DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/25 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims.
Response to Amendments
The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action is withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150167222 by Hwang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120110747 by Yum et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120011659 by Park.
As to claim 1, Hwang teaches a method for hygienic treatment of textiles in a washing machine, the method comprising receiving an end signal representing an end of a washing program (S400, fig. 4); reading a door contact signal representing a state of a door (S200); and if no opening of the door has been recognized within a predefined time period S300 started in response to the end signal (figs. 2 and 4, para. 34), starting a hygiene rinse program (S430, fig. 4; para. 34).
Hwang does not teach providing a start option signal to a user interface to provide the user a selection option to start the hygiene rinse program. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide a selection option to start the program to a user interface. Yum teaches providing a start option signal to a user interface (mobile terminal, para. 93) to provide a selection option to start a recommended cycle (displaying recommended operation, S308, fig. 3; paras. 106-107). Yum suggests that providing a user a selection option to start a program allows for confirmation that a user wishes the cycle to be performed. Yum also suggests by teaching the use of a mobile terminal to control a washing machine that a user interface, in particular a mobile user interface, provides convenience to a user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by Hwang so that a selection option to start the hygiene rinse program is provided to a user interface so that a user may confirm whether he or she wishes the program to be started. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further been motivated to provide a user interface, in particular a mobile interface, to allow for user convenience.
Hwang does not explicitly teach that the hygiene rinse program has multiple variants and thus does not teach a step of creating or selecting a variant based on parameters of the washing program. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide variants to the hygiene rinse program and creating or selecting a variant based on parameters of a washing program. Park teaches that an amount of wash and rinse water should be suitable for an amount of laundry and that the amount of laundry is sensed so that the amount of water can be determined (para. 63). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an amount of laundry is a parameter of a washing program, as set forth by Park. Based on the teachings of Park, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an amount of water for a rinsing program would correspond to the laundry amount parameter of a washing program. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that a rinse program, including a hygiene rinse program as taught by Hwang, would have multiple variants, in particular multiple water level amounts, and that a variant representing a proper amount of rinsing water should be selected based on the amount of laundry parameter of the washing program.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Hwang does not explicitly teach that the door contact signal is read via a door interface to a door contact sensor arranged on the door (see para. 12); however, a door sensing device having a door interface and contact sensor arranged on the door was well-known and common in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use the claimed arrangement based on its well-known and established use in the art.
As to claim 3, Hwang teaches setting the time period using a setting signal representing a duration of the time period set via the user interface (paras. 49-50).
As to claim 4, Hwang teaches outputting a start signal for starting the hygiene rinse program (fig. 2, S400). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, the start signal would be in response to a confirmation signal read from a user interface.
As to claim 5, Hwang teaches that the hygiene rinse program is in the form of an additional rinse cycle or a water-reduced rinse cycle (fig. 4, S430; para. 47).
As to claim 6, Hwang teaches adjusting a sequence of the hygiene rinse cycle using a program signal representing program information on the washing program (fig. 4, e.g. S400).
As to claim 7, Hwang teaches that the end signal represents an end of a crease protection program (S400, fig. 4; para. 44).
As to claim 8, upon the obvious modification discussed above the start option signal would be provided to a user interface arranged on the washing machine and/or a mobile device (see Yum, para. 93).
As to claim 9, Hwang teaches an apparatus (controller, para. 39) configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1.
As to claim 10, Hwang teaches a washing machine (fig. 1) with a hygiene rinse program (fig. 4) and an apparatus according to claim 9.
As to claim 11, Hwang teaches a computer program product (controller configuration) with program code executed on an apparatus (controller, para. 39) for carrying out the method of claim 1.
As to claim 12, Park teaches that a parameter of a washing program may include an amount of laundry (para. 63).
As to claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a selected variant of the hygiene rinse program would include a proper amount of rinse water, as discussed above in view of Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the selected variant would correspond to the start option signal provided to the user interface so that the variant with the proper amount of rinse water would be provided to the user interface.
Conclusion
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 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