DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 8/2/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardaway (US 2012/0144871 A1) (cited by Applicant) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0057996 A1).
Re claim 1, Hardaway discloses method for controlling a laundry treating apparatus (¶ [0002]) therein, a heater (ref. 66) configured to heat the drum, and a sensor (ref. 68) configured to sense foam inside the tub, the method comprising:
a sensing step of sensing (¶ [0025], [0031]-[0032] over-sudsing condition is determined), by the sensor, an amount of foam inside the tub; and
a removal step of removing the foam (¶ [0018]-[0032] apply heat) inside the tub by heating the drum via the heater while the drum rotates when the amount of foam inside the tub is equal to or greater than a reference amount (¶ [0032]).
Hardaway does not explicitly disclose the heater generating an eddy current in the drum. However, Park discloses it is well-known in the laundry treating apparatus art (abstract) to provide a heater (ref. 70) configured to heat a drum (ref. 30) by generating an eddy current in the drum (¶ [0016], [0019] coil 74 capable of generating an eddy current…drum 30 may be heated…)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater of Hardaway to further include generating an eddy current in the drum, as suggested by Park, in order to uniformly supply heat (Park ¶ [0005]).
Re claims 2-4, Hardaway further discloses wherein the removal step includes: a rotation step of rotating the drum in only one of a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction (¶ [0013] various speeds in either rotational direction; Regarding “only” Examiner notes that a drum may only rotate in one direction at a given time, thus satisfying “only” during the specific direction time period); and a rotation heating step of heating the drum via the heater while the rotation step is in progress (¶ [0032]). Regarding “wherein the rotation step includes rotating the drum with a number of rotations creating a centrifugal force smaller than 1G”, the mere optimization of speed such to generate a centrifugal force less than 1G is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art via routine experimentation, where it is known to provide various speeds (Hardaway ¶ [0013]; see MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization; moreover, it being inherent that any acceleration of the drum includes rotations at less than 1G). Re claims 4-5, Hardaway further discloses wherein the removal step includes: an oscillation step of alternately rotating the drum in a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction; and an oscillation heating step of heating the drum via the heater while the oscillation step is in progress (¶ [0013] various speeds in either rotational direction). Re “1G” see rejection to claim 3 above.
Re claims 6-7, Hardaway further discloses a washing water supplying step of supplying water to the tub while the removal step is in progress (¶ [0033] water…may be provided…to eliminate the over-sudsing condition); and a washing water draining step of draining water inside the tub while the removal step is in progress (¶ [0033] to the drain). wherein the washing water supplying step and the washing water draining step are performed sequentially or simultaneously (¶ [0033] [a]dditional spray of liquid may be provided…to further loosen or rinse out remaining suds to the drain).
Re claims 8-12, Hardaway further discloses a tub water supplying step (¶ [0016], ¶ [0026] normal washing operation…having an operational liquid level) of supplying a preset amount of water to the tub, wherein the tub water supplying step is started before the removal step; and a foreign substance separation step of removing foreign substances from the laundry by rotating the drum with a preset first number of rotations (¶ [0026] tumble the laundry), wherein the sensing step is periodically executed while the foreign substance separation step is in progress (¶ [0031], [0036]). Regarding “wherein the removal step includes: a rotation step of rotating the drum in one of a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction with a second number of rotations smaller than the first number of rotations; and a rotation heating step of heating the drum via the heater while the rotation step is in progress”, see rejection to claim 2 above (regarding “rotations smaller than the first number”, this is a prima facie obvious optimization of range, here, it being illogical to make the over-sudsing correction process take longer and for more rotations than the main cycle itself, moreso where the agitation from rotation generates suds in the first place, making it obvious that an corrective action is simply for exposing the suds to the heat, rather than generating more by continued agitation). Re claims 10-12, Hardaway further discloses a tub draining step of discharging water inside the tub to the outside of the tub when the amount of foam inside the tub sensed after completion of the removal step is equal to or greater than the reference amount (¶ [0017], [0033]). Regarding “an oscillation step of alternately rotating the drum in a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction with a second number of rotations; and an oscillation heating step of heating the drum via the heater while the oscillation step is in progress”, see rejection to claim 4 above. Regarding “wherein a washing water supplying step of supplying water to the tub; and a washing water draining step of draining water inside the tub are executed after completion of the tub draining step” (the continuation of the washing by adding fresh water and continuing the normal washing operation is prima facie obvious; see also ¶ [0035] method incorporated prior to or part of…a wash phase, rinse phase. Here, either the continuation of the wash phase or the rinse phase, satisfies the claim). Hardaway discloses “wherein the washing water supplying step is started before the oscillation step and the oscillation heating step are executed, wherein the washing water draining step is started after the oscillation step and the oscillation heating step are completed” (supply the water…rotate after the water is supplied….to the drain conduit; regarding the draining step after the oscillation, Hardaway discloses the liquid includes bio-reducer ¶ [0034] it therefore being prima facie obvious to avoid draining the bio-reducer until after the reduction process; see fig. 3 showing ref. 94 wash liquid).
Re claims 13-18, Regarding “a dehydration step of separating water from the laundry by rotating the drum with a number of rotations for dehydration creating a centrifugal force equal to or greater than 1G”, Hardaway further discloses a drying phase (¶ [0035]; here, the use of a spin-dry/dewatering/dehydration/extraction cycle at high speeds is simply known in the art), wherein the dehydration step is started before the removal step, wherein the sensing step is periodically executed while the dehydration step is in progress (¶ [0035] any phase…such as…drying phase). Re “a rotation step of rotating the drum in one of a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction with a number of rotations creating the centrifugal force equal to or greater than 1G, but smaller than the number of rotations for dehydration; and a rotation heating step of heating the drum via the heater while the rotation step is in progress”, here, it is expected that high speed dehydration will have significantly more rotations than a over-sudsing corrective rotation, where dehydration takes a significant time and rotations and it being prima facie obvious to minimize rotations in a corrective step, where the agitation from rotation generated the sudsing. Regarding “wherein a rotation direction of the drum set in the rotation step is the same as a rotation direction of the drum set in the dehydration step”, the selection of one of two rotational directions is prima facie obvious selection from a known limited number of choices. Re claim 16-18, claims 16-18 recite limitations substantively identical to those rejected above. See rejections to claims 4, 6 and 11-12.
Re claims 19-20, claims 19-20 recited limitations substantively identical to those rejected above. See rejection to claims 6-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20100199440-A1; US-5768730-A note foam sensor, reduction steps and drain steps. Also note conventional rinse and dehydration steps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights