of water filling for an initial fill, or a secondary water filling; however such features are known in the art as seen by Wan and Oh. Although Modified Schaumann does not disclose the rpm at which filling is performed, it is understood that a rolling action would have a lower rpm than a tumbling action. Thus, a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage the operation of the drum at less than 40 rpm to provide a rolling motion. Further, operating with a spin speed of 30 rpm during an initial fill is known in the art, as seen by Constance. Although Modified Schaumann does not teach an intermediate filling operation with a spin speed of 50-55 rpm, is it known to perform such an intermediate fill before a rinse step and after the initial fill, as seen by Wee.
Wan discloses an art related washing machine [0001], wherein it is known that the amount of supplied water required for clothing is dependent upon the clothing weight and type, and it is known to supply 20-25 liters of water for a load size of 1-2kg (see table 1 & [0036-0037]).
Oh discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known to repeat a water supply step, washing step, and drainage step based on laundry amount or contamination degree [0032-0033].
Constance discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known that during an initial filling operation for the dissolution of detergent, the drum spins at 30 rpm to ensure full wetting of the load with the detergent solution [0087 & 0091].
Wee discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein after an initial water supply (Fig.7 ref 102) and before performing a rinsing cycle (Fig.7 ref 112) water is supplied (Fig.7 ref 110) while rotating the drum at 50 rpm [0091]. Once the water supply is completed to a desired level, then the rinsing process is performed [0092-0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Schaumann to adjust the amount of water supplied according to the amount of laundry (Wan [0036-0037]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would provide an initial filling of 20-25 liters of water for a certain weight of a synthetic fiber load (Wan [0036-0037]). Further, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement a secondary filling with a same volume when the laundry contamination is sufficient to require repeat water filling, washing, and drainage (Oh [0032-0033]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to implement a spin speed of 30 rpm during the initial filling operation to ensure full wetting of the load with the detergent solution (Constance [0087 & 0091]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement a step of providing water while rotating the tub at a speed of 50 rpm in order to supply the necessary rinse water to perform a rinse step following thereafter (Wee [0091]). The modification would accordingly store such information within the memory to allow the processor to execute such instructions and control the relevant components when performing the cycle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711