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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US20050283919A1).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a laundry treating apparatus comprising (abstract):a cabinet (ref 5 & [0019]); a tub (ref 3 & [0019]) provided inside the cabinet and configured to accommodate water therein; a drum (ref 9 & [0040]) provided inside the tub and configured to accommodate laundry; a driver (ref 6 & [0015-0017] or ref 806) provided inside the cabinet and configured to provide a rotational force to the drum; and a controller (ref 16 & [0027] or ref 816) configured to control the driver to rotate the drum and perform a spin-drying cycle of the laundry (see Figs.4-6), wherein the controller performs an imbalance measurement process to measure imbalance of the laundry before the spin-drying cycle [0040], the controller performs a measurement preparation process in which a maximum rotation speed of the drum corresponds to a first rotation speed (ref S511, see [0044] and the drum is continuously rotated in one direction (see ref S512 & [0044]) in a state in which water is accommodated in the tub (see [0045] indicating water is accommodated in the tub) before performing the imbalance measurement process (e.g., Fig.4), and the controller performs the imbalance measurement process after the measurement preparation process and controls the driver such that the maximum rotation speed of the drum corresponds to a second rotation speed lower than the first rotation speed (see ref S513 & [0044]) in the imbalance measurement process and the drum is continuously rotated in any one of the one direction and another direction (e.g., see Fig.4).
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) 2 & 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20050283919A1) in view of Heo (US20150252509A1) and Kim (US20160222569A1, hereafter K1).
As to claim 2 Kim teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a drain part (see Kim ref 15) connected to the tub and configured to drain water of the tub to an outside of the cabinet. Kim does not explicitly disclose a vibration measurer mounted in the cabinet or the tub and configured to measure an amount of vibration, wherein, based on a measured value of the vibration measurer being equal to or less than a reference vibration value in the imbalance measurement process, the controller controls the drain part to drain all water from the tub and performs the spin-drying cycle.
Heo discloses an art related washing machine directed towards sensing and controlling vibration of the tub (abstract), wherein a drain part (ref 20) is provided with a washing machine in order to drain water to an outside of the cabinet. Heo further indicates that detection of vibration can utilize a vibration sensor mounted on the tub and cabinet [0052] in order to ensure that detrimental vibrations are not obtained during dehydration. Heo also showcases that when an imbalance (e.g., indicative of sensed vibrations) is below a certain degree then drainage of water can occur prior to the dehydrating operation (see [0037-0038], also Fig.6 & [0061]) and if vibration is above a reference value then untangling will be performs (see Figs.3 & 6). The configuration of Heo allows for untangling of laundry, and reducing the time required to enter dehydration [0016-0017] based on the sensed vibration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to incorporate a vibration sensor to detect the vibration amount, so as to utilize the controller decide to untangle the laundry or drain and proceed to dehydration (Heo [0016-0017]) based on said vibration. Assuming arguendo that Heo does not explicitly indicate that all water is drained, such a feature is known in the art by K1.
K1 discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein an imbalance detection procedure is performed between a rinse and dehydration step (see Fig.3 ref 50). The determination of imbalance compares a value with a reference value and proceeds to decide whether to disperse the laundry of drain and perform dehydration (Fig.4). K1 further indicates that all water is discharged from the tub when the sensed vibration is below a reference amount [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify Kim to drain all remaining water when the vibration value is below a reference, as such is known in the art (K1 [0073]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to drain a known amount of water when a specific amount of water drained is not disclosed. Further, a skilled artisan recognizes that draining of all the water would reduce the time required for dehydration.
As to claim 7, Modified Kim teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 2, wherein, based on a measured value of the vibration measurer exceeding the reference vibration value in the imbalance measurement process, the controller controls the driver to perform an imbalance resolving process for reducing imbalance of the laundry (see K1 Fig.4 & Heo Fig.3).
As to claim 8, Modified Kim teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 7, wherein the controller performs the measurement preparation process and the imbalance measurement process again after performing the imbalance resolving process (see Kim Figs.4-7 in conjunction with K1 Fig.4 & Heo Fig.3).
As to claim 9, Modified Kim teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 7, wherein the imbalance resolving process includes a laundry untangling process (see K1 Fig.4 & Heo Fig.3) in which the controller controls the driver such that the maximum rotation speed of the drum corresponds to a third rotation speed, a rotation angle corresponds to a first rotation angle, and a rotation direction alternates between the one direction and the other direction (see Heo [0051], a maximum rotation speed and rotation angle are inherent to the rotation during the untangling).
As to claim 10, Modified Kim teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 9, wherein, but does not disclose during the imbalance resolving process, the controller correcting at least one of the third rotation speed or the first rotation angle to increase as a measured value of the vibration measurer increases. However, K1 shows that rotation speed is correlated to the imbalance (i.e., vibration) amount (see Fig.6). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to further modify Kim to correlate the rotation amount to the imbalance amount (i.e., correcting), as is known in the art, in order to decrease an imbalance/vibration.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20050283919A1) in view of Heo (US20150252509A1) and Kim (US20160222569A1, hereafter K1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Park (US20130247307A1).
As to claim 3, Modified Kim teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 2, but does not disclose the controller correcting the reference vibration value to be lower as a water level of the tub increases in the imbalance measurement process. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Park.
