DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/30/2026
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9-10 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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (KR 20080079913 A) (machine translation attached) in view of Coffman et al. (US 2015/0345068 A1), How to Customize or Remove Widgets – Garmin Instinct Tutorials (“Garmin Instinct Tutorials”) (available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=zKg3OUA63W0, dated Dec 3, 2018), Baier (DE102006042630A1) (machine translation attached), and Huang (CN108866932A) (machine translation attached).
Re claims 1 and 8, Chang discloses a washing machine (¶ [0001], see fig. 1) comprising:
a control panel (ref. 30) including:
at least one display (refs. 30, 34) configured to, when the washing machine is in an editing mode in response to a command input by a user to the washing machine to enter the editing mode (¶ [0012] “user selects the ‘entire list’”…“the user can select up to eight desired laundry lists from the entire laundry list in consideration of the fact that eight laundry lists are provided in the 'Laundry by Mom' [Laundry by theme] menu”),
simultaneously display a plurality of washing modes of the washing machine in a sequence in which the washing mode of the washing machine are arranged, and
an inputter (ref. 32; see also figs. 7-8) that is operable by the user to select at least one washing mode among a plurality of washing modes that are currently being displayed by the a display in the editing mode (¶ [0012] “the user can select up to eight desired laundry lists from the entire laundry list in consideration of the fact that eight laundry lists are provided in the 'Laundry by Mom' menu”), and to deselect at least one washing mode among the plurality of washing modes that are currently being displayed by the display in the editing mode (¶ [0012] “the control unit 50 changes the selected laundry list for each category selected and stores it in the memory 54”; Examiner finds the ability to change and reselect the laundry list to satisfy “deselect”. Nonetheless, to any extent “change” is unclear as to “deselect”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the touchscreen for a second touch of a selected item to be deselected, i.e. a toggleable selection common in most selection interfaces, especially on touchscreen), to thereby provide a washing mode list that includes each washing mode that was selected by operation of the inputter and that excludes each washing mode that was deselected by operation of the inputter (¶ [0012] “Laundry by Mom” menu; see also “changed laundry lists”),
wherein, after the editing mode has ended,
the display (ref. 34) configured is configured to sequentially display each washing mode included in the washing mode list based on sequential inputs by a user (¶ [0012] “laundry list for each category”; see also “eight laundry lists are provided in the ’Laundry by Mom’ menu”…”feeds back to step S106, At this time, the changed laundry lists are provided on the Laundry by theme”), respectively, and, for each washing mode included in the washing mode list as the washing mode is displayed by the display, to display washing options for the washing mode (¶ [0012] “optimum recommended laundry course information for the laundry list selected by the user is displayed”).
Chang further discloses an input unit (ref. 32) appears to contain conventional buttons (¶ [0012] “control the button for editing the laundry list…user can easily select and change the course) and rotary knob such to enable selection of information displayed on the display. Here, the use of “sequential inputs by the user” is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the use of washing machines whether by use of the buttons or the rotary knobs plus a selection press/button.
Chang further discloses “subdivide the laundry list frequently used or required by the user” (¶ [0012], as such, the user selection may be “based on a number of times the washing mode was previously selected”, i.e. frequently used).
Chang does not explicitly disclose in the editing mode, simultaneously display a plurality of, but not all of, washing mode of the washing machine; and after the editing mode has ended, to sequentially display, only one at a time, each washing mode included in the washing mode list; and with a washing mode included in the washing mode list that was most frequently selected by the user being positioned first in the washing mode list and, in response to more than one washing mode included in the washing mode list being the most frequently selected by the user by being selected a same number of times, a washing mode that was last selected by the user of the more than one washing mode being positioned first in the washing mode list and the other washing modes of the more than one washing mode being sequentially positioned in the washing mode list after the washing mode that was last selected in order of recency of selection; and such that each washing option of the washing options that has been modified from a default option by equal or more than a predetermined number of times for the washing mode is displayed as the modified washing option and each washing option of the washing options that has not been modified from a default option by equal or more than the predetermined number of times is displayed as the default option, as claimed.
Regarding sequentially display, one at a time, Coffman discloses it is known in the washing machine user interface art (abstract) to provide an editing mode (¶ [0106] Edit Favorites icon (not shown)…, one or more options or commends may be presented on the display portion 200 for being selected by the user in response to which one or more of the favorite wash cycles (and their associated icons) are cleared or deleted from the saved group of favorite wash cycles), to sequentially display, one at a time, each washing mode included in the washing mode list (see e.g. figs. 2-4, 9 and 27-28, each sequential touch will sequentially display/highlight one washing mode and it’s detail; and as seen in fig. 27-28 the “favorites” list is customizable/editable).
