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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2 & 5-17 are pending on the application, of which claims 1-2 & 7 are amended, claims 3-4 are cancelled, and claims 11-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
In light of the amendments to the claims the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous art rejections are withdrawn in favor of the new ground presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
As applicant has correctly identified (see pp.10 of remarks) that Kenjo showcases sensors being located within the tub and outside of the tub as different known embodiments. Applicant has also correctly identified that Kenjo showcases an arrangement where (refs 42/43) where the sensor is located on an outer wall portion of the tub. Although, applicant alleges that Kenjo does not disclose the sensor being located on a front or rear surface of the outside of the tub, this argument is not persuasive. Although applicant’s remarks designate a front through annotated figures, the claim does not specify what the “front” is defined to relative to any other feature to specify the configuration shown within the remarks. Accordingly the sensor has a portion provided on the front surface (e.g., see refs 42/43 and ref 21) and thereby meets the limitation.
A skilled artisan understands that sensors can be provided in a vertical arrangement in order to determine a level of fluid or foam within the tub (e.g., see Kenjo, Podsiadlowski, and Kim as utilized in the rejections dated 03/23/2026). Even when the tub is a vertical or horizontal type washing machine, the sensors can be arranged on a vertical surface for the detection of water or foam. Accordingly, in regards to the rejection in view of Leep, Kenjo indicates that sensors may be located on an external surface of a tub, while Podsiadlowski showcases that such sensors, when supplied in a horizontal washing machine, are provided on a rear surface of the tub and door. Thus, when the references are taken in combination a skilled artisan would find it reasonably obvious to implement sensors on an external portion of the tub, and in the case of a horizontal washing machine locate such sensors on the vertical portions of the tub (i.e., front or rear portions).
Although applicant argues certain benefits to the claimed position of the sensors (see pp.13), such arguments are not persuasive in view of the new ground of rejection utilizing Kenjo in addition to Leep, Hasse, and Podsiadlowski to meet the limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that placement of the sensors on the external front or rear portions prevents corrosion and safety hazards while also providing accurate detection, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 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]; wherein the sensor is fixed to an outer side of the tub body on at least a front surface of the tub body (see ref 21 & Kenjo [0038]).
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 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).
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) 1-2, 5-6, & 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leep (US20180327953A1) in view of Hasse (US20100199440A1), Podsiadlowski (DE102018004188A1), and Kenjo (JPH07185183A).
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]. 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 and Kenjo. 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).
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).
Kenjo discloses an art related laundry apparatus (abstract) wherein it is shown that a sensor (refs 21, 42, & 43) can be located on an external surface of the tub [0038], with at least some portion of the sensor located on a front external portion of the tub (see ref 21). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would glean from Kenjo that placement of the sensor can be located at various different locations, including at an external surface of the tub.
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 an external surface of the tub as such is a known alternative configuration to placing sensors within the tub (Kenjo [0038]). Further, Leep is directed towards a horizontal axis washing machine, and Podsiadlowski showcases that in a horizontal axis washing machine such sensors are placed on a rear surface of the tub and a front surface (see Fig.2). Thus, a skilled artisan would also find it routine to implement such sensors at the front and rear portions of the tub when providing such sensors to a horizontal axis washing machine, even when implementing the sensors on an exterior of the tub. 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. Further, it a mundane matter to a skilled artisan to implement sensors externally of a tub or internally of a tub when both are known variants.
A skilled artisan would also find it obvious 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.
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).
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, & Kenjo Fig.5).
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), Podsiadlowski (DE102018004188A1), and Kenjo (JPH07185183A) 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), Kenjo (JPH07185183A), 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Han (US20180363234A1) discloses a water level sensor located on a front external portion of a tub [0066-0067].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights