DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to papers filed on 25 June 2026.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 4-9 and 13 have been cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed June 25.2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants have argued about the elements of the instant claim that are not present in the instant claims. The elements argued but not present in the claims are “a sensor array coupled to at least one washing machine”, “a processor configured to calculate a denim treatment variance metric from data received from said sensor array”, “a machine control interface operatively connected to the at least one industrial denim washing machine and configured to receive instructions from said processor”, and “wherein said sensor array is configured to generate real-time measured process data during the washing process of the at least one denim washing machine”. These elements are not identified in the independent claim nor the dependent claims. Therefore, Applicants arguments are unresolved.
The rejections made previously are maintained and presented below with updates regarding the amendments made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of “a group comprising fadedness and feel, abrasion, indigo level, tint level, or a combination thereof” is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the alternatives are not members of the same art-recognized class and the alternatives do not share a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial feature.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims as amended include a user interface and a display interface. These elements are not explained to the extent of their use. Generally, a user interface and display interface require automated technology to operate and function. In the instant invention, the claims recite the user interface to receive process outcomes and edit the process steps while the display interface is stated as being configured to display process status and outcomes. It is not clear how these steps are performed in an equalizer system with no reference to an automated operating system or process. The dependent claims further claim the use of 3D devices configured to capture data information; store edited data and generate digital configuration data. It is not clearly understood how these elements are performed electronically as claimed. The steps as recited in the instant claims are not particularly described so as to allow one of ordinary skill to reproduce or practice the limitations of the instant claims without undue experimentation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication No. US 2024/0303393 A1 to Jannuzzi-Guerreiro et al..
The published prior art of Jannuzzi-Guerreiro et al. (herein after "J-G") teaches of a process for evaluating and changing an overall textile processing facility to be more sustainable. In doing so, the reference of prior art, which includes a provisional application (63/451,072) filed on March 9, 2023, teaches and/or fairly suggests the limitations of the instant invention as follows below.
In independent claim 1 a denim laundry equalizer system, comprising:
at least one industrial denim washing machine configured to process a physical batch of denim garments – (taught by J-G in paragraph [123] in relation to Table 4 “Table 4 contains records of commercial washing machines that can be used to perform washings or treatments on garments.”);
a user interface configured to receive at least one denim laundry process outcome – (taught by J-G in paragraph [0041] and Fig. 29A as “data input graphical user interface of a mobile computing application for a selected cycle if manual entry and specific data is selected”); and
a display interface configured to display denim equalization status and outcomes – (J-G teaches this feature in paragraph [0040] with Fig. 28 as “data input graphical user interface of a mobile computing application for a selected cycle if manual entry and specific data is selected”);
wherein the said user interface is not configured to receive manual instructions to edit the steps of a denim laundry process directly – (it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Hence, these differences in the claim language fail to patentably distinguish the instant claims from what is presented by the prior art of reference to J-G).
As per claim 12, the denim laundry equalizer system according to claim 10, wherein the denim laundry equalizer system is further configured to generate a digital configuration data, wherein the digital configuration data is configured to generate a laundry recipe in the display interface for user approval. J-G teaches this aspect of the instant invention in paragraph [0468] where “the wash recipe cycle selection display 258 typically displays a plurality of different types of cycles. The user may select any one or them or create their own by selecting an “other” input if their desired cycle is not shown.” And in claim 1 of the published invention, as “defining a baseline recipe for the production of a textile using the virtual wash plant that at least substantially corresponds to a textile processing facility used recipe at the textile processing facility implemented by the physical pieces of equipment and physically available wash inputs at the textile processing facility” and “defining an alternate recipe for the production of the textile that is different than the baseline recipe using the virtual wash plant”.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2024/0303393 A1 to Jannuzzi-Guerreiro et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. US 2022/0244783 A1 to Avery et al..