Examiner notes that in regards to the “editing mode”, Coffman further in general discloses it is known in the user interface art to simultaneously display, a plurality of, but not all of, washing mode of the washing machine (see figs. 2-4 and 6 showing a plurality of cycles/modes, but not entirety of available cycles/modes and require horizontal scrolling by touch fig. 6 or edge scrolling figs. 2-3). As such, although Coffman does not explicitly disclose how it’s editing mode is structured, Examiner considers the use of a partial list when in editing mode, as opposed to showing the entire list as seen in Chang to be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of user interface design, in order to enable sufficient viewing size for each washing mode.
Nonetheless, regarding the editing mode and “only one at a time”, Examiner explicitly cites Garmin Instinct Tutorials for teaching it is known in the user interface selection art, to provide “widgets” (Garmin’s equivalent to a quick select/favorites menu) that are displayed “only one at a time” (Timestamp 0:12 to 0:24) and during an editing mode/Add Widget mode displays a plurality of, but not all of, the widgets of the device are simultaneously displayed in the sequence (Timestamp 1:03 to 1:25).
PNG
media_image1.png
964
1446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
952
1446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Add Widget / Editing Mode above showing 2 or 3 widgets for adding/editing/removing but not all available widgets.
PNG
media_image3.png
954
1458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
952
1454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
944
1448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Widget sequentially displayed After Editing Mode above, showing only one widget at a time.
Regarding ordering by “most frequently selected”, Baier discloses it is well-known in the washing machine interface art (abstract) to provide with a washing mode included in the washing mode list that was most frequently selected by the user being positioned first in the washing mode list (the most frequently selected option ( 17 . 117 . 217 ) or operating parameter is displayed first or lifted out for a selection by an operator, see Claims) and, in response to more than one washing mode included in the washing mode list being the most frequently selected by the user by being selected a same number of times, a washing mode that was last selected by the user of the more than one washing mode being positioned first in the washing mode list and the other washing modes of the more than one washing mode being sequentially positioned in the washing mode list after the washing mode that was last selected in order of recency of selection (recent choices are more heavily weight, so for the scenario of same number of times, the newer choices will be weighted to the front and the older choices will be weighted to the back, see “older choices are less are heavily weighted as recent choices since these rather correspond to the current selection behavior of the operator”; see also “You can also yet with a further weighting by the time of selection a choice be provided. This means that older choices are less are heavily weighted as recent choices since these rather correspond to the current selection behavior of the operator. The difference may be, for example, a factor of 1.5 and 3. As a result, an adaptation to a changed user behavior can be achieved become.”).
Regarding “modified washing option….default option”, Huang discloses it is well-known in the washing machine interface art (abstract) to provide displaying options such that each washing option of the washing options that has been modified from a default option by equal or more than a predetermined number of times for the washing mode is displayed as the modified washing option (abstract, “counting the historical washing parameter values input by the user, and determines the washing parameter value with the largest number of repetitions as the default washing parameter”) and each washing option of the washing options that has not been modified from a default option by equal or more than the predetermined number of times is displayed as the default option (“the parameters of the washing program will be displayed by default according to the factory parameters”).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Chang to further sequentially display, one at a time, as suggested by Coffman, in order to provide larger visual icons and additional detailed information for each selectable washing mode; and to further modify the editing mode to display a plurality of, but not all of, washing modes, as suggested by both Coffman and Garmin Instinct Tutorial, in order to enable customization of a menu list with reasonably sized selection icon display but too many to display all at once on limited display space; and to further modify the after editing mode to display only one washing mode at a time, as suggested by Garmin Instinct Tutorial, in order to maximize display space for each icon/mode; and to further modify the menu list to display the most frequently selected mode first, as suggested by Baier, in order to provide a very user-friendly and easy-to-understand selection possible; and to modify the washing options to further display a modified washing option based on a predetermined number of times of modification, as shown by Huang, in order to improve convenience of washing parameter setting and reduce manual setting based on historical use. It being simply a matter of obvious engineering design choice to choose different icon sizes and enabling scrolling for additional display of the list.
