DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/14/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 with regards to rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in page 11 of the remarks argues, “As amended, the independent claims clarify that the present invention does not merely involve simple information processing, but rather includes a specific processing flow in which identification information and setting information are associated, and when the identification information is subsequently obtained, an operation of the household appliance is controlled based on the corresponding setting information. This processing flow has the technical effect of enabling the reuse of user settings without requiring repeated input, thereby improving user experience and efficiency.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For a claim to provide improvement to a technology or technical field, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement, the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement in technology and the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). In the instant application, the claims are directed to a generic electronic device using information recited in generic terms (e.g. identification information. setting information) to control a generic household appliance. The claim does not meaningfully identify a particular technical field to provide any improvement to the technical field. Therefore, applicant’s argument reading the claim providing an improvement is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1)
Applicant in page 12-13 argues, “Further, independent claims 1, 15, and 20 have been amended to clarify that the "operation-related information" is information "of a household appliance external to the electronic device, the operation-related information being obtained from the household appliance .... " Applicant submits that, while Lee may recognize laundry information and internally extract a laundry course based on the recognized information, Lee does not disclose an operation of obtaining operation-related information from a household appliance,”
Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1) and further in view of Yoon (US20210165377A1)
Applicant in page 13 argues, “However, the claims recite a display of the claimed device, not a display of the "household appliance". Lee does not disclose display of "the mapped setting information and the mapped input information" on a display of the device communicating with the appliance, and the other cited references to not cure this deficiency of Lee
Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1) and further in view of Yoon (US20210165377A1).
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 with regards to rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in part, “Applicant submits that the cited portion of Bixby appears to disclose deletion of information analogous to the "identification information" (i.e., images of the object), not the "mapped setting information". For at least this additional reason, the rejection of claim 12 should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bixby in ¶0219 teaches, deletion of a database entry comprising at least one of one or more images 306, 306a-n and associated image data 610, 610a-n and ¶0198 teaches, data 610, 610a-n includes washing parameters (e.g., temperature, agitation level, extra rinse, etc.). Therefore, it teaches deleting setting information (i.e. washing parameters (e.g., temperature, agitation level, extra rinse, etc.))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-5, 7-10, 12-17, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a device. With regards to claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s), map setting information selected from among the operation-related information of the household appliance to the identification information of the object. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a processor. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim recites map setting information selected from among the operation-related information of the household appliance to the identification information of the object. Without any specific limitation narrowing the generation process of the mapping, a human mind is capable of mapping setting information to identification information of an object. The mere nominal recitation of a processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim recites additional elements directed to, a communication interface; memory storing instructions; and at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: obtain identification information of an object, control the communication interface to obtain operation-related information of a household appliance external to the electronic device, the operation-related information being obtained from the household appliance: and based on obtaining the identification information after mapping the selected setting information to the identification information, control the household appliance, through the communication interface, to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information.. Limitation directed to processor, memory and communication interface amounts to simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2). Limitation directed to obtaining identification information and obtain operation-related information, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Limitation directed to, based on obtaining the identification information after mapping the selected setting information to the identification information, control the household appliance, through the communication interface, to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information, does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely recites the effect of the judicial but does not recite how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. For example, the limitation is directed to using information recited in generic terms “identification information”, “setting information”, to control a generic household appliance. This does not provide any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and amounts to a mere instructions to implement an abstract idea. Therefore, this limitation does not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites additional elements directed to, a communication interface; memory storing instructions; and at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: obtain identification information of an object, control the communication interface to obtain operation-related information of a household appliance external to the electronic device, the operation-related information being obtained from the household appliance: and based on obtaining the identification information after mapping the selected setting information to the identification information, control the household appliance, through the communication interface, to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. Limitation directed to processor, memory and communication interface amounts to simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2). Limitation directed to obtaining identification information and obtain operation-related information, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Limitation directed to, based on obtaining the identification information after mapping the selected setting information to the identification information, control the household appliance, through the communication interface, to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information, does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely recites the effect of the judicial but does not recite how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. For example, the limitation is directed to using information recited in generic terms “identification information”, “setting information”, to control a generic household appliance. This does not provide any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and amounts to a mere instructions to implement an abstract idea. Therefore, this limitation does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 2 further recites, wherein the selected setting information comprises at least one piece of setting information, and obtain input information related to the object, and map the input information related to the object and the at least one piece of setting information to the identification information of the object. Limitations directed to wherein the selected setting information comprises at least one piece of setting information, is an expansion of the abstract idea of claim 1. That is, human mind is capable of mapping setting information that comprises at least one piece of setting information to an identification information. Similarly, with regards to, “map the input information related to the object and the at least one piece of setting information to the identification information of the object.”, human mind is capable of mapping input information and at least one piece of setting information to identification information. with regards to obtain input information related to the object, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 3 further recites, obtain pieces of identification information of a plurality of objects including the object, and map the selected setting information as common information to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects. Limitations directed to map the selected setting information as common information to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a processor. That is, human mind is capable of mapping setting information as common information to the pieces of identification information. with regards to obtain pieces of identification information of a plurality of objects including the object, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 4 further recites, identify the common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects and output the identified common information. Limitations directed to identify the common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a processor. That is, human mind is capable of identifying the common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects. with regards to output the identified common information, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data outputting and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found outputting data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 5 further recites, based on an absence of common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects, output a message inquiring whether to register common information. Limitations directed to an absence of common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a processor. That is, human mind is capable of determining whether common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects is absent. With regards to output a message inquiring whether to register common information, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data outputting and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found outputting data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 7 further recites, further comprising a display, and display, on the display, the mapped setting information and the mapped input information. This limitation is directed to using a display to display the result of the abstract idea (i.e. mapped setting information and mapped input information). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity (a display displaying data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) (2))
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 8 further recites, wherein the input information related to the object comprises an image corresponding to the object, and based on selection of the image corresponding to object from among the mapped input information and the mapped setting information, control the communication interface to transmit, to the household appliance, a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. With regards to wherein the input information related to the object comprises an image of the object, this limitation merely limits the data received as input information in claim 1 to an image, which is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). With regards to, selection of the image of the object from among the mapped input information and the mapped setting information, this limitation is directed to a mental process as human mind is capable of selecting an images based on some information. With regards to control the communication interface to transmit, to the household appliance, a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to outputting a command, without any limit on the nature of the household appliance and nature of the operation to be performed in response to the command. Therefore, this claim is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found outputting data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 9 further recites, The electronic device of claim 2, further comprising a camera, and control the camera to obtain the identification information of the object. This limitation is directed to using a camera to obtain information of the object and invokes the camera merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity (e.g. a camera obtaining information) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) (2))
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 10 further recites, wherein the input information related to the object comprises a first image corresponding to the object, and control the camera to capture a second image corresponding to the object, and based on matching the second image with the first image, control the communication interface to transmit a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. With regards to wherein the input information related to the object comprises a first image of the object, this limitation merely limits the data received as input information in claim 1 to an image, which is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). With regards to control the camera to capture a second image of the object, this limitation is directed to using a camera to obtain information of the object and invokes the camera merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity (e.g. a camera obtaining information) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)). With regards to matching the second image with the first image, this limitation is directed to mental process as human mind is capable of matching two images. With regards to control the communication interface to transmit a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to outputting a command, without any limit on the nature of the operation to be performed in response to the command. Therefore, this claim is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found outputting data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 12 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 12 further recites, delete the mapped setting information a predetermined amount of time after the mapped setting information is mapped to the identification information. This limitation is directed to deleting information after predetermined amount of time. This limitation is directed to a mental process as human mind is capable of deleting information after a predetermined amount of time. Merely performing the function in a computer environment does not negate the mental nature of the limitation. Therefore, the claim is directed to a mental process grouping of abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C))
Claim 13 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 13 further recites, wherein the operation-related information of the household appliance comprises component information, and train a neural network model to identify the component information based on the operation-related information of the household appliance and the mapped setting information and the mapped input information. With regards to wherein the operation-related information of the household appliance comprises component information, this limitation merely limits the data received as operation-related information in claim 1 to specific type of information, which is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). With regards to train a neural network model to identify the component information based on the operation-related information of the household appliance and the mapped setting information and the mapped input information, this limitation is directed to using training a neural network to achieve an outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. This limitation amounts to a mere instruction to apply an exception and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 14 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 14 further recites, identify the component information of the object using the trained neural network model based on the identification information of the object. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a neural network. That is, human mind is capable of identifying the component information of the object based on the identification information of the object. Using the neural network to perform the process amounts to invoking a computer component as a tool to perform an existing process. Simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.(See 2106.05(f))
Claim 15 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method. Claim 15 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 15. Claim 16 recites similar limitation as claim 2 above and is therefore also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 17 depends on claim 15 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 15. Claim 17 recites similar limitation as claim 3 above and is therefore also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 19 depends on claim 15 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 15. Claim 19 recites similar limitation as claim 6 above and is therefore also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons as claim 8.
Claim 20 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system/machine. Claim 20 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 1. Claim 20 recites, additional limitation directed to “A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute a method of controlling an electronic device, the method comprising:”. These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 21 depends on claim 15 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 15. Claim 21 recites similar limitation as claim 4 above and is therefore also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 22 depends on claim 15 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 15. Claim 21 recites similar limitation as claim 9 above and is therefore also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 23 depends on claim 15 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 15. Claim 21 recites similar limitation as claim 10 above and is therefore also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons as claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 13-17 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1)
Regarding claim 1,
Lee teaches, An electronic device comprising:
a communication interface; and (¶0140-¶0141 teaches AI-based laundry course recommending apparatus 200 a which includes a communication unit 210)
memory storing instructions; (¶0140 teaches, a memory 230)
at least one processor wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: obtain identification information of an object, (¶0176 teaches, receiving at least one still image or video image indicating the type and material of the laundry.)
map setting information selected from among the operation-related information of the household appliance to the identification information of the object. (¶0181 teaches acquiring laundry information from the images and ¶0190 teaches, applying a score to suitability between laundry information and the laundry course, and extracting a laundry course with the highest score.)
based on obtaining the identification information after mapping the selected setting information to the identification information, control the household appliance, through the communication interface, to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. (¶0163 teaches, The controller 270 (of AI-based laundry course recommending apparatus) may control the washing machine 100 a according to any one of a laundry course that is automatically extracted by the processor. ¶0141 teaches, The AI-based laundry course recommending apparatus 200 a may correspond to an example of the AI server 200 described above with reference to FIG. 2)
Lee doesn’t explicitly teach, control the communication interface to obtain operation-related information of a household appliance external to the electronic device, the operation-related information being obtained from the household appliance, (Lee in ¶0152 teaches, laundry course pre-input by a user. However, it doesn’t teach receiving laundry course from the household appliance. Kim in ¶0056 teaches management server 300 receives washing course information from the washing apparatus)
Kim is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a method and device for guiding a washing course. A combination of Kim with Lee would allow receiving laundry course from the household appliance. Receiving laundry course from the washer is known in the art as evident by Kim in ¶0056. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the laundry system of Lee the ability to receive laundry course from the washer as taught by Kim since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
Lee and Kim teaches, The electronic device of claim 1,
wherein the selected setting information comprises at least one piece of setting information, and (Lee in ¶0190 teaches laundry course)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively further cause the electronic device to: obtain input information related to the object, and (Lee in ¶0156 teaches obtaining laundry data from input by a user)
map the input information related to the object and the at least one piece of setting information to the identification information of the object. (Lee in ¶0152 teaches, The processor may compare a plurality of pieces of laundry information, with laundry data and laundry course and may extract a laundry course of the at least one laundry.)
Regarding claim 3,
Lee and Kim teaches, The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to obtain pieces of identification information of a plurality of objects including the object, (Lee in ¶0178 teaches acquiring a plurality of images of a plurality of regions. ¶0182-¶0184 teaches classifying laundries based on images.)
and map the selected setting information as common information to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects. (Lee in ¶0185 teaches extracting one laundry course based on a plurality of pieces of laundry information corresponding to the plurality of regions)
Regarding claim 4,
Lee and Kim teaches, The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to identify the common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects and output the identified common information. (Lee in ¶0185 teaches extracting one laundry course based on a plurality of pieces of laundry information corresponding to the plurality of regions)
Regarding claim 9,
Lee and Kim teaches, The electronic device of claim 2, further comprising a camera, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: control the camera to obtain the identification information of the object. (Lee in ¶0177 teaches, At least one camera 221 may be installed, and the camera 221 may acquire a plurality of images in order to acquire an image for identifying laundry)
Regarding claim 13,
Lee and Kim teaches, The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the operation-related information of the household appliance comprises component information, and (Lee in ¶0152 teaches comparing laundry information with laundry course. Therefore, laundry course comprises laundry information)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to train a neural network model to identify the component information based on the operation-related information of the household appliance and the mapped setting information and the mapped input information. (¶0159 teaches inferring laundry information through a convolutional neural network. ¶0160 teaches, The convolutional neural network (CNN) is learning based recognition technology)
Regarding claim 14,
Lee and Kim teaches, The electronic device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to identify the component information of the object using the trained neural network model based on the identification information of the object. (Lee in ¶0159 teaches, The processor may extract the plurality of regions from the image, may infer the laundry information through a convolutional neural network (CNN) of the laundry distributed on the plurality of regions, and may extract a pre-learned laundry course corresponding to the laundry information)
Regarding claim 15,
Lee teaches, A method of controlling an electronic device, the method comprising:
obtaining identification information of an object; (¶0176 teaches, receiving at least one still image or video image indicating the type and material of the laundry.)
mapping setting information selected from among the operation-related information of the household appliance to the identification information of the object; and (¶0181 teaches acquiring laundry information from the images and ¶0190 teaches, applying a score to suitability between laundry information and the laundry course, and extracting a laundry course with the highest score.)
based on obtaining the identification information after mapping the selected setting information to the identification information, controlling the household appliance to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. (¶0163 teaches, The controller 270 (of AI-based laundry course recommending apparatus) may control the washing machine 100 a according to any one of a laundry course that is automatically extracted by the processor. ¶0141 teaches, The AI-based laundry course recommending apparatus 200 a may correspond to an example of the AI server 200 described above with reference to FIG. 2)
Lee doesn’t explicitly teach, receiving operation-related information of a household appliance external to the electronic device, the operation-related information being obtained from the household appliance; (Lee in ¶0152 teaches, laundry course pre-input by a user. However, it doesn’t teach receiving laundry course from the household appliance. Kim in ¶0056 teaches management server 300 receives washing course information from the washing apparatus)
Kim is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a method and device for guiding a washing course. A combination of Kim with Lee would allow receiving laundry course from the household appliance. Receiving laundry course from the washer is known in the art as evident by Kim in ¶0056. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the laundry system of Lee the ability to receive laundry course from the washer as taught by Kim since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16,
Lee and Kim teaches, The method of claim 15, wherein the selected setting information comprises at least one piece of setting information, and (Lee in ¶0190 teaches laundry course)
wherein the method further comprises: obtaining input information related to the object, and (Lee in ¶0156 teaches obtaining laundry data from input by a user)
mapping the input information related to the object and the at least one piece of setting information to the identification information of the object. (Lee in ¶0152 teaches, The processor may compare a plurality of pieces of laundry information, with laundry data and laundry course and may extract a laundry course of the at least one laundry.)
Regarding claim 17,
Lee and Kim teaches, The method of The method of 15, wherein the obtaining the identification information further comprises obtaining pieces of identification information of a plurality of objects including the object, and (Lee in ¶0178 teaches acquiring a plurality of images of a plurality of regions. ¶0182-¶0184 teaches classifying laundries based on images.)
wherein the mapping the setting information further comprises mapping the selected setting information as common information to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects. (Lee in ¶0185 teaches extracting one laundry course based on a plurality of pieces of laundry information corresponding to the plurality of regions)
Regarding claim 20,
Lee teaches, A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute a method of controlling an electronic device, the method comprising: (¶0140 teaches a AI-based laundry course recommending apparatus 200 a including memory 230 a and processor 260 a)
obtaining identification information of an object; (¶0176 teaches, receiving at least one still image or video image indicating the type and material of the laundry.)
mapping setting information selected from among the operation-related information of the household appliance to the identification information of the object; and (¶0181 teaches acquiring laundry information from the images and ¶0190 teaches, applying a score to suitability between laundry information and the laundry course, and extracting a laundry course with the highest score.)
based on obtaining the identification information after mapping the selected setting information to the identification information, controlling the household appliance to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. (¶0163 teaches, The controller 270 (of AI-based laundry course recommending apparatus) may control the washing machine 100 a according to any one of a laundry course that is automatically extracted by the processor. ¶0141 teaches, The AI-based laundry course recommending apparatus 200 a may correspond to an example of the AI server 200 described above with reference to FIG. 2)
Lee doesn’t explicitly teach, receiving operation-related information of a household appliance external to the electronic device, the operation-related information being obtained from the household appliance; (Lee in ¶0152 teaches, laundry course pre-input by a user. However, it doesn’t teach receiving laundry course from the household appliance. Kim in ¶0056 teaches management server 300 receives washing course information from the washing apparatus)
Kim is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a method and device for guiding a washing course. A combination of Kim with Lee would allow receiving laundry course from the household appliance. Receiving laundry course from the washer is known in the art as evident by Kim in ¶0056. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the laundry system of Lee the ability to receive laundry course from the washer as taught by Kim since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 21,
Lee and Kim teaches, The method of claim 17, wherein the method further comprises: identifying the common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects; and outputting the identified common information. (Lee in ¶0185 teaches extracting one laundry course based on a plurality of pieces of laundry information corresponding to the plurality of regions)
Regarding Claim 22,
Lee and Kim teaches, The method of claim 16, wherein the obtaining identification information of the object comprises: controlling a camera of the electronic device to obtain the identification information of the object. (Lee in ¶0177 teaches, At least one camera 221 may be installed, and the camera 221 may acquire a plurality of images in order to acquire an image for identifying laundry)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1) and further in view of Hwang (US20190385017A1)
Regarding claim 5,
Lee and Kim doesn’t teach, The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, is further cause the electronic device to, based on an absence of common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects, output a message inquiring whether to register common information. (Hwang in ¶0250 teaches, when there is no learning result, the appliance may notify the user of the absence of learning result. When the appliance is to wash new clothing that was not previously washed, there will be no corresponding learning results. Thus, in this case, the user may be aware that the clothing managing apparatus intends to receive new information for learning. ¶0251 teaches, When there is no learning result, the appliance may not only notify the user of the absence of learning result, but also guide the user to input treatment information or suggest similar treatment information to the user.)
Hwang is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a clothing management apparatus (see Abstract). A combination of Hwang with Lee and Kim would teach, , based on an absence of common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects, output a message inquiring whether to register common information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Hwang with Lee and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so because would allow the system to learn and evolve to perform the learning-based setting mode, as taught by Hwang in ¶0255.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1) and further in view of Yoon (US20210165377A1)
Regarding claim 7,
Lee and Kim doesn’t explicitly teach, The electronic device of claim 2, further comprising a display, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively further cause the electronic device to control the display, on the display, to display the mapped setting information and the mapped input information. (Lee in ¶0195 teaches, The operation of extracting the laundry course with the highest score may be a procedure of extracting the laundry course with the highest score and notifying a user of this. However, it doesn’t teach displaying on an electronic device external to the household appliance. Yoon in ¶0212-¶0214 teaches, When the cloud server 200 creates a recommended washing course, the recommended washing course is provided to the user terminal 100. Subsequently, the display unit 151 of the user terminal 100 displays the details of the recommended washing course)
Yoon is an art in the area of interest as it relates to controlling a commercial washing machine (see ¶0002). A combination of Yoon with Lee and Kim would allow displaying the mapped information to an electronic device external to the household appliance. Displaying recommended washing setting on an electronic device external to the household appliance is known in the art as evident by Yoon in ¶0212-¶0214. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the laundry system of Lee and Kim the ability to display information on an electronic device external to the household appliance, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would provide improved user experience.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1) and further in view of Yoon (US20210165377A1) and further in view of SHI (US20240361750A1)
Regarding claim 8,
Lee, Kim and Yoon doesn’t teach, The electronic device of claim 7, wherein the input information related to the object comprises an image corresponding to the object, and (SHI in ¶0048 teaches, The clothing image database stores historical clothing images, historical clothing attributes, and historical washing data. The historical clothing attributes include colors, materials, and types of clothing. The historical washing data includes historical washing times and historical color depths)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: based on selection of the image corresponding to the object from among the mapped input information and the mapped setting information, control the communication interface to transmit, to the household appliance, a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. (SHI in ¶0151-¶0156 teaches, obtaining a second subject image of the current clothing by preprocessing the current clothing image, comparing, by the server, the second subject image with historical clothing images stored in the clothing image database, judging, by the server, whether the current clothing is one of historical clothing according to the comparison result and determining, by the server, the washing and care procedure according to the attribute information and historical washing data of the current clothing if the current clothing is one of historical washed clothing, and sending the washing and care procedure to the household device)
SHI is an art in the area of interest as it relates to recommending a washing and care procedure of clothing (see Abstract). A combination of SHI with Lee, Kim and Yoon would allow the input laundry data to include image of the object and based on selection of the image of the object from among the mapped input information and the mapped setting information, control the communication interface to transmit, to the household appliance, a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of SHI with Lee, Kim and Yoon. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so not only considers historical washing information of the clothing, but also considers attributes of the clothing, so that the recommended washing and care procedure is more reasonable and accurate, as taught by SHI in ¶0027.
Claim(s) 10, 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1) and further in view of SHI (US20240361750A1)
Regarding claim 10,
Lee and Kim doesn’t teach, The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the input information related to the object comprises a first image corresponding to the object, and (SHI in ¶0048 teaches, The clothing image database stores historical clothing images, historical clothing attributes, and historical washing data. The historical clothing attributes include colors, materials, and types of clothing. The historical washing data includes historical washing times and historical color depths)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: control the camera to capture a second image corresponding to the object, and (SHI in ¶0152 teaches, obtaining a second subject image of the current clothing by preprocessing the current clothing image. ¶0046 teaches, Preferably, the household device 1 is provided with an image acquisition module which is configured to shoot the current clothing image. The image acquisition module may be, but is not limited to, a webcam, a camera)
based on matching the second image with the first image, control the communication interface to transmit a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. (SHI in ¶0151-¶0156 teaches, obtaining a second subject image of the current clothing by preprocessing the current clothing image, comparing, by the server, the second subject image with historical clothing images stored in the clothing image database, judging, by the server, whether the current clothing is one of historical clothing according to the comparison result and determining, by the server, the washing and care procedure according to the attribute information and historical washing data of the current clothing if the current clothing is one of historical washed clothing, and sending the washing and care procedure to the household device. ¶0050 teaches, Preferably, the household device 1 is capable of communicating with the server 2 through a wide area network, a local area network, WIFI, “WIFI+router connected to the Internet”, Bluetooth, ZIGBEE, NFC, 3G/4G/5G, etc.)
SHI is an art in the area of interest as it relates to recommending a washing and care procedure of clothing (see Abstract). A combination of SHI with Lee and Kim would allow the input laundry data to include image of the object and based on matching the second image with the first image, control the communication interface to transmit a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of SHI with Lee and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so not only considers historical washing information of the clothing, but also considers attributes of the clothing, so that the recommended washing and care procedure is more reasonable and accurate, as taught by SHI in ¶0027.
Regarding claim 19,
Lee and Kim doesn’t teach, The method of claim 15, wherein the input information related to the object comprises an image corresponding to the object, and (SHI in ¶0048 teaches, The clothing image database stores historical clothing images, historical clothing attributes, and historical washing data. The historical clothing attributes include colors, materials, and types of clothing. The historical washing data includes historical washing times and historical color depths)
wherein the method further comprises: based on selection of the image corresponding to the object from among the mapped input information and the mapped setting information, transmitting, to the household appliance, a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. (SHI in ¶0151-¶0156 teaches, obtaining a second subject image of the current clothing by preprocessing the current clothing image, comparing, by the server, the second subject image with historical clothing images stored in the clothing image database, judging, by the server, whether the current clothing is one of historical clothing according to the comparison result and determining, by the server, the washing and care procedure according to the attribute information and historical washing data of the current clothing if the current clothing is one of historical washed clothing, and sending the washing and care procedure to the household device)
SHI is an art in the area of interest as it relates to recommending a washing and care procedure of clothing (see Abstract). A combination of SHI with Lee and Kim would allow the input laundry data to include image of the object and based on selection of the image of the object from among the mapped input information and the mapped setting information, control the communication interface to transmit, to the household appliance, a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of SHI with Lee and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so not only considers historical washing information’s of the clothing, but also considers attributes of the clothing, so that the recommended washing and care procedure is more reasonable and accurate, as taught by SHI in ¶0027.
Regarding Claim 23,
Lee and Kim doesn’t teach, The method of claim 22, wherein the input information related to the object comprises a first image corresponding to the object, and wherein the method further comprises: (SHI in ¶0048 teaches, The clothing image database stores historical clothing images, historical clothing attributes, and historical washing data. The historical clothing attributes include colors, materials, and types of clothing. The historical washing data includes historical washing times and historical color depths)
controlling the camera to capture a second image corresponding to the object; (SHI in ¶0152 teaches, obtaining a second subject image of the current clothing by preprocessing the current clothing image. ¶0046 teaches, Preferably, the household device 1 is provided with an image acquisition module which is configured to shoot the current clothing image. The image acquisition module may be, but is not limited to, a webcam, a camera)
and based on matching the second image with the first image, transmitting a command to perform the operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. (SHI in ¶0151-¶0156 teaches, obtaining a second subject image of the current clothing by preprocessing the current clothing image, comparing, by the server, the second subject image with historical clothing images stored in the clothing image database, judging, by the server, whether the current clothing is one of historical clothing according to the comparison result and determining, by the server, the washing and care procedure according to the attribute information and historical washing data of the current clothing if the current clothing is one of historical washed clothing, and sending the washing and care procedure to the household device. ¶0050 teaches, Preferably, the household device 1 is capable of communicating with the server 2 through a wide area network, a local area network, WIFI, “WIFI+router connected to the Internet”, Bluetooth, ZIGBEE, NFC, 3G/4G/5G, etc.)
SHI is an art in the area of interest as it relates to recommending a washing and care procedure of clothing (see Abstract). A combination of SHI with Lee and Kim would allow the input laundry data to include image of the object and based on matching the second image with the first image, control the communication interface to transmit a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of SHI with Lee and Kim. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so not only considers historical washing information of the clothing, but also considers attributes of the clothing, so that the recommended washing and care procedure is more reasonable and accurate, as taught by SHI in ¶0027.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Kim (US20250198070A1) and further in view of Bixby (US20240125030A1)
Regarding claim 12,
Lee and Kim doesn’t teach, The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to delete the mapped setting information a predetermined amount of time after the mapped setting information is mapped to the identification information. (Bixby in ¶0219 teaches, the at least one controller 6005, 7005, 8005, 205 is further configured to push at least one of a visible, audible, and haptic prompt a remote user device 245, 246, 247 running the user interface 300 to confirm a suggested deletion of a database entry comprising at least one of one or more images 306, 306a-n and associated image data 610, 610a-n if the at least one sensor 7160, 7160a-n, 7709, 7709a-n, 7952, 7952a-n has not detected the laundry article 7300 in a threshold period of time. ¶0198 teaches, data 610, 610a-n includes washing parameters (e.g., temperature, agitation level, extra rinse, etc.))
Bixby is an art in the area of interest as it relates to residential loads of laundry. A combination of Bixby with Lee and Kim would teach, to delete the mapped setting information a predetermined amount of time after the mapped setting information is mapped to the identification information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Bixby with Lee and Kim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Bixby with Lee, because doing so would allow the system to delete information regarding clothing that user hasn’t worn for a specific period of time. This would ensure the memory isn’t storing unwanted or needed information.
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 ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights