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 I, claims 1-2 & 5-10 in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 reply filed on 02/18/2026.
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 7-8 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the sensor" in the third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no indication of a plurality of sensors has been made prior to the mention of “the sensors”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the sensor" in the third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear the sensor applicant is referring to is different from “the sensors” recited in claim 7 or if applicant is referring to a singular sensor of the sensors. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as to refer to “the sensors” of claim 7. 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenjo (JPH07185183A).
As to claim 1, Kenjo discloses an apparatus for treating laundry (see title) comprising: a tub (ref 1 or 41) having a tub body providing a space for storing water and a tub entrance perforating one surface of the tub body (see Figs.2 & 9); a drum (ref 3) having a drum body rotatably provided within the tub to store the laundry and a drum entrance perforating one surface of the drum body to communicate with the tub entrance (see Figs.2 & 9); a water supply unit (ref 17) supplying water to the tub; a detergent supply unit (ref 44) supplying detergent to the tub; and a sensor (refs 22/23 or refs 42/43 and including ref 21) detecting a change in capacitance inside the tub body to sense at least one of a height of foam generated within the tub body or a height of the water stored in the tub body [0030, 0034-0036, & 0039].
As to claim 2, Kenjo teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tub body is provided as a cylinder in a hollow shape having a central axis (best seen by Fig.5) parallel to a ground (as the claim does not disclose that the ground be a surface directly below the apparatus, there exists some surface of the earth which is parallel to the central axis of the tub), wherein the tub entrance is provided in one of a front surface of the cylinder (see Figs.2, 5, & 9, as the claim does not provide a frame of reference for the term front, the open surface of the tub can be defined as the front when viewed in a top-down view), and wherein the sensor is fixed to the front surface (see Fig.5).
As to claim 5, Kenjo teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the sensor is fixed at a position capable of determining whether the foam within the tub body has reached a preset reference height (see [0030-0040] and Fig.5).
As to claim 6, Kenjo teaches the apparatus of claim 5, further comprising a driving unit (refs 13-15) providing a motive power necessary for rotation of the drum [0029]. The limitation of the reference height being set to a height of the foam at which a rotational speed of the drum becomes lower than a set speed by 10% or more when a power of a preset reference power amount is supplied to the driving unit is intended use. Since the sensor can detect the height of foam, and there exists some combination of drum speed, load size, textile material which can cause the speed to decrease by 10% or more when the foam is preset at a certain detected level, it reads on the claim.
As to claim 9, Kenjo teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the sensor is fixed at a position capable of determining whether a water level inside the tub body reaches a reference water level (see [0030-0040] and Fig.5).
The following alternative rejections to claims 5-10 are also provided in view of Kenjo.
As to claims 5-8, Kenjo teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the limitations are optional when the apparatus is capable of detecting a height of the water level stored in the tub which Kenjo teaches (see [0030-0040]).
As to claims 9-10, Kenjo teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the limitations are optional when the apparatus is capable of detecting a height of the foam in the tub, which Kenjo teaches (see [0030-0040]).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leep (US20180327953A1) in view of Hasse (US20100199440A1)
As to claim 1, Leep discloses an apparatus for treating laundry (abstract), the apparatus comprising: a tub (ref 14) having a tub body providing a space for storing water and a tub entrance perforating one surface of the tub body (see opening area closed by door ref 24 & [0015]); a drum (ref 16) having a drum body rotatably provided within the tub to store the laundry and a drum entrance perforating one surface of the drum body to communicate with the tub entrance (see opening area closed by door ref 24 & [0014]); a water supply unit (ref 40) supplying water to the tub; a detergent supply unit (ref 62) supplying detergent to the tub; and a sensor (refs 103/104) detecting a change in capacitance [0032] inside the tub body to sense a height of foam generated within the tub body [0032]. However, assuming arguendo that Leep merely indicates that a capacitive sensor can be utilized to determine an oversudsing condition and not a height of foam in the tub, the following alternative rejection is provided. Leep does not explicitly disclose that the capacitive sensor detects a height of foam in the tub, however capacitive sensors are known for doing so, as seen by Hasse.
Hasse discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known that a capacitive sensor [0021] can be utilized for determining a foam level in a tub (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Leep to provide the capacitive sensor as a capacitive sensor for determining the level of foam in the tub, as such is a known sensor for determining a foam level (Hasse [0021] & abstract) which can correlate to an oversudsing condition (e.g., high foam level). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known sensor for determining a foam level and an oversudsing condition in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6 & 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leep (US20180327953A1) in view of Hasse (US20100199440A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Podsiadlowski (DE102018004188A1).
As to claim 2, Modified Leep teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tub body is provided as a cylinder in a hollow shape having a central axis parallel to a ground (see Figs.1 & 3), wherein the tub entrance is provided on of a front surface of the cylinder (see Fig.1). Leep does not disclose the sensor being fixed to at least one of the front surface or the rear surface. However, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that such a feature is merely pertains to a rearrangement of the sensor location. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the sensor at any location, including the claimed position, so long as the sensor is capable of sensing the foam at the place area and not anticipate and unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Podsiadlowski.