Re claim 3, Chang further discloses communication circuitry configured to communicate with an external server, wherein the plurality of washing modes includes a washing mode downloaded to the washing machine from the external server through the communication circuitry (¶ [0012] “a customized laundry program on an Internet server is disclosed in which a laundry program optimized for preferences is downloaded through the Internet”).
Re claim 5, Regarding “wherein the inputter includes: a first inputter operable by a user to power on the washing machine, a second inputter operable by a user to select at least one washing mode among the plurality of washing modes that are currently being displayed by the display in the editing mode, and to deselect at least one washing mode among the plurality of washing modes that are currently being displayed by the display in the editing mode, and a third inputter operable by a user to start a washing mode displayed by the display after the editing mode has ended, wherein the first inputter, the second inputter, and the third inputter are each centered on a horizontal line”, Chang discloses a plurality of inputters centered on a horizontal line (see fig. 1 ref. 32). Here, the rearrangement of the power button (S100), the touchscreen (s124, s126, s128) and the “Laundry by theme” menu in the provided initial screen (s104) all centered on a horizontal line is a simple aesthetic design choice or rearrangement of parts, for the purpose of space utilization and ease of access, e.g. left to right selection mechanism. See MPEP 2144.06(VI)(C) and 2144.04(I). See also displays as shown by Coffman figs. 2-9.
Re claim 9, Independent claim 9 reads as a combination of limitations rejected above except as to “without displaying washing options” in editing mode. Here, Coffman and Garmin Instinct Tutorial have displays without the details of washing options/details of the selection icon (Coffman see fig. 6 with slider bar showing only the name and icon for each washing mode or Fig. 5 only icon, and it further being simply obvious to omit display information, if the display information is not desired, e.g. details are not necessary during editing a menu because it takes up additional screen space or confuses the interface with too much detail; Garmin Instinct Tutorial in editing mode only shows text field and not additional information).
Re claim 10, Regarding “wherein the display includes a first display area configured to display a washing mode, and a second display area configured to display washing options”, Coffman discloses the first display area and second display area, as claimed (see figures 2-4 and 9, see annotated fig. 2 below as example).
PNG
media_image6.png
302
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part and not persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown in the rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to Chang, Coffman, Garmen Instinct Tutorials, Examiner notes applicant's arguments are against the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Examiner finds it prima facie obvious to modify Coffman’s enlarged icon to full-screen icon (after editing, i.e. the main/favorite screen) and that Garmin Instinct Tutorials explicitly teaches a full-screen icon (after editing, i.e. the main/favorite screen). Here, Baier is cited for the ordering of a menu based on historical frequency of use.
In response to Applicant’s argument as to Baier, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As quoted by Applicant “The individual options 17 the menu items 16 to 2 may be ordered by frequency but need not. The most frequently selected so far are marked by frames” (emphasis added). That is, Applicant’s cited embodiment of “marked by frames” is the “need not” without order of frequency (see immediately previous paragraph “It does not yet contain the inventive concept of the arrangement or order of frequency”; see also “Task and Solution…Choices, that belong to a category, ie out of those during selected an operating step will, can displayed changeable on the display, be lifted out or changed in their order”, here frames is lifted out/displayed first, whereas order is a separate change in display). Examiner notes that Baier provides separate description for Applicant’s argued shown embodiments, e.g. “the most common so far elected choice is then displayed first or highlighted”, “displayed as the first or preferred option on the display and thus offered for selection”, and “the first or lifted out illustrated option be selected by operating exactly one control element”. Whereas “order” is in addition to said embodiment (“In Another embodiment of the invention is 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” (emphasis added).
Regarding the newly amended language “the other washing modes of the more than one washing mode being sequential positioned in the washing mode list after the washing mode that was last selected in order of recency of selection”, Examiner highlights that this is exactly what Bauer contemplates by weighting by the time of selection (“Of further it is possible not just to count the number of previous selections. You can also yet with a further weighting by the time of selection a choice be provided. This means that older choices are less are heavily weighted as recent choices since these rather correspond to the current selection behavior of the operator. The difference may be, for example, a factor of 1.5 and 3. As a result, an adaptation to a changed user behavior can be achieved become.”) That is, in the scenario claimed by Applicant with the same number of time/frequency, the weighting by time of Baier equates to the same function of weighting by recency of selection, resulting in the sequential ordering as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210156068 A1 note weighting of washing course options by recency of selection.
KR 20080079912 A note course ordering by frequency and recency.
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