With regard to claim 2, the denim laundry equalizer system according to claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises a plurality of adjustable sliders, with each slider configured to adjust the at least one denim laundry process outcome. The laundry process as claimed is taught by J-G as aforementioned. However, the prior art does not particularly teach the use of sliders to adjust the laundry process outcome. For this reason, the published prior art of Avery et al. (herein after "Avery") is introduced since the use of haptic feedback is used to customize the feedback. In doing so, Avery teaches the use of sliders as claimed in paragraph [0093] wherein "may enable particular types of haptic event to be generated either in advance of haptic feedback delivery or when haptic feedback has been requested. In embodiments, it may be possible for a user to define the type(s) of haptic feedback or sensation, which may be performed using haptic profile editor 302. The haptic profile editor 302 may be provided as a graphical user interface which allows a user to define a haptic event. the user interface may comprise slider bars for one or more primitives which the user is allowed to modify or select-the slider bars may allow the user to select a value for a primitive between some minimum and maximum values." Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above-mentioned invention of a laundry system as presented by J-G with the haptic feedback of Avery so as to enable a more convenient and effective way to select paraments for editing purposes.
As with claim 3 the denim laundry equalizer system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one denim laundry process outcome is selected from a group comprising fadedness and feel, abrasion, indigo level, tint level, or a combination thereof. J-G teaches the outcomes in paragraph [169] wherein the stonewashing is explained and in paragraph [0171] where the abrasions is addressed. While Avery describes the use of sliders to make a selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above-mentioned invention of a laundry system as presented by J-G with the haptic feedback of Avery so as to enable a more convenient and effective way to select paraments for editing purposes.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2024/0303393 A1 to Jannuzzi-Guerreiro et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. US 2023/0252747 A1 to Meador et al..
As per claim 10 the denim laundry equalizer system of claim 1, wherein the user interface further comprises at least one 3D device configured to capture three-dimensional data information of denim fabric and visualize the three-dimensional data information of the denim fabric. Taught by the reference of prior art by J-G wherein a laundry editing system is explained. In paragraph [0175], J-G begins to teach of three-dimensional effects but does not fully explain the use of three-dimensional data as claimed. It is for this reason that the prior art of Meador et al. (herein after "Meador") is included. Meador teaches in the same environment as J-G, the garment rendering system includes receiving data in three-dimensional format of a garment, as described in paragraph [0046]. The data is input by scanning images of the garment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above-mentioned invention of J-G with that of Meador so as to complete processing in the laundry editing environment using computer technology including three-dimensional images.
Regarding claim 11, the denim laundry equalizer system according to claim 10, wherein the denim laundry equalizer system is further configured to store at least one edited three-dimensional data information for visual presentation of the editing commands. The storing of the visual presentation of information is achieved by Meador as described in paragraph [0053]. As "the virtual garment data 18 can be generated prior to the selection and stored in the system or can be generated by the virtual garment generation unit 16 in real time upon selection by the user based on the garment related data". Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above-mentioned invention of J-G with that of Meador so as to complete processing in the laundry environment using computer technology including three-dimensional images and a storage process to better save data.
For the reasons stated above, the limitations of the instant invention are taught and/or fairly suggested by the prior arts of record; thereby, rendering the instant claims unpatentable.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. US 10,711,381 B2 Li et al.
Relates to a washing machine and a controlling method therefor
US Patent Publication No. US 2010/0100848 A1 Ananian et al.
The graphical order generator may include an order input tool including a category section for displaying a plurality of inter-dependent dynamically filtered category indicators arranged in a sequential and user-modifiable hierarchy, and an option section for displaying a plurality of selectable option indicators associated with a category indicator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sheela Rao whose telephone number is (571) 272- 3751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday from 7:00 am to 1:00 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali, can be reached on (571) 272-4105. The fax number for the organization where this application or any proceeding papers has been assigned is (571) 273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. It should be noted that status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http:// pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should any questions arise regarding access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sheela Rao/Examiner, Art Unit 2119 July 20, 2026
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights