DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action is withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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 1, 2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200024784 by Yoon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180237976 by Li et al.
As to claim 1, Yoon teaches an apparatus comprising a washing machine 100 (fig. 1); a drying machine 200; a single control panel (user interface 312, fig. 3) including a dryer control input (“dryer” tab on user interface, fig. 5) for switching from a washer control mode to a dryer control mode, and a display; and a controller configured to display information of a first user interface for controlling the washing machine (fig. 5), in response to obtaining a second user input via the dryer control input switch the display of information of the first interface for controlling the washing machine on the display to display of the information of a second interface for controlling the drying machine on the display (see fig. 6, dryer interface selected).
Yoon does not explicitly teach separate washing and drying operation buttons for respectively starting or pausing the washing machine and drying machine. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have separate, independent operation buttons. Li teaches separate start/pause keys for respective machines on its single control panel (fig. 1, para. 70) and Yoon teaches that a dedicated start/pause input selector allows for quick starting of the machine (para. 45). One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have had motivation to provide a start/pause button for each machine, which would allow for a first user input on a washing operation button to start a washing operation and a third user input on the washing operation button to pause the washing operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that with an implementation of dedicated operation buttons, it would have been expected that the third user input would pause the washing operation even if the display had been switched to display of the second (dryer) user interface, which is consistent with the intended function of the operation buttons taught by Li.
Yoon teaches a control input to obtain a user input for switching from display of the information of the first interface for controlling the washing machine to the display of the information of the second interface for controlling the drying machine, the control input embodied as a “dryer” icon on a display (fig. 5, para. 41). Yoon teaches that an input selector may be embodied as a displayed icon, a dial, or push button (paras. 33, 37). Although Yoon does not explicitly teach an embodiment in which the operation input is a button, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious from the teachings of Yoon that various types of input selectors may be suitable for providing user input, including a button for switching displaying of user interfaces for control of the appliances. Furthermore, an operation button to switch between control modes of different appliances for user input and display of respective appliance information was known in the art (see Li, machine selection key 210; figs. 1 and 2, para. 36), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use such control button as an input selector to switch displaying of information as contemplated by Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success for its established purpose of switching control modes and displaying of information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized as obvious to provide the operation buttons on a single control panel for both machines. Li teaches that integrating controls on a single control panel results in a simplified structure and reduces costs (para. 27).
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to obtain the third input for pausing the washing operation during the dyer control mode, since with an implementation of dedicated operation buttons, it would have been expected that the third user input would pause the washing operation even if the display had been switched to display of the second (dryer) user interface in a dryer control mode, which is consistent with the intended function of the operation buttons taught by Li.
As to claim 4, upon the obvious modification discussed above, a fourth user input on the drying operation button would start a drying operation as expected and intended. Also, Yoon teaches that a (fifth) user input switches from display of the second (dryer) interface to display of the first (washing machine) interface (figs. 5 and 6, selecting the “washer” tab). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that with an implementation of dedicated operation buttons, it would have been expected that a sixth user input on the drying operation button would pause the drying operation even if the display had been switched to display of the first (washer) user interface, which is consistent with the intended function of the operation buttons taught by Li.
As to claim 5, Yoon teaches an apparatus comprising a washing machine 100 (fig. 1); a drying machine 200; a single control panel (user interface 312, fig. 3) including a washer control input (“washer” tab on user interface, fig. 5) for switching from a dryer control mode to a washer control mode, and a display; and a controller configured to display information of a second user interface for controlling the drying machine (fig. 6), in response to obtaining a second user input via the washer control input switch the display of information of the second interface for controlling the drying machine on the display to display of the information of a first interface for controlling the washing machine on the display (see fig. 5, washer interface selected).
Yoon does not explicitly teach separate washing and drying operation buttons for respectively starting or pausing the washing machine and drying machine. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have separate, independent operation buttons. Li teaches separate start/pause keys for respective machines on its single control panel (fig. 1, para. 70) and Yoon teaches that a dedicated start/pause input selector allows for quick starting of the machine (para. 45). One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have had motivation to provide a start/pause button for each machine, which would allow for a first user input on a drying operation button to start a drying operation and a third user input on the drying operation button to pause the drying operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that with an implementation of dedicated operation buttons, it would have been expected that the third user input would pause the drying operation even if the display had been switched to display of the first (washer) user interface, which is consistent with the intended function of the operation buttons taught by Li.
Yoon teaches a control input to obtain a user input for switching from display of the information of the second interface for controlling the drying machine to the display of the information of the first interface for controlling the washing machine, the control input embodied as a “washer” icon on a display (fig. 6, para. 41). Yoon teaches that an input selector may be embodied as a displayed icon, a dial, or push button (paras. 33, 37). Although Yoon does not explicitly teach an embodiment in which the operation input is a button, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious from the teachings of Yoon that various types of input selectors may be suitable for providing user input, including a button for switching displaying of user interfaces for control of the appliances. Furthermore, an operation button to switch between control modes of different appliances for user input and display of respective appliance information was known in the art (see Li, machine selection key 210; figs. 1 and 2, para. 36), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use such control button as an input selector to switch displaying of information as contemplated by Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success for its established purpose of switching control modes and displaying of information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized as obvious to provide the operation buttons on a single control panel for both machines. Li teaches that integrating controls on a single control panel results in a simplified structure and reduces costs (para. 27).
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to obtain the third input for pausing the drying operation during the washer control mode, since with an implementation of dedicated operation buttons, it would have been expected that the third user input would pause the drying operation even if the display had been switched to display of the first (washer) user interface in a washer control mode, which is consistent with the intended function of the operation buttons taught by Li.
As to claim 8, upon the obvious modification discussed above, a fourth user input on the washing operation button would start a washing operation as expected and intended. Also, Yoon teaches that a (fifth) user input switches from display of the first (washer) interface to display of the second (drying machine) interface (figs. 5 and 6, selecting the “dryer” tab). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that with an implementation of dedicated operation buttons, it would have been expected that a sixth user input on the washing operation button would pause the washing operation even if the display had been switched to display of the second (dryer) user interface, which is consistent with the intended function of the operation buttons taught by Li.
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