DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 5/14/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of one of the inventions requires a full search of the other inventions and thus no undue burden is placed on the examiner, and that amended claim 19 is now within the scope of Group I. This is not found persuasive because apparatus and method inventions inherently require different and divergent search techniques that would significantly increase the burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/14/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “location of a registration points” requires grammatical revision. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one height adjusters” requires grammatical revision. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites one or more image sensors configurated to capture image data of at least a portion of the wash tub. However, based on the disclosure, it does not appear to be accurate that at least a portion of the wash tub is imaged. It appears that it is the wash basket 34 – inclusive of its components such as an impeller – that at least a portion of is imaged (see figs. 3, 5; paras. 30, 54). The wash tub 16 appears out of the field of view of an image sensor in the representation of fig. 3, and nothing in the disclosure suggests that any portion of the wash tub is imaged. For purposes of examination it is assumed that at least a portion of the wash basket is imaged.
Claims 2-18 are rejected because they recite limitations directed to imaging the wash tub and/or they are dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220195653 by Hombroek et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190390390 by Jeong and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060048400 by Huang et al.
As to claim 1, Hombroek teaches a laundry washing machine comprising a wash tub 16 suspending within a housing by a suspension assembly 30, 32 (fig. 3); one or more image sensors 72 to capture image data of at least a portion of a wash basket 34; and a controller coupled to the image sensor. Hombroek does not teach that the controller is configured to determine a level state of the wash tub using captured image data. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the controller as such.
Jeong teaches a washing machine with a level sensor 430 to determine a level state of the washing machine, including the tub (fig. 4, para. 107). Jeong teaches that it is important for a washing machine to be correctly leveled (para. 6) and that detecting a level state allows for easy adjustment if necessary (para. 25). While Jeong teaches a tilt sensor to determine a level state, it was known that image data can be used to determine a level state. Huang teaches that an image sensor may be used to capture image data that is then used to determine a level state, the image data being processed such that a marker in the image data is compared with a predetermined point (abstract). Having knowledge of the disclosures of Jeong and Huang, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the washing machine of Hombroek to have its controller determine a level state using captured image data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the image sensor of Hombroek would be readily capable of determining a level state without additional hardware based on the teachings of Huang that demonstrate success of using image data to determine a level state.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Hombroek teaches that its controller is configured to perform a wash cycle (para. 72).
As to claim 3, Hombroek teaches that the suspension assembly allows for relative movement between the tub and the housing (fig. 3, para. 38).
As to claim 4, Hombroek teaches that the image sensor 72 includes a first sensor at a repeatable position and orientation with a portion of the wash basket in view of the sensor (fig. 3).
As to claim 5, Hombroek teaches an emitter (lights) to illuminate the drum while image data is captured (para. 123).
As to claim 6, Hombroek teaches that the controller is configured to determine a load type using image data (para. 72).
As to claim 7, Hombroek teaches that its controller is configured to determine a load color composition using image data (para. 5).
As to claim 8, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to inhibit initiation of a wash cycle or dynamically determine a spin operation based on a determined level state. Jeong recognizes that operating a washing machine that is out of level may result in excessive vibration (para. 82). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious to inhibit and/or dynamically control operations to prevent and/or minimize negative effects of excessive vibration, a concept well-known and applied in the art.
As to claim 10, Hombroek teaches that image processing may be performed locally (para. 132).
As to claim 11, Hombroek teaches that image processing may be performed on a remote device (para. 132).
As to claim 12, Hombroek teaches that image date may be input into a trained machine leaning model for processing (para. 142).
As to claim 17, Jeong teaches that during a leveling operation level information is generated and transmitted to a user terminal to guide a user to manually adjust height adjusters of the washing machine (paras. 34, 136). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the transmission to a user terminal taught by Jeong would be a display of the level information on the user terminal.
As to claim 18, Jeong teaches electromechanical height adjusters that are actuated by a controller during a leveling operation in response to a determined level state (para. 96).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220195653 by Hombroek et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190390390 by Jeong and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060048400 by Huang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP3981905A1 by Mischke et al.
As to claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to dispense a predetermined volume of water into the tub so that the level state is determined with the volume of water in the tub. Mischke recognizes that a tub will sag when filled with wash water (para. 29). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus had reason to dispense a volume of water into the tub prior to determining a level state – the wash water affects the level state and the goal is to ensure the tub is level during a washing operation with the wash water. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220195653 by Hombroek et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190390390 by Jeong and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060048400 by Huang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20250101674 by Schechter et al.
As to claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to determine a level state by applying tare data determined during a calibration operation performed during manufacture of the washing machine. It was well-known that image sensors used for object identification would undergo calibration (see Schechter, para. 198). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that an image sensor used to determine a level state would undergo a calibration operation that determines tare data so that a difference from true level could be determined. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach the totality of the limitations of claim 14 and the claims from which it depends, either alone or in obvious combination. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach the tare data and level state determination as recited in claim 14. While it was generally known to use image data to determine a level state, and that image data used for optical detection of an object or other characteristic would undergo calibration to determine tare, or reference baseline, data. However, the prior art of record does not teach the specifics recited in claim 14 and nothing in the prior art of record suggests that such configuration would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights