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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 02 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Inventions 1 and 2 both include common instructions. This is not found persuasive because a washer and a server are completely different apparatus with completely separate classifications, and which are mutually exclusive. As indicated in the Restriction Requirement, the inventions as claimed are not capable of use together and have materially different mode of operation, function, and effect. For instance, the washer may be used to wash laundry while the server may be used to manage access of various home appliances, including dishwasher, stove, oven, or any other apparatus in a network using a server. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Furthermore, there would be a serious search burden based on the different classification and different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05 May 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 1-11 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 controller instruction operation of “obtain driving configuration information based on a driving profile of the washer” is indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant intends. What is a driving profile? Is this stored data in the washer? Or is this other data, for instance, downloaded from a server? It is not clear how the driving configuration information is being obtained merely “based on a driving profile”.
Regarding the RPM data, it is unclear how such data is being obtained. Is a sensor being used to obtain such RPM data? Or is this stored or downloaded data? It is believed the RPM data is obtained via a sensor and the claims will be examined accordingly. However, clarification and correction are still required. Examiner suggests more distinctly claimed sensor data, i.e. structural cooperative language and functional language describing the configuration and operation of the sensors’ structures.
Regarding the “identify” step, it is unclear how the resonance associated with the floor is identified merely through use of AI models. It is unclear what steps are being perform to “identify” a “resonance associated with the floor” as the recitation lacks functional language as to how the resonance is identified. There appears to be missing elements such as algorithms or neural networks that are being used to extrapolate the data, for example, “using designated algorithm for filtering resonance by eccentricity based on information about floor state, RPM data, and/or vibration data” as recited in Fig. 6A. Generic statements of identifying a resonance associated with a floor with solely “artificial intelligence (AI) models” may be construed as abstract ideas absent sufficient structural features/configurations particularly pointing out how such data is identified. Clarification and correction are required.
Regarding the “adjust” step, it is unclear what is meant by “values of the information related to RPM based on an RPM value associated with the resonance…” Such vague terminology of information related to RPM is indefinite and should clearly be indicated as to what “values of information” are being adjusted. Clarification and correction are required.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear how a “harmonic resonance RPM” is obtained. While the claim generically recites it is “based on the basis spin RPM”, such vague and indefinite means for determining harmonic resonance is inadequate for such determination as the claim lacks adequate functional language for such determination. Additional clarification is required as to precisely how harmonic resonance RPM is obtained, particularly since the apparatus claim requires clear functional operations of the controller instructions.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0276967 to Sakata et al. (“Sakata”) in view of.
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, and 11, Sakata (in Figs. 1-2 and associated text) discloses a washer, comprising:
a housing (210);
a tub (245) inside the housing;
a drum (246) inside the tub and configured to be rotated with respect to the tub;
a driver (242) inside the housing and configured to rotate the drum;
one or more sensors including a first sensor (vibration sensor/detector 271);
one or more processors (see control device 100 and processor 140); and
a memory including one or more storage media storing instructions (storage portion 274 which includes memory, see ¶ [0043]),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the washer to:
obtain driving configuration information based on a driving profile of the washer, the driving configuration information comprising information related to revolutions per minute (RPM) of the driver or the drum associated with a spin cycle of the washer (see control programs 1-3 based on vibration characteristics in Figs. 8-10 and ¶ [0114]-[0124]);
obtain RPM data and vibration data during a first spin cycle based on the driving configuration information, the RPM data comprising RPM values of the driver or the drum obtained during the first spin cycle, the vibration data, obtained via the first sensor, comprising values of a vibration of the washer during the first spin cycle (see Figs. 8-10, note monitoring of vibration data and rotation speed of drum in RPM);
identify whether a resonance associated with a floor is generated via one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models based on the RPM data and the vibration data, the washer being on the floor (see use of machine learning algorithm to determine placement condition of peak vibration, i.e. resonance, in ¶ [0136] and use of vibration data and RPM data to determine such placement conditions in Fig. 8 and associated text based on washer located on different flooring); and
adjust one or more values of the information related to RPM based on an RPM value associated with the resonance in a state in which generation of the resonance associated with the floor is identified (see adjustments of RPM associated with high floor vibration, i.e. resonance, in Figs. 8-10), and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the washer to perform a second spin cycle, after the first spin cycle, based on the adjusted information related to RPM (see adjusted spin cycles of plural programs in Figs. 8-10 based on information related to RPM and vibration),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the washer to: input first input data based on the RPM data and the vibration data to a first AI model and obtain information about a state of the floor as output data of the first AI model; and input second input data based on the information about the state of the floor and washer data comprising the RPM data and the vibration data to a second AI model and obtain information indicating whether the resonance associated with the state of the floor is generated as output data of the second AI model, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the washer to set the information indicating whether the resonance associated with the state of the floor is generated to a first value indicating that the resonance associated with the state of the floor is generated or a second value indicating that the resonance associated with the state of the floor is not generated (see Figs. 3-6 and ¶ [0065] et seq. utilizing plural AI generated data groups to determine plural resonance placement conditions 1-3),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the washer to input third input data based on washer data comprising the RPM data and the vibration data to a third AI model and obtain information indicating whether the resonance associated with a state of the floor is generated as output data of the third AI model (see Figs. 3-6 and ¶ [0065] et seq. utilizing plural AI generated data groups to determine plural resonance placement conditions 1-3),
wherein the information related to RPM comprises information indicating a setting value of a final spin RPM to be used in the first spin cycle, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the washer to: identify a basis spin RPM causing the resonance based on identifying generation of the resonance associated with a state of the floor; obtain a harmonic resonance RPM based on the basis spin RPM; and adjust the final spin RPM based on the harmonic resonance RPM (see Figs. 5-6 & 8, and changing RPM spin speeds based on vibration resonance peak RPMs),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the washer to obtain, during the first spin cycle, the RPM data and the vibration data at the same sampling period (note each control program 1-3 are based on RPM data and vibration data based on same sampling period, i.e. during each program),
wherein the driving profile corresponds to an initial driving profile among a plurality of driving profiles and is selected based on information related to an installation position of the washer (see Fig. 5, note plural driving profiles above and different data used to estimate different placement conditions; also note Fig. 3 with different placement conditions based on surface strength, i.e. installation position), and wherein the plurality of driving profiles are based on statistical analysis of a residential environment (note the driving profiles are based on the different placement conditions which read on residential environment of different surfaces).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata.
Regarding claim 9, Sakata discloses use of one or more AI models trained by a supervised learning scheme (see, e.g., ¶ [0135] and the correlation models using machine learning algorithms, which read on such learning scheme), as well as vibration data from the first sensor, RPM data of the driver/drum, and information related to a state of the floor (see above). Sakata discloses various types of data used for the above AI models but does not expressly disclose further using “label data”. However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use any known type of data including label data to achieve the same and predictable results of implementing AI models in the determination of vibration resonance the bottom floor surface contact of the washing machine as taught by Sakata above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata in view of US 2016/0154406 to Im et al. (“Im”).
Sakata, supra, discloses the claimed invention including use of AI models trained by an algorithm to generate signals based on user acknowledged vibration resonance. Sakata does not expressly disclose training the models based on a trigger signal received from a server. Im teaches that it is known to perform data analysis based on a trigger signal and/or an algorithm from a local server for data storage and transfer purposes (see Im at ¶ [0149]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to train the AI models of Sakata with data from a trigger signal received from a server, such as that taught in Im, to yield the same and predictable results of AI model training.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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