DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Chapman’s conveyor does not move its cartridge bin 6 to be within the drum 5, rather the cartridge is shuttled via a conveyor and loaded into a drum 5 via a loading jack 14. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “at least one conveyor configured to move the receptacle from a first position to a second position that is within the chamber” is not so limited to require the conveyor to be the absolute sole means to move the receptacle; another means, such as a loading jack, can contribute to the moving that is primarily performed by the conveyor and still satisfy the limitation of the claim.
Applicant also asserts that Chapman does not disclose the subject matter of new claim 21, in particular that the receptacle is in the second position during both the first and second operations; Applicant states that Chapman discloses that the operations are conducted as separate washing and drying stations. However, Chapman does disclose that the second position is within the chamber 5 and that the first and second operations take place while the receptacle is within the chamber. If the chamber itself moves that does not change the interpretation of the second position being within the chamber. Alternately, the washing and drying stations collectively may be reasonably interpreted as the second position.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the objections to claims 2 and 9 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 11608578 granted to Chapman.
As to claim 1, Chapman discloses a system comprising a receptacle 6 including a sidewall with a plurality of openings (fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 22-27); a laundry device comprising a chamber 5, the device configured to perform, when laundry articles are contained in the receptacle and the receptacle is positioned in the chamber, a first operation that washes the articles and a second operation that dries the articles (figs. 2-4 and 7; col. 4, ll. 5-23); and a conveyor 4 to move the receptacle from a first position (e.g. at customer kiosk) to a second position that is within the chamber (e.g. at washing and drying stations), and from the second position to a third position (e.g. storage or retrieval station) (col. 3, ll. 42 – col. 4, ll. 37).
As to claim 2, Chapman discloses receiving a first indication that is indicative of an initiation of a laundry cycle (col. 3, ln. 45); controlling the conveyor to move the receptacle from the first position to the second position (col. 4, ln. 7); controlling the laundry device to perform the first operation (col. 4, ln. 14); controlling the laundry device to perform the second operation subsequent to the first operation (col. 4, ln. 23); and controlling the conveyor to move the receptacle from the second position to the third position (col. 4, ln. 36).
As to claim 3, Chapman discloses an input device from which the first indication is received (col. 4, ll. 41-45).
As to claim 4, Chapman discloses a second indication that is indicative of a completion of the laundry cycle (col. 4, ln. 52).
As to claim 6, Chapman discloses that the device is configured to agitate the articles during the first and second operations (col. 4, ll. 14, 23).
As to claim 21, Chapman discloses that the receptacle 6 is in the second position (i.e. within the chamber 5) during both the first and second operations (col. 4, ll. 5-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11608578 granted to Chapman in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230265599 by Rensing et al.
As to claim 7, Chapman does not teach a robotic device to fold articles. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the system taught by Chapman to have a folding robot. Rensing teaches a system for automated washing and drying of laundry articles, the system including a robotic device 7000 for folding articles after the articles have been cleaned (fig. 1). Rensing teaches that manual folding articles is a costly process as it requires human interaction (para. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system taught by Chapman to have a robotic device to fold articles at a third position in the system so that the articles can be folded without costly human interaction, as suggested by Rensing. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 8, Chapman does not teach a motor configured to drive an agitator to agitate articles in a receptacle in the third position. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to agitate articles in a third position. Rensing teaches that tumbling a drum or laundry articles until they can be removed helps reduce or avoid creation of fabric wrinkles (para. 148). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when receptacles containing laundry articles are stored in the storage area (i.e. third position) of Chapman they may be subject to wrinkling and would have been motivated to provide a motor configured to drive an agitator to agitate the laundry articles in the receptacle in order to prevent wrinkles, as suggested by Rensing. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 9, Chapman does not explicitly teach a second laundry device such that the conveyor is configured to move the receptacle from the first position (e.g. kiosk) to the second position (e.g. a first laundry device) or to a fourth position within the second chamber of the second laundry device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide a second laundry device in the system of Chapman. Rensing teaches a system for automated washing and drying of laundry articles, the system including a cluster 4002 of laundry devices 4000 that allow for simultaneous washing and drying of articles, the articles being conveyed from a single intake (i.e. first position) to a second position (i.e. a first device 4000) or a fourth position (e.g. a second device 4000) based on device availability and usage requirements (fig. 2, para. 62). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a second laundry device in the system of Chapman so that a laundering operation may proceed with a second, available device instead of waiting for a first device to become available, as suggested by Rensing. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 17, Chapman teaches a system comprising first and second receptacles 6, each including a sidewall with a plurality of openings and configured to receive laundry articles (fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 22-27); a first laundry device comprising a chamber 5, the device configured to perform, when laundry articles are contained in the receptacle and the receptacle is positioned in the chamber, a first operation that washes the articles (figs. 2-4 and 7; col. 4, ll. 5-23); a conveyor 4 to move receptacles; and a controller configured to perform operations including receiving a first indication that is indicative of an initiation of a first laundry cycle (col. 3, ln. 45); controlling the conveyor to move a receptacle from the first position to a second position within the first chamber of the first laundry device (col. 4, ln. 7); controlling the first laundry device to perform the first operation which include agitating the receptacle (col. 4, ln. 14); receiving, subsequent to initiation of the first operation, a second indication that is indicative of an initiation of a second laundry cycle (subsequent user initiates a cycle; col. 3, ln. 45); and controlling, subsequent to completion of the first operation by the first laundry device, the conveyor to move the first receptacle from the second position within the first device to a fourth position (e.g. storage) (col. 3, ll. 42 – col. 4, ll. 37).
Chapman does not explicitly teach a second laundry device having a second chamber and is configured to perform the first operation that washes the laundry articles in a receptacle when the receptacle is positioned within a chamber of the second device. Since Chapman does not explicitly teach a second laundry device, it does not teach that its controller is configured to control the conveyor to move a second receptacle from the first position (e.g. kiosk) to a third position that is within the second chamber of the second device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a second laundry device and configured the controller of Chapman accordingly. Rensing teaches a system for automated washing and drying of laundry articles, the system including a cluster 4002 of laundry devices 4000 that allow for simultaneous washing and drying of articles, the articles being conveyed from a single intake (i.e. first position) to a second position (i.e. a first device 4000) or a third position (e.g. a second device 4000) based on device availability and usage requirements (fig. 2, para. 62). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a second laundry device in the system of Chapman so that a laundering operation may proceed with a second, available device instead of waiting for a first device to become available, as suggested by Rensing. Upon this obvious modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would have configured the controller of Chapman to control the conveyor to move a second receptacle from the first position (e.g. kiosk) to the second device when a second, subsequent indication of a laundry cycle is received so that the articles may be washed in the second device while articles in the first receptacle are being washed in the first device.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 18, upon the obvious modification discussed above to have first and second laundry devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform a second operation in the devices that dries the articles subsequent to completion of the first, washing operation. Rensing teaches that each of its laundry devices is configured to perform washing and subsequent drying operations that have the advantage of not having to remove a load of laundry between operations (fig. 2, para. 63). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the system of Chapman to have first and second laundry devices that perform washing and drying operations based on the teachings of Rensing.
As to claim 19, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to control the second device to perform the first operation at the same time as controlling the first device to perform the first or second operation since Rensing teaches the simultaneous use of each of its laundry devices for the intended benefit of parallel washing and drying of loads of articles.
As to claim 20, Chapman teaches transmitting a third indication indicative of a completion of the first cycle (col. 4, ln. 34); receiving a fourth indication that is indicative of a user being ready to retrieve articles in the first receptacle (col. 4, ln. 35); and controlling the conveyor to move the articles contained in a receptacle from the fourth position (e.g. storage) to a fifth position (e.g. retrieval station) (col. 4, ll. 36-37).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711