Park discloses an art related washing machine directed towards detecting and mitigating undesired vibration (abstract), wherein it is known that water level correlates to laundry amount [0109]. Specifically, Park suggests that higher water levels is indicative of a large amount of laundry, while a low water level is indicative of a small amount of laundry [0109]. Park further indicates that when low levels of laundry are present the amount of vibration generated is small, while large loads of laundry will produce a large amount of vibration. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would recognizes that a reference limit of vibration for a small load may be made high because the typical vibration amount associated with such a small load does not provide detrimental impact. Conversely, one of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that as load size increases the vibration limit should decrease as the amount of vibration generated increases with larger loads and would more likely result in detrimental impact. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to allow the controller to correct the reference value based on the water level, as the water level is indicative of load size.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20050283919A1) in view of Yazawa (WO2021054083A1).
As to claim 15, Kim teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller performs a washing cycle and a rinse cycle [0040]. Kim does not explicitly disclose the wash cycle injecting detergent into the tub before the spin-drying cycle and the rinse cycle to discharge detergent and contaminants to an outside of the tub by separating the detergent and the contaminants from the laundry before the spin-drying cycle after the washing cycle. However, such features are common and well-known in the art, as routine steps performed in the wash and rinse cycle. Further, such process steps are also known in the art, as seen by Yazawa. Kim also appears to indicate that the preparation step and the measuring step occur during the spin-drying cycle and not the washing of rinsing cycle, however performance of a vibration/imbalance measurement during a wash and/or rinse cycle is also known in the art by Yazawa.
Yazawa discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that a controller (refs 16/19) which allows for operation of a washing phase in which detergent is injected and a rinsing phase to remove the detergents before a spin-drying cycle and after the washing cycle (see Fig.3 & refs S1-S7, also [0026-0032]). Yazawa also indicates that determination of imbalance can be performed during the rinsing step (see Fig.4 & [0026-0036]) or during a washing step (see Fig.6 & [0040-0044]). The configuration of Yazawa and the performance of the imbalance detection occurring during the washing or rinsing step prevents imbalance, noise, splashing, and vibration [0012, 0014, & 0050-0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to perform the preparation and measurement steps during the wash and/or rinse phase in order to (Yazawa prevents imbalance, noise, splashing, and vibration [0012, 0014, & 0050-0051]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to implement additional known imbalance detection steps and/or adjust the timing of such steps in order to detect imbalance and prevent undesirable operation, with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a skilled artisan would also implement the controller with sufficient programming to perform the washing and rinsing step to inject and remove detergent prior to a dehydration step, as such is routine and common in the art (Yazawa Fig.3 & refs S1-S7, also [0026-0032]).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20050283919A1) in view of Yazawa (WO2021054083A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kim (US20160222569A1, hereafter K1).
As to claims 16-17, Modified Kim teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 15, further comprising: a drain part (see Kim ref 15 and/or Yazawa ref 8) connected to the tub and configured to drain water of the tub to the outside of the cabinet; and a water level measurer (Yazawa ref 18) mounted in the tub and configured to measure a water level of the tub. Yazawa also indicates that water levels correspond to the amount of laundry accommodated [0047]. Modified Kim does not disclose the controller performing a water level preparation process to control the drain part such that a water level of the tub before the measurement preparation process is performed corresponds to a measurement water level for measuring imbalance. However, setting the water level appropriately via drainage before imbalance measurement is known in the art, as seen by K1.
K1 discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein an imbalance detection procedure is performed between a rinse and dehydration step (see Fig.3 ref 50). The determination of imbalance utilizes a water level sensor (ref 123) along with a drainage part (ref 70) connected to the tub (see Fig.1) in order to correctly set a water level for such determination [0072 & 0075-0077]. K1 indicates that benefits of such a configuration allow for the reduction in water usage for any resupply steps and minimized drying time [0110-0113]. K1 also indicates that the supplied water levels are based on the amount of laundry [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to include a water level preparation step to control the drain part so as to ensure the correct water level for imbalance determination prior to increasing of the drum speed, so as to reduce water usage for any resupply steps and minimized drying time (K1 [0110-0113]). Further, as water level is dependent upon laundry amount (K1 [0052] & Yazawa [0047]), a skilled artisan would find it obvious to correct the measurement water level based on the amount of laundry accommodated in the drum.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 & 11-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art regarding claim 4 is that recited in this action along with Lee (US20050115006A1) and Park (US20150157183A1)
Lee discloses the when laundry having high and low moisture content are rotated in a tub, large eccentricity can be born [0021] and is directed towards determining the position of said eccentricity in order to balance the machine during dehydration.
Park discloses measuring a change in weight of an article to be spin dried (e.g., a moisture rate). However, such a feature is utilized to determine when a spin dry operation is complete and Park makes no mention of adjusting a vibration value based on said moisture rate.
Accordingly, the prior art of record does not fairly teach or suggest the invention of claim 4. Thus, claim 4 and its dependents are considered to contain allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art regarding claim 11 is that recited in this action along with Kim (US20160237610A1).
Kim showcases that a first unbalance value is compared (ref s17) and if a second unbalance value is exceeded (ref s24/s35) than a fabric disentanglement procedure is performed (ref s27/s38). However, there is no indication by Kim that a laundry arrangement process is required, nor does any of the references of record when taken alone or in combination appear to suggest implementing such a process.
K1 showcases two different rotational speeds performed for dispersion of laundry (Fig.6), which includes operation of the pulsator and tub and formation of two alpha stream [0095-0098]. Even in the scenario that such different rotational speeds can be construed as a laundry arrangement process, the process is not initiated by a controller detection of a vibration value exceeding an additional vibration value. Rather, both speeds are performed as a result of the exceeding the reference value. Both K1 and Heo indicate that dispersion of laundry via their current mechanisms are sufficient to detangle/disperse laundry, and no other reference of record teaches or suggest such a feature. Thus, claim 11 and its dependents are considered to contain allowable subject matter.
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
Prosecution Insights