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 .
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, 3, 5-7, 10, 12 and 13 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: it is not clear what is performing “the operation” in line 3.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "(approval)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations in the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the products" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only a single product is previously mentioned.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 6 and 7 recites the limitation "the Rfid reader module" in lines 3 and 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: in lines 4-5, it is not clear which server “the server” is referring to.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the required chemical substance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: it is not clear what falls over the washing machine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bajovic U.S. PGPub 2021/0182939 (hereinafter “Bajovic”).
Regarding claim 3, Bajovic discloses an industrial washing method comprising the following steps: turning on a machine (i.e. clothing item cleaning appliance) and enabling an electronic device (e.g. user device) (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3), turning on a WiFi module (e.g. ¶43, 51, 53, 59, 67 and 73), making a wireless network connection and requesting scanning of a card (e.g. clothing tag card) from an operator (e.g. ¶43-44, 51, 53, 59, 67 and 73 and 91; Fig. 3, 5 and 7), scanning the card by the operator and sending card information to a server (e.g. ¶43-44, 51, 53, 59, 67 and 73 and 91; Fig. 3, 5 and 7), scanning a barcode of a product (e.g. clothing) and sending product information to a server (e.g. ¶42-48), approving a recipe (i.e. washing cycle/operation/settings) (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3), loading the products and starting the washing process (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3), loading chemicals (e.g. cleaning agent, detergent) (e.g. ¶39 and 60-65), and unloading the products (e.g. ¶62, 65 and 69).
Regarding claim 4, Bajovic discloses a method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises the steps of turning on the machine and enabling the electronic device in the steps of turning on the machine and enabling the electronic device (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Bajovic discloses a method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises the step of making the system ready for performing the functions, such as sending/receiving data to/from the system, by turning on the WiFi module during the step of turning on the WiFi module (e.g. ¶43, 51, 53, 59, 67 and 73).
Regarding claim 6, Bajovic discloses a method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises the steps of making the wireless connection and requesting scanning of the card through the Rfid reader module from the operator, during the steps of making the wireless network connection and requesting scanning of the card from the operator (120) (e.g. ¶43-44, 51, 53, 59, 67 and 73 and 91; Fig. 3, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 7, Bajovic discloses a method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises the steps of scanning the card through the Rfid reader module by the operator and sending the card information to a fixed server and then to a central server, during the steps of scanning the card by the operator and sending the card information to the server (e.g. ¶43-44, 51, 53, 59, 67 and 73 and 91; Fig. 3, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Bajovic discloses a method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises the steps of scanning the barcode on the label through the barcode reader, sending the product information to the fixed server and then to the central server via the wifi module and performing the scanning process by the communication protocols via the device, during the steps of scanning the barcode of the products and sending the product information to the server (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Bajovic discloses A method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises the steps of displaying the washing recipes on a user display and approving the washing recipes by the operator during the step of approving the recipe after the steps of scanning the barcode of the products and sending the product information to the server (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, Bajovic discloses a method according to claim 9, wherein the method comprises the steps of selecting a different recipe or entering the data by the operator, during the step of approving the recipe. (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, Bajovic discloses method according to claim 3, comprising the steps of opening the door, loading the products and starting the washing process by the operator according to the guidance recipes displayed on a user display, during the steps of loading the products and starting the washing process after the step of approving the recipe (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, Bajovic discloses a method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises the steps of displaying information on the required chemical substance and the amount of that substance to be used on a user display, loading the chemical substance by the operator according to the recipe on the user display and performing the approval process, during the step of loading chemicals (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajovic as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Prendergast U.S. PGPub 2004/0210664 (hereinafter “Prendergast”).
Regarding claim 1, Bajovic discloses a system comprising at least one washing machine (e.g. clothing item appliance), at least one user display connected to said washing machine (e.g. ¶52), and a processor (e.g. processor of the clothing item cleaning appliance) which controls both said washing machine and the operation and is located in said washing machine (e.g. ¶59-66), wherein the system comprises: a processor for controlling the washing machine (e.g. ¶59-66); at least one electronic device (e.g. user device) connected to said processor and the washing machine, which manages said washing machine during the check (approval) of an employee (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3); at least one user display on which the outputs, such as a recipe, a written warning, etc., are displayed (e.g. Fig. 6 and 13), wherein the user display is connected to said electronic device and the processor (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3); at least one wired or wireless fixed server (e.g. cloud system) which sends and receives information to/from said washing machine (e.g. ¶42, 44-48, 53-58, 61-65, 69-70 and 77; Fig. 1 and 3); at least one central server (e.g. administrator computer) connected to said fixed server (e.g. ¶38-42 and 44-58; Fig. 1 and 3); at least one database in which the recipe and operation information is stored, in said fixed server and thus, in the central server (e.g. ¶34, 36 and 64-68); and at least one main screen (e.g. screen of administrator computer) connected to said central server (e.g. ¶38-42 and 44-58; Fig. 1 and 3).
Bajovic discloses a processor to control the washing machine, but does not explicitly disclose using a PLC system having the Profinet and TCP Modbus communication protocols which control the washing machine and the operation.
Prendergast discloses using a PLC system having the Profinet and TCP Modbus communication protocols to control a machine (e.g. ¶19, 21, 22, 32, 39 and 44).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a PLC system having the Profinet and TCP Modbus communication protocols to control a washing machine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since the protocols provide fast and reliable data transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bajovic with Prendergast to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 2, Bajovic discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein the washing machine is a textile machine (e.g. ¶34-42), or a machine tool and a workbench.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
CK
September 18, 2025
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116