DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/1/2026.
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal et al. (US 2017/0081796 A1) (cited by Applicant).
Re claim 1, Belveal discloses a remote device (ref. 104 mobile device, see fig. 1) for displaying laundry status for a user account of a plurality of user accounts (¶ [0035] enable a user to create a user account with the laundry service. The user may login to the laundry service; ¶ [0124], [0167] may enable multiple users (emphasis on plural)), comprising:
a network interface (¶ [0057] wireless network interface) configured to communicate over a wired or wireless communication network with at least one controller of an autonomous laundry system configured to wash, dry, and fold a plurality of laundry articles, wherein each of the plurality of laundry articles is associated with a user account of the plurality of user accounts (¶ [0047] laundry machines…washer or dryer…laundry folding machines; see also ¶ [0124], [0167] multiple users);
a graphical user interface (see figs. 14A-18, ¶ [0146] UI) comprising a user display; and
a processor (¶ [0006], [0169], [0170], [0179] processor) configured to receive a communication from the at least one controller via the communication network, and display in response to real time communications (¶ [0087] periodic updates regarding progress of laundry) from the autonomous laundry system a contemporaneous status (see figs. 16C-16F ref. 1602 Status information) of the laundry articles of the plurality of laundry articles that are associated with a selected user account of the plurality of user accounts processed by one or more washing and drying devices and one or more folding devices of the autonomous laundry system, wherein the contemporaneous status comprises a visual display of a percentage (regarding “percentage”, Belveal discloses remaining time. The mere calculation of a percentage to completion based on an estimated operating time is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the UI art, for purposes of easy readability) to completion of each of washing, drying, and folding processes for the plurality of laundry articles received by the autonomous laundry system.
Re claims 2-4, wherein the autonomous laundry system is configured to count the laundry articles of the plurality of articles that are associated with a selected user account of the plurality of user accounts at an intake step prior to washing the laundry articles of the plurality of articles that are associated with a selected user account of the plurality of user accounts (¶ [0132] data describing weight or other measured amount of laundry). wherein the autonomous laundry system is configured to autonomously track progress of the laundry articles of the plurality of articles that are associated with a selected user account of the plurality of user accounts (¶ [0087], see figs. 16C-F) through the one or more washing and drying devices and the one or more folding devices and the at least one controller is configured to calculate for display a percentage to completion of washing, drying, and folding the plurality of laundry articles (see rejection to claim 1 above regarding %). wherein the autonomous laundry system is further configured to autonomously track progress of the plurality of laundry articles through an autonomous packing process following the folding process and provide a real time packing status on the display, the autonomous packing process being implemented by an autonomous packing device comprising one or more sensors (¶ [0095] sensor(s)) configured to detect the laundry articles of the plurality of articles that are associated with a selected user account of the plurality of user accounts processed by the autonomous packing device, the one or more sensors being configured to output one or more signals to the at least one controller indicative of processing one or more of the plurality of laundry articles (¶ [0087], see also ¶ [0088] folding of laundry, [0140] service requests for folding laundry, it being prima facie obvious to extend any status updates to all laundry related services).
Re claims 7-11, Belveal further discloses comprising an interactive user interface (see figs. 14-19, ¶ [0159] interact with the laundry service). wherein a user can request through the interactive user interface a display of a contemporaneous status of washing, drying, and folding (see figs. 16C-F). wherein the processor is configured to operate a local user application through which the contemporaneous status of washing, drying, and folding is displayed (see figs. 16C-F, app on device). wherein the at least one controller of the autonomous laundry system is configured to push the contemporaneous status of washing, drying, and folding to the local user application (intended use, since the claim is to the remote device. Nonetheless, Belveal discloses updates ¶ [0081]).
Re claims 12-14, Claims 12-15 are drawn to a variety of common and well-known displays for percentage completion. Here, the selection of a known UI display for representing completion is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for purposes of displaying information in an easily readable and accessible manner.
Re claim 15, Belveal further discloses wherein the display is generated by a user application program stored in a memory of the device, the user application program being configured to facilitate communication with the autonomous laundry system (application 310 on phone ¶ [0072]-[0073]).
Claims 5-6 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal et al. (US 2017/0081796 A1) (cited by Applicant) in view of Powell et al. (US 2017/0107660 A1).
Re claims 5-6, Belveal discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein the autonomous laundry system is configured to identify the plurality of laundry articles with one or more sensors disposed above and adjacent the one or more folding devices. Powell disclose it is well-known in the laundry system art to provide sensors (¶ [0021], [0025] plurality of sensors on an interior therefore). wherein the autonomous laundry system is configured to identify the one or more washing and drying devices receiving the plurality of laundry articles by tracking one or more laundry bins transported to the one or more washing and drying devices, each one of the one or more laundry bins containing a load of laundry comprising one or more of the plurality of laundry articles (¶ [0025] assist tracking clothing items within accepting bin 104), wherein the one or more identified washing and drying devices are configured to communicate via the communication network a plurality of processing updates including washing and drying cycle progress (Belveal ¶ [0087]; see also ¶ [0159] transferring laundry to dryer).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include sensors, as taught by Powell, in order to automate tracking of laundry throughout a laundering process outside of apparatuses.
Re claim 16, Independent claim 16 defines over the above rejected claims only in the recitation of the autonomous laundry system, including the at least one autonomous washing and drying device, at least one autonomous folding device, corresponding sensors. Here, Belveal discloses a variety of laundry machines (¶ [0047] including washer or dryer, Laundry machines may also include, but are not limited to, pressing or ironing apparatuses, dry cleaning machines, steam cleaning machines, laundry folding machines, fumigation machines, and so forth. Laundry machines may also include any type of apparatus or object that facilitates manual handling of laundry, such as wash basins or washboards to manually wash laundry, clotheslines, racks, hooks, or rods to manually hang laundry to dry, ironing boards or irons to press laundry, and so forth. Laundry machines may also include vending machines that dispense (e.g., for free or for a charge) items used in doing laundry, such as detergent, fabric softeners, stain removers, bleach, detergent additives, and so forth). Powell discloses the sensors (see rejection to claims 5-6 above). As such, the inclusion of multiple laundry machines and sensors to track the article laundry is prima facie obvious in view of Belveal/Powell.
Re claims 17-21, wherein the remote user device is at least one of a smartphone, a tablet, a smart watch, and a computer (¶ [0055] smartphone). wherein the remote user device comprises a memory configured to store a user application and a processor configured to execute instructions for running the user application (inherent in customer application 310 on smartphone). wherein the washing, drying, and folding processes are configured to operate concurrently to process a plurality of laundry loads sorted from the plurality of laundry articles (see figs. 16A-F showing concurrent processes and loads). wherein a display of the percentage completion of washing, drying, and folding processes comprises a graphic display of concurrently operating processes (see rejection to claim 1, the change of display from time left to percentage completion is prima facie obvious, it being simply a matter of manipulation of common data display). wherein the graphic display comprises at least one of contemporaneous statuses of washing, drying, and folding represented as at three fillable concentric annuli and contemporaneous statuses of washing, drying, and folding represents by at least one gradually filled status bar with an indication in order of washing, drying, and folding from one end of the bar to an opposite end of the bar (see rejection to claim 1 and 12-14 above, the mere change in graphical display of information is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to Belveal, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, Belveal clearly contemplates the plurality of laundry articles are associated with a selected user account of a plurality of user accounts (¶ [0035] enable a user to create a user account with the laundry service. The user may login to the laundry service; ¶ [0124], [0167] may enable multiple users (emphasis on plural)).
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights