DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/31/2025.
Claims 1-15 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeji (JP2020058601A) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached in prior action) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0305851 A1) (previously cited).
Re claim 1, Takeji discloses a user terminal device (ref. 5 or ref. 13) comprising: an input interface (¶ [0019] touch panel, ¶ [0014] touch panel); a communication interface (¶ [0013] Internet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) configured to communicate with an external device; and a processor (¶ [0119] computer, ¶ [0015] control device 10) operatively connected with the input interface and the communication interface, wherein the processor is configured to:
based on clothing information being input through the input interface, control the communication interface to transmit the clothing information to a server (¶ [0022] based on the user’s washing machine usage environment, for example, a large amount of clothes once, a large amount of clothes that are heavily soiled, ¶ [0027] type of clothes, the amount of clothes, and the type of stains), and
receive, from the server through the communication interface, recommended course information generated by the server based on the clothing information (¶ [0022] recommended driving course,¶ [0028]), wherein the recommended course information comprises first course information corresponding to a first clothing treating device (¶ [0022], [0028] recommended driving course)
generate user-customized course information by editing the recommended course information based on an editing command being input to the input interface (¶ [0022], [0026], [0032]-[033] driving course can be created by oneself….function of correct and editing the content of the washing operaton regarding the downloaded driving course), and
control the communication interface to transmit the user-customized course information to the server (¶ [0026], [0030]-[0031] upload to the website),
wherein the user-customized course information comprises course name information and course description information, based on the editing command (¶ [0020] photograph, [0024] driving course name, [0026] images and explanations, [0028] user’s comments),
wherein a first clothing treating operation is performed by the firs clothing treating device (¶ [0031] execute).
Takeji does not explicitly disclose a second course information corresponding to a second clothing treating device, wherein the second clothing treating device is configured to perform a second clothing treating operation after the first clothing treating operation. However, Kwon discloses it is well-known in the washing machine and dryer art to provide a server (ref. 10 ¶ [0256]-[0257] provide a customized course) recommending course information (abstract, recommendation) for both a first treating device and a second treating device (¶ [0117]-[0120] course used in a washing machine and a drying course, see also figs. 1a-d with ref. 1d clearly depicting a dryer), and a second clothing treating operation after a first clothing treating operation (inherent, drying occurs after washing; see also ¶ [0019] perform washing of laundry from beginning to end. At this time, the course may also include a drying cycle).
Examiner further notes Claim 1 is drawn to a user terminal device, whereas the operation of the clothing treating devices and/or the information on the server are merely intended uses of the processor of the user terminal device. See MPEP 2114.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to modify the server of Takeji to further include a second course information for a second clothing treating device, as suggested by Kwon, in order to provide control and recommendations for the entire laundry process from wash to dry.
Re claims 2-3, Takeji further discloses further comprising a memory (¶ [0019] memory, ¶ [0017] storage device 14) configured to store a course list comprising a plurality of clothing treatment courses, and wherein the processor is further configured to update the course list to comprise the generated user-customized course information, and store the updated course list in the memory (¶ [0022]-[0023] constantly updated). wherein the processor is further configured to control the communication interface to transmit, to the server, editing information based on the editing command being input to the input interface (¶ [0017], [0020], [0022], [0026], [0030]-[0031] created driving course can be uploaded; [0032]-[003] editing the content).
Re claims 4-5, Takeji further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to control the communication interface to transmit, to a clothing treating device, the user- customized course information (¶ [0008]-[0009] smartphone as an external information terminal….connected to the respective washing machines), wherein the user-customized course information comprises course name information and course description information, based on the editing command (see fig. 4 Upper title is the course name and the course description below the photo; see also ¶ [0026] uploading…with images and explanations). wherein the processor is further configured to control the communication interface to transmit, to the first clothing treating device, a control signal to perform a processing operation corresponding to the user-customized course information corresponding to an operation of the first clothing treating device, based on a start command for executing a user-customized course being an input to the input interface (¶ [0008]-[0009]).
Re claims 6-7, Takeji further discloses further comprising a display (¶ [0019] a display device; ¶ [0014] display device), wherein the processor is further configured to control the display to display a user interface for receiving the clothing information (¶ [0016] type, weight, and type of dirt of clothes, [0022], [0027]). wherein the clothing information comprises at least one of a material, a type, a color, or dryness of clothes (¶ [0016], [0022], [0027] type).
Re claims 8-14, Claims 8-14 read as a method claim to processor steps of claim 1 and is therefore satisfied by Takeji as discussed above.
Re claim 15, Independent claim 15 defines over the above only in a system including the server and a first clothing treating device and a second clothing treating device. Takeji further discloses the server (ref. 4) and clothing treating device (ref. 2), and it being prima facie obvious to duplicate the updating and storage course list and edited user-customized course information to all clothing treating devices of Kwon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kwon (US 20180305851 A1) (previously cited).
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to Kwon, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited in the rejection above, Kwon explicitly discloses both a washing machine and a dryer, and providing recommended courses and execution of said courses on all of such machines.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN115387075A note server storing programs for both washing machine and dryers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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