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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 28 April 2025 contains a duplicate citation of US 10,000,884. In order to avoid duplicate publication of the citation in any future patent publication, the citation has been lined through.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a bubble circulator” is indefinite because it is unclear if bubble generating structure is being recited since the “configured” language only alternatively recites the function “or a bubble supply operation of generating bubbles and supplying the generated bubbles to the tub”. Applicant should clearly recite the bubble circulator with bubble generating structure or positively recite the functional language, otherwise the configuration could be construed to read simply on a circulator/pump.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2015-00006928 A to Kang et al. (“Kang”; cited by Applicant; electronic translation provided by Examiner in parent application) in view of JP 2017-196270 A to Uchiyama (cited by Applicant; electronic translation provided by Examiner in parent application).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a control method of a washing machine (1) which comprises
a tub (20) configured to accommodate a drum (30),
a detergent supplier (70) including a detergent storage space to store detergent and a softener storage space to store a softener (710a,710b),
a water supplier (50) configured to supply water to the tub through the detergent supplier,
a turbidity sensor (82) configured to detect turbidity of water in the tub, and
comprising:
detecting, by the turbidity sensor, the turbidity of water in the tub (see Kang at ¶ [0096], [0098]).
Kang discloses, when the detected tubidity is lower than a reference value, the contamination of water is not severe and a single rinsing may be performed, which may include fabric softener (see KANG at ¶ [0096], [0098]). KANG does not expressly disclose a bubble circulator configured to perform a circulation operation of circulating water in the tub and resupplying it to the tub or a bubble supply operation of generating bubbles and supplying the generated bubbles to the tub, or in response to the detected turbidity of the water in the tub being lower than a first reference value, controlling the water supplier to supply water containing the softener to the tub and controlling the bubble circulator to perform a second rinsing cycle by alternately performing the circulation operation and the bubble supply operation as recited in claim 1.
Uchiyama teaches an art-related washing machine in which water is supplied from a water supply (20,21,22) through a bubble generation unit (23) for dissolving an additive via dispenser (18) and into tub (5), including introducing softener in a rinsing step (see ¶ [0024]], [0048]). Uchiyama further discloses using the bubbler during the rinsing stroke (see ¶ [0048]).
Therefore, the position is taken that would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the washing machine of Kang with a bubbler, such as that in Uchiyama, to yield the predictable results of mixing and dissolving additives such as softeners in a rinsing cycle after completion of the washing cycle has been determined (by the turbidity sensor).
Regarding claims 2-4 and based on the teachings of Kang and Uchiyama above, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to control the water supply and bubbler operations based on sensed turbidity as desired to achieve the same and predictable results of using turbidity to add rinsing cycles as necessary while dynamically determining completion of the washing and rinsing cycles. Further regarding claims 3-4, Kang and Uchiyama both disclose draining and dehydrating upon completion of the rinsing cycle(s), such being common and standard post-rinsing steps.
Regarding claim 5, Kang (in Figs. And ¶ [0051]) further discloses an interface (100) configured to receive a user input; and wherein the controller is configured to control the washing machine to perform the first rinsing cycle and the second rinsing cycle when a softening course is received as the user input from through the interface (softening courses are inherent/implicit to a rinsing cycle, and particularly in KANG it is taught to include adding softener).
Regarding claim 6, Kang further discloses wherein the turbidity sensor is provided inside a lower side of the tub (see turbidity sensor 82 in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Uchiyama, as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of US 2012/0204607 to Yang et al. (“Yang”).
Kang and Uchiyama, supra, disclose the claimed invention including discharge pumps for washing machine tubs, and Uchiyama discloses a bubble circulator. Neither discloses wherein the bubble circulator includes: a switch configured to selectively form a circulation passage for resupplying water discharged from the pump to the tub and a bubble supply passage for generating bubbles in the water discharged from the pump and supplying the generated bubbles to the tub; and a driver configured to drive the switch or wherein the controller is further configured to control the driver so that water discharged from the pump alternately passes through the circulation passage and the bubble supply passage as recited in claims 9-10. Yang teaches an art-related washing machine with a bubble circulator (70) includes: a switch (72) configured to selectively form a circulation passage for resupplying water discharged from the pump to the tub and a bubble supply passage for generating bubbles in the water discharged from the pump and supplying the generated bubbles to the tub; and a driver (73) configured to drive the switch or wherein the controller is further configured to control the driver so that water discharged from the pump alternately passes through the circulation passage (via port 71e) and the bubble supply passage (via port 71d) (see operation of switch 72 via driver 73 to operate between circulation and direct bubble supply in Figs. 1-6 and associated text.
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to either add to or substitute for the bubbler/pump configuration of Yang with the washing machine and bubbler in the combination of Kang and Uchiyama to yield the same and predictable results of providing selective recirculation and bubble supply to a washing machine tub.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights