Ex Parte Chanda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2017

13353347 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/353,347 01/19/2012 HIRAK CHANDA SUB-01202-US-NP 4291
173 7590 11/16/2017
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
EXAMINER
KHAN, AMINA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIRAK CHANDA,
KAUSTAV GHOSH, ANDREW J. LEITERT,
KARL DAVID MCALLISTER, AMY L. RAPSON,
JON D. STRAIT, and YINGQIN YUAN
Appeal 2015-005746
Application 13/353,347
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—13. Claims 14—20 are also pending but have been
withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a method for operating a laundry
treating appliance (e.g., a clothes washing machine) to determine the type of fabric
Appeal 2015-005746
Application 13/353,347
for laundry items received in a treating chamber of the appliance (i.e., determining
a laundry load type). Referring to Appellants’ Figure 1, the Appellants explain:
The mass or weight of laundry in the treating chamber 32 may be
estimated by use of the load sensor 42, or by a known inertia method
pursuant to which inertia is determined from an operating
characteristic such as motor torque. A motor current signature from
the motor current sensor 43 may be utilized with the estimated mass
of the laundry load to determine the type of fabric or laundry items
making up the load.
App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. ^flf 19, 20).1
Appellants’ Figure 3, reproduced below, is said to illustrate a current profile
for a typical permanent split capacitor motor operating in an ‘“extra light’” cycle.
App. Br. 5 (citing Spec. 122).
5 3 3 SS 3 « 55 & u 3!
Fig, 3
1 Appeal Brief dated November 7, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-005746
Application 13/353,347
Appellants’ Fig. 3 is a graphical representation of a motor
current profile illustrating motor torque sufficient to move
a laundry load in a selected volume of treating liquid.
According to the Appellants:
During agitation, the initial motor current may be characterized by a
relatively high spike 80 or “inrush current.” This may be followed by
a drop to a “steady state” current 82. A substantial drop, i.e. a
substantial difference between the initial current 80 and the steady
state current 82, may be indicative of little resistance to agitation from
the laundry load.
App. Br. 5 (citing Spec. 122).
Appellants’ Figure 4, on the other hand, is said to illustrate a current profile
reflecting motor torque that is insufficient to overcome fabric resistance. App. Br.
6 (citing Spec. 125). Appellants’ Figure 4 is reproduced below.
Fig, 4
Appellants’ Fig. 4 is a graphical representation of a motor
current profile illustrating motor torque insufficient to move
a laundry load in a selected volume of treating liquid.
3
Appeal 2015-005746
Application 13/353,347
According to the Appellants, the scenario depicted in Appellants’ Figure 4
may occur with inadequate liquid or an excessively heavy load for a selected cycle
of operation (e.g., selecting “‘delicate’” for a laundry load consisting of towels).
The Appellants disclose that in such a case, the difference between an initial
current 84 and a steady state current 86 may be minimal or even negative. App.
Br. 6 (citing Spec. 125).
From the motor current, the Appellants disclose that a difference between
the initial current and the steady state current may be established. That difference
may be compared with threshold values in a controller memory and the results of
the comparison may be used to determine the load type. App. Br. 6 (citing Spec. 1
26).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A method for operating a laundry treating appliance having a
treating chamber that receives a laundry load for treatment according
to a cycle of operation, the method comprising:
determining the size of the laundry load in the treating chamber;
supplying a predetermined amount of liquid to the treating
chamber based on the determined load size;
applying mechanical energy to the laundry treating chamber
after supplying the liquid to the treating chamber by driving a clothes
mover with an electric motor;
determining a difference in electric current values between an
initial electric current to the electric motor, and a steady-state electric
current to the electric motor, during the applying of the mechanical
energy; and
determining a laundry load type of the laundry load based on
the determined difference in electric current values.
App. Br. 15.
4
Appeal 2015-005746
Application 13/353,347
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bae et al.2
in view of Hendrickson et al.;3 and
(2) claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bae
in view of Hendrickson and further in view of Darby.4
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Bae teaches a method for determining the type of
laundry load based on the amount of water absorbed by the laundry and adjusting
the water supply accordingly. Ans. 3.5 However, the Examiner finds “Bae do[es]
not teach the initial current is measured after supplying liquid to the treating
chamber” as claimed. Ans. 3; see also Ans. 5 (finding Bae does not teach using
inrush current and a steady state current to determine the type of laundry load);
Bae 1123 (disclosing that “it is possible to determine whether laundry placed in
the drum exhibits high absorptance or low absorptance by measuring the load
variation defined as the difference between the after-water-supply motor load and
the before-water-supply motor load” (emphasis added)).
The Examiner finds “Hendrickson teaches that during washing machine
operation the amount and type of laundry may be determined using user supplied
information, by sensors in the machine or by information obtained during
operation of the machine.” Ans. 3 (citing Hendrickson | 63). The Examiner also
finds Hendrickson “teaches that electrical load characteristics such as inrush and
steady state current are calculated.” Ans. 3 (citing Hendrickson 1189).
2 WO 2011/025339 A2, published March 3, 2011 (“Bae”).
3 US 2010/0102076 Al, published April 29, 2010 (“Hendrickson”).
4 WO 2008/026942 Al, published March 6, 2008 (“Darby”).
5 Examiner’s Answer dated March 24, 2015.
5
Appeal 2015-005746
Application 13/353,347
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Bae by
using the inrush and steady state motor current differences to
determine laundry weight and type as Hendrickson teach laundry
weight and type may be determined from information obtained during
operation of the machine and that inrush and steady state currents are
readily calculated and information is obtained during conventional
wash cycles in laundering machines. Bae also teach determining
laundry weight and load type by determining motor current during
initial and later current points during a wash cycle. Substituting one
known method of laundry amount and type calculation for another
type to arrive at the predictable result of laundry amount and type
determination would only require routine skill in the art.
Ans. 3^4 (emphasis added).
The Appellants argue that Hendrickson “discloses nothing concerning a
difference in value between an initial [or inrush6] motor current and a steady-state
motor current, or determination of a laundry type based on a difference in electric
current values.” App. Br. 10.
The Appellants’ argument is supported by the record. Hendrickson
discloses:
Infrastructure GDMs [i.e., global design modules] 986 address
specific recurring concerns which are independent of the application
of the system architecture. They can be re-used across a plurality of
appliances, examples of which include but are not limited to
refrigerators, cooktops, dishwasher, dryers, and clothes washers.
Infrastructure GDMs 986 can be classified into at least two variants.
The first variant is associated with a particular concern resulting from
a recurring combination of electrical components or electrical
constraints. Some examples are: manufacturer interface constraints,
6 According to the Appellants, “[t]he claims were amended to substitute ‘initial’ for
‘inrush’ in Applicants’ January 7, 2014, Amendment and Response to Office
Action Mailed October 7, 2013.” App. Br. 10, n.l.
6
Appeal 2015-005746
Application 13/353,347
device duty cycles, electrical load characteristics (such as inrush and
steady state current limits), or other constraints such as the mode of
analog-to-digital conversion such as 4-20 mA current loops vs. 0-5
Vdc analog voltage feedbacks.
Hendrickson^ 189 (emphasis added).
On this record, the Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in
Hendrickson teaching that the difference between an initial current and a steady
state current may be used to determine a laundry load type as recited in the claims
on appeal. Thus, absent the Appellants’ disclosure, there would have been no
reason to modify Bae’s method as proposed by the Examiner. See App. Br. 11.
The Examiner does not rely on Darby to cure the deficiency in Hendrickson.
See Ans. 4, 6. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejections on appeal are not sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7