Podsiadlowski discloses an art related laundry treatment device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a plurality of electrodes (ref 32) for capacitive sensors utilized for sensing [0022-0023] can be located on a rear surface of a tub (see Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Leep to provide the sensors on the rear surface of the cylinder, as such is a known located for said capacitive sensors (Podsiadlowski Fig.2). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known location for a sensor in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 5, Modified Leep teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the sensor is fixed at a position capable of determining whether the foam within the tub body has reached a preset reference height (see Leep [0032] & Podsiadlowski Fig.2).
As to claim 6, Modified Leep teaches the apparatus of claim 5, further comprising a driving unit (Leep refs 88-94) providing a motive power necessary for rotation of the drum [0023]. The foam level at which the rotational speed of the drum will be reduced by more than 10% is dependent upon the drum speed/motor load, load size, and textile material. Further, since the sensor is provided in the drum in order to detect foam level and an oversudsing condition, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that it is capable of detecting foam at a level where such a speed reduction occurs.
As to claims 9-10, Modified Leep teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the limitations are optional when the apparatus is capable of detecting a height of the foam in the tub, which Modified Leep teaches (see Leep [0032] & Hasse abstract & [0021]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leep (US20180327953A1) in view of Hasse (US20100199440A1) and Podsiadlowski (DE102018004188A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim (US20180087198A1) and Hoppe (US20080155760A1).
As to claim 7, Modified Leep teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein Hasse indicates the possibility of multiple foam sensors [0020] as an obvious alternative to a single sensor. However, assuming arguendo that Modified Leep does not disclose the presence of multiple sensors for detecting various heights corresponding to various water levels, the following alternative rejection is provided. A skilled artisan understands that foam level should be adjusted based on the load size and spin speed varied based on the foam level (Hasse [0017-0018]). Further, the use of multiple sensors for determining various heights is known in the art, as seen by Kim and Hoppe.
the reference height is set to a multitude of heights corresponding to a multitude of reference water levels set to increase in proportion to an amount of the laundry put into the drum and wherein the number of the sensors is equal to the number of the reference heights.
Kim discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known that a plurality of capacitance level sensors can be utilized for detecting different levels via the electrodes [0267].
Hoppe discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known that a washing machine may have a plurality of foam level sensors [0017] and a plurality of water level sensors [0018] in order to determine a foam level and water level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Leep to provide a plurality of capacitive sensors at different levels in order to determine various foam levels within the tub (Kim [0267] & Hoppe [0017-0018]), as is known in the art. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize multiple foam level sensors, when it is known to do in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leep (US20180327953A1) in view of Hasse (US20100199440A1), Podsiadlowski (DE102018004188A1), Kim (US20180087198A1) and Hoppe (US20080155760A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Engel (US2875526A) and Park (US20090172893A1).
As to claim 8, Modified Leep teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein Hasse indicates that increased foam levels can have deleterious effects [0002] and actions taken to mitigate such high foam levels can be taken [0017-0018]. Also, Hasse discloses that a maximum foam level is adjusted based on the laundry size [0019]. Further, it is known that water level based on laundry amount (Kim [0372, 0393-0394]), such that increasing amounts of laundry require higher levels of water. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would recognize it obvious to position the foam sensors at various levels corresponding to water levels associated with various load sizes. Further, as Leep indicates that during normal operation foam does not rise significantly higher than the liquid level [0030], a skilled artisan would find it obvious to located the foam sensors for certain loads above the water level associated with said load. Although Modified Leep does not disclose the minimum level being a level at which a lowest point of the drum body is submerged and the maximum water level being below a center line of the tub, such features are obvious in view of Engel and Park.
Engel discloses an art related washing machine (see title), wherein a horizontal (see Fig.1) drum (ref 12) type washing machine is known to have a maximum water level (Col.2 lines 30-40) below a center of drum (see ref 28).
Park discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is known to supply a minimum amount of water such that a water level can submerge laundry within the drum in order to obtain a proper cleansing effect [0010 & 0031].
Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide a minimum water level as the water level which can submerge laundry in the drum to obtain proper cleansing (Park [0010 & 0031]), as desired by Leep (see [0030] operational liquid level). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide a maximum water level below a center line of the drum (Engel Col.2 lines 30-40 & ref 28), as is known in the art for front-loading washing machines. Such a modification would implement highest water levels and lowest water levels based on load size of the laundry (largest load and smallest load), and include an intermediate water level for load sizes between the two. Such a modification would also implement the associated foam sensors according to load size to provide at least foam sensors above the associated water levels and corresponding to heights between the associated water levels in order to determine an excessing foaming incident.
The only difference remaining between Modified Leep and that of claim 8 is the placement of the sensors on the front surface. However, One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the location of the sensor at the front surface would not operate differently than the sensors located on the rear surface. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed location of the sensors at the front surface to be merely correlate to an obvious rearrangement of parts. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement the sensors at any location, including the claimed location, so long as the sensors are capable of detecting various foam levels (see MPEP 2144.04).
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