DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/29/2026.
Claims 1, 6 and 20-27 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 6, 20-21, 23-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2020/0024784 A1) in view of Baier (DE 102006042630 A1) (Machine translation of equivalent EP equivalent attached).
Re claim 1, Yoon washing machine (¶ [0002]) comprising:
a drum (ref. 120 see fig. 2) forming a washing space in which laundry is washable;
a display (ref. 110, 114 user interface panel and display ¶ [0022]; see also fig. 3 ref. 316 ¶ [0033]);
an inputter (ref. 112 input selectors ¶ [0022]; see also ref. 314);
a controller (ref. 150; see also ref. 318) configured to perform control to:
provide a plurality of washing modes for washing the laundry and which are arranged for display, and the other is not based on usage frequency of the plurality of washing modes (¶ [0022]-[0023] select washing machine cycles and features).
Yoon does not disclose the plurality of washing modes for washing the laundry and which are arranged for display on the display in an order from a top of the order to a bottom of the order, respectively, and the order is not based on usage frequency of the plurality of washing modes, based on a washing mode of the plurality of washing modes having a highest usage frequency of the plurality of washing modes, revise the order by moving the washing mode having the highest usage frequency to the top of the order and move other washing modes of the plurality of washing modes down in the order while maintaining their position in the order with respect to each other, control the display, in response to a power-on of the washing machine, to display the washing mode having the highest usage frequency, and based on at least one user input to the inputter, scroll on the display in the revised order from the displayed washing mode having the highest frequency usage through the other washing modes.
However, Baier discloses it is well-known in the washing machine interface art (abstract) to provide a plurality of washing modes (ref. 116, 117 Programm) for washing the laundry and which are arranged for display on the display in an order from a top of the order to a bottom of the order (see figs. 1-7), respectively, and the order is not based on usage frequency of the plurality of washing modes (“The listing according to 2 is a fundamental or arbitrarily chosen. It does not yet contain the inventive concept of the arrangement or order of frequency.”), based on a washing mode of the plurality of washing modes having a highest usage frequency of the plurality of washing modes, revise the order by moving the washing mode having the highest usage frequency to the top of the order (abstract “lists the most frequently selected option first under a menu item (16); Claims “the most frequently selected option (17 . 117. 217) or operating parameter is displayed first) and move other washing modes of the plurality of washing modes down in the order while maintaining their position in the order with respect to each other (“If an operator wants to deviate from this favored display for a different operation, then he can use the controls 13a respectively. 13b and 14 a corresponding menu item 16 be called or selected. Again, the option that has been most frequently chosen here appears again 17 first.”), control the display, in response to a power-on of the washing machine (“at the beginning of the commissioning of the electrical appliance or after connection to a power supply, the number and type of selections and operations are included in the calculation for the frequency and immediately apply the highlighted elevation or order becomes.”), to display the washing mode having the highest usage frequency, and based on at least one user input to the inputter (ref. 13b, 14), scroll on the display in the revised order from the displayed washing mode having the highest frequency usage through the other washing modes (see figs. 1-2 scrolling through selection) (see also EP translation ¶ [0006], [0013] “the most frequent option is displayed first in a list or the like”)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the list of washing modes in the washing machine of Yoon to further include displaying the highest usage frequency first, as suggested by Baier, in order to enable fast and easy operation and selection with minimum steps.
Re claim 6, Independent claim 6 reads as a method claim for implementing the controller control of claim 1 and is therefore fully satisfied by the rejection above.
Re claim 20, Regarding “wherein the controller is configured to perform control to:based on more than one washing mode of the plurality of washing modes having the highest usage frequency, revise the order by moving to the top of the order a washing mode that was most recently used among the more than one washing mode having the highest usage frequency.”, Baier discloses heavily weighting recent choices.
Re claim 21, Regarding “wherein the controller is configured to perform control to: revise the order by moving remaining washing modes of the more than one washing mode having the highest usage frequency to positions following the washing mode that was most recently used, while maintaining positions of the remaining washing modes in the order with respect to each other”, Baier further discloses most or all subsequent choice from the previously selected Depend on frequency (“ provided that not only the most common choice first in a listing or the like is shown. Also the order the subsequent choices can from the previously selected Depend on frequency, so that actually most or all choices dependent on from their previously chosen frequency being represented.”).
Re claim 24-25 and 27, Claim 24-25 and 27 reads as the same frequency-based ordering as claimed in claims 1 and 20-21 also for the washing option for the selected washing mode. Baier further discloses the sub-options for the washing mode (spin-temperature and temperature-type-time (see figs. 1-7)).
Claims 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2020/0024784 A1) in view of Baier (DE 102006042630 A1), and further in view of Coffman et al. (US 2015/0345068 A1).
Re claims 22 and 26, Yoon/Baier discloses as shown above, but does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to perform control to: receive an edit command through the inputter, and, in response to the edit command, further revise the order independently of usage frequency of the plurality of washing modes. However, Coffman discloses it is very well-known in washing machine art to provide an editable menu of washing modes (¶ [0106] Edit Favorites icon…one or more of the favorite wash cycles are cleared or deleted from the saved group of favorite wash cycles; see also ¶ [0059] selected category of favorite cycles). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the menu/plurality of washing modes to be editable, as suggested by Coffman, in order to enable user customization and control of displayed selections and/or order.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to Baier, Examiner respectfully disagrees. For purposes of clarity, Examiner has attached a machine translation of the EP equivalent EP 1898283 A2 of Baier. Applicant relies heavily on Figs. 1-7, specifically, the most frequently selected menu item is “marked by frames”. However, immediately preceding the underlined citation of Baier is “The individual options 17 the menu items 16 to 2 may be ordered by frequency but need not”. That is, the figures, including fig. 2, “The list of FIG. 2 is a basic or arbitrary one. It does not yet contain the inventive idea of arrangement or sequence according to frequency” (¶ [0021]). This is further supported that Baier explicitly discloses “it is provided that not only the most frequent option is displayed first in a list or the like. Also, the order of the subsequent choices may depend on the frequency chosen so far, so that actually most or all of the choices will be displayed depending on their frequency chosen so far (¶ [0013]) and that the selection can further be weighted by the point in time of selection (¶ [0011]).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation that Baier only discloses a “preselection” (¶ [0009]) and “highlighted” (¶ [0005], [0036]). Rather, as explained above, Baier goes on further to disclose “the most frequently selected option…at the first place of…listing on a display” (¶ [0006]), “the most frequent option is displayed first in a list or the like” (¶ [0013]), and additionally ordering subsequent less choices by their frequency. Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “first in a list” to disclose an embodiment that goes beyond a basic or arbitrary list of alphabetically or ascending/descending order (¶ [0021]), and rather arranges the most frequent option as first in said list (¶ [0013]) for the explicit purpose that the selection can be selected simply and with a minimum number of steps (¶ [0005]).
The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. . . . . In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Here, one of ordinary skill in the art looking at a displayed list of menu items (in addition to or in contrast with a preselected summary page of Baier’s Fig. 1, 3-4), would readily apply Baier’s idea of placing the most frequent option first in the list (as discussed in the description of Baier), for the exact reason of minimizing steps to select the most frequently selected items.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140229896 A1 note displaying according to user’s frequencies of use starting from the left side to the right side.
CN106480662B note statistical sorting on the number and frequency of operations of a certain control parameter.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights