DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 371 to PCT/KR2023/015318 (filing date 10/05/2023) and under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2022-0134762 (filling date 10/19/2022). Certified copy of the foreign priority application has been filed with this application on 12/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025, 01/07/2025 and 11/08/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 04/11/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. A concise explanation of the relevance has not been provided for Non-patent Literature Document titled “Written Opinion dated January 22, 2024 issued by the International Searching Authority in International Application No. PCT/KR2023/015318”.
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 1-20 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; and at least one processor configured to: obtain identification information of an object, control the communication interface to obtain operation-related information of a household appliance. Limitation directed to processor 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)).
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; and at least one processor configured to: obtain identification information of an object, control the communication interface to obtain operation-related information of a household appliance. Limitation directed to processor 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)).
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 wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: 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, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to 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, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to 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, wherein the at least one processor is further configured 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.. 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 6 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 6 further recites, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based on the mapped setting information being included in the identification information, control the communication interface to transmit, to the household appliance, a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. This claim 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 7 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 7 further recites, further comprising a display, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to 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 of the object, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: 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. 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, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to 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 an first image of the object, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control the camera to capture a second 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. With regards to wherein the input information related to the object comprises an 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 11 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 11 further recites, further comprising a display, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to 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 12 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 12 further recites, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to 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 wherein the at least one processor is further configured 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. 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, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to 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 18 depends on claim 15 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 15. Claim 18 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 6.
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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Lee (US20210363680A1)
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)
at least one processor configured 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.)
control the communication interface to obtain operation-related information of a household appliance, and (¶0185-¶0186 teaches extracting laundry course from the database 400)
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.)
Regarding claim 2,
Lee teaches, The electronic device of claim 1,
wherein the selected setting information comprises at least one piece of setting information, and (¶0190 teaches laundry course)
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
obtain input information related to the object, and (¶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. (¶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 teaches, The electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to obtain pieces of identification information of a plurality of objects including the object, (¶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. (¶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 teaches, The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the common information mapped to the pieces of identification information of the plurality of objects and output the identified common information. (¶0185 teaches extracting one laundry course based on a plurality of pieces of laundry information corresponding to the plurality of regions)
Regarding claim 6,
Lee teaches, The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based on the mapped setting information being included in the identification information, control the communication interface to transmit, to the household appliance, a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. (¶0163 teaches, The controller 270 may control the washing machine 100 a according to any one of a laundry course that is automatically extracted by the processor.¶0204 teaches, The controller 270 may include a communication module configured to communicate with the washing machine 100 a and also teaches, control information may be displayed directly on the washing machine 100 a using the communication module or may be transmitted to the mobile device 300 of the user, and the washing machine 100 a may also be controlled through a driving module)
Regarding claim 7,
Lee teaches, The electronic device of claim 2, further comprising a display, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to display the mapped setting information and the mapped input information. (¶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 or displaying this on the washing machine 100 a.)
Regarding claim 9,
Lee teaches, The electronic device of claim 2, further comprising a camera, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the camera to obtain the identification information of the object. (¶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 11,
Lee teaches, The electronic device of claim 2, further comprising a display, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to display the mapped setting information and the mapped input information. (¶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 or displaying this on the washing machine 100 a.)
Regarding claim 13,
Lee teaches, The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the operation-related information of the household appliance comprises component information, and (¶0152 teaches comparing laundry information with laundry course. Therefore laundry course comprises laundry information)
wherein the at least one processor is further configured 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 teaches, The electronic device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the component information of the object using the trained neural network model based on the identification information of the object. (¶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.)
receiving operation-related information of a household appliance; and (¶0185-¶0186 teaches extracting laundry course from the database 400)
mapping 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.)
Regarding claim 16,
Lee teaches, The method of claim 15, wherein the selected setting information comprises at least one piece of setting information, and (¶0190 teaches laundry course)
wherein the method further comprises: obtaining input information related to the object, and (¶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. (¶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 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 (¶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. (¶0185 teaches extracting one laundry course based on a plurality of pieces of laundry information corresponding to the plurality of regions)
Regarding claim 18,
Lee teaches, The method of claim 15, further comprising: based on the identification information including the mapped setting information, transmitting, to the household appliance, a command to perform an operation corresponding to the mapped setting information. (¶0163 teaches, The controller 270 may control the washing machine 100 a according to any one of a laundry course that is automatically extracted by the processor.¶0204 teaches, The controller 270 may include a communication module configured to communicate with the washing machine 100 a and also teaches, control information may be displayed directly on the washing machine 100 a using the communication module or may be transmitted to the mobile device 300 of the user, and the washing machine 100 a may also be controlled through a driving module)
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.)
receiving operation-related information of a household appliance; and (¶0185-¶0186 teaches extracting laundry course from the database 400)
mapping 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.)
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of Hwang (US20190385017A1)
Regarding claim 5,
Lee doesn’t teach, The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured 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 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. 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) 8, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210363680A1) in view of SHI (US20240361750A1)
Regarding claim 8,
Lee doesn’t teach, The electronic device of claim 7, wherein the input information related to the object comprises an image of 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 at least one processor is further configured to: 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. (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 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. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so not only considers historical washing informations 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 10,
Lee doesn’t teach, The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the input information related to the object comprises an first image of 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 at least one processor is further configured to: control the camera to capture a second image of 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 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. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so not only considers historical washing informations 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 doesn’t teach, The method of claim 16, wherein the input information related to the object comprises an image of 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 of 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 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. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so not only considers historical washing informations 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 Bixby (US20240125030A1)
Regarding claim 12,
Lee doesn’t teach, The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured 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. For example, depending on article type (e.g., a non-season-specific worn article) the threshold period of time can be a single season (e.g., approximately 3 months). In examples, the threshold period of time is a range of about 1 to three months. In examples, for an article of a type worn specifically in a particular season, the threshold period of time is greater than one season beyond one year from the last date of detection stored in the at least one memory for that article.)
Bixby is an art in the area of interest as it relates to residential loads of laundry. A combination of Bixby with Lee 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. 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
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116