DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
The Information Disclosure Statement, filed 15 September 2023 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment to the claims and abstract filed on 15 September 2023, and the application is being examined on the basis of the amended disclosure.
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Claims 1-4 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Application’s status as a 35 USC 371 national stage application of PCT application PCT/JP2021/018764 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations “linkage means links…”, “linkage means which links…” and “output means outputting…” in claims 2 and 3 have been interpreted under the “means-plus-function” claim interpretation standard as set forth in 35 USC 112(f).
For clarity of the record examiner notes that the specification recites:
[0072] the controller (server 23) has a linkage means (server 23 and a program executing step S21 in Fig. 5) to link one information terminal 31 and one laundry machine using the linkage unit (IC tag reader 15), after the linking, an operation command output means (server 23 and a program that executes steps S29-S33 in Fig. 5) to output an operation command to the laundry machine linked to information terminal 31,
So these features have been interpreted as general purpose computer components executing software to carry out the recited function(s), and equivalent(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boku, Japanese Patent Application Publication JP 2015-163182 A in view of Yoshinaga et al., Japanese Patent Application Publication JP 2014-033765 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Boku teaches:
A self-service laundry system (see fig. 1) installed in a facility ([0015] “installed in a hotel, hospital, or the like.”) comprising laundry machine that is characterized by being equipped with at least one of the washing and drying functions; ([0016] “washing machines 21-1 to 21-3, dryers 22-1 to 22-3”)
A controller ([0015] “The equipment operation monitoring device 1 is configured by a parent unit 2 serving as the management device main body” [0022] “The base unit 2 includes a control unit 51”) that communicates with an information terminal (e.g. VOD terminal 11 in guest room S”) installed in the facility ([0015] “The base unit 2 is also electrically connected to a VOD terminal 11 installed in each guest room S as a viewing terminal for the VOD system via a communication cable 12,” see also [0223] describing that the information terminal may be a personal computer or mobile device.)
A linkage unit ([0015] “this parent unit 2 is equipped with detection
units 3-1 to 3-6 and a tablet PC 4 as an input terminal.”) is installed in the laundry machine; ([0016] “The components of the above-described equipment operation monitoring device 1 are arranged in a laundry corner separate from the guest rooms S, where washing machines 21-1 to 21-3 and dryers 22-1 to 22-3 are installed.”)
and The controller links (see fig. 1) the information terminal and laundry machine with the linkage unit ([0022] “monitoring control means 52 that updates the operating status of washing machines 21-1 to 21-3 and dryers 22-1 to 22-3 to the latest one and manages them centrally each time it receives a detection value from detection units 3-1 to 3-6, and further displays the latest operating status on TV monitor 46 of VOD terminal 11…) … based on request signals from the information terminal. ([0022] …in response to a request signal from that VOD terminal 11”)
Boku differs from the claimed invention in that:
Boku does not clearly articulate operates and controls the laundry machine based on the communication results [with the information terminal];
That is, Boku does not clearly articulate a user remotely controlling the laundry machine.
However, Yoshinaga teaches a washing machine (“washing machine 10”, see [0054]) may be controlled to start from a mobile terminal (“mobile terminal 20”, see [0054]) so that the washing machine can be operated and controlled remotely. ([0054] The washing machine 10 and the mobile terminal 20 communicate with each other, and the operation program selected on the mobile terminal 20 is transmitted to the washing machine 10 . The control unit 12 sets an operating course in accordance with the settings transmitted from the mobile terminal 20, and the display unit 14 displays the operating course set by the mobile terminal 20. [0055] In this way, the washing course corresponding to the course description displayed on the display unit 21 of the mobile terminal 20 is set in the washing machine 10.”)
Boku and Yoshinaga are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each manages the use of a laundry facility, each transmits status information about the laundry facility over a network to users.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Boku to include remotely controlling the laundry facility from the information terminal, as suggested by Yoshinaga.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to easily display the details of laundry course options for selection and control to the user, as suggested by Yoshinaga ([0055] “By using the indirect input by the portable terminal 20, the user can understand the details of the course explanation on the driving course explanation screen of the portable terminal 20 without having to open up a thick instruction manual, and can select a course through the course explanation, thereby improving the ease of use for the user.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Boku further teaches a plurality of laundry machines (see citations supra and fig. 1) and the controller having a linkage means for linking one information terminal to one laundry machine. (see citations supra and fig. 1). Mutatis mutandis, this claim is likewise obvious over the teachings of Boku in view of Yoshinaga.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boku in view of Yoshinaga, further in view of Welch et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0305856.
Regarding Claim 3, Boku in view of Yoshinaga teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Boku further teaches:
wherein the facility is characterized by an accommodation facility where users stay; ([0015] “installed in a hotel, hospital, or the like.”)
An information terminal installed in a plurality of lodging rooms of the accommodation facility; ([0015] “VOD terminal 11 installed in each guest room S as a viewing terminal”)
A linkage means which links one information terminal to one laundry machine ([0022] “monitoring control means 52 that updates the operating status of washing machines 21-1 to 21-3 and dryers 22-1 to 22-3 to the latest one and manages them centrally each time it receives a detection value from detection units 3-1 to 3-6, and further displays the latest operating status on TV monitor 46 of VOD terminal 11…)
Boku differs from the claimed invention in that:
Boku does not clearly articulate: Wherein the plurality of lodging rooms can be locked and unlocked individually using corresponding room keys;
Nor [linking] by authenticating the room key with the linkage unit.
Welch teaches a laundry service for a hotel ([0002] “[0002] Laundry services are commonly offered in a commercial setting, in which multiple washing machines and dryers are available for use to the public or a group of individuals. Similar services may be offered in other settings, such as multi-family housing, dormitories, hotels, or on cruise ships.”) where guests have room keys ([0030] “hotel or cabin room key”) which can be used to authenticate the user to the laundry machine ([0044] “The user may input the first identifier through user interface 110 and controller 120 may receive the first identifier (step 304). In one example embodiment, the user may use a hotel/cabin room key card and a pin number to charge their room/cabin number directly.”)
Boku and Welch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each manages the use of a laundry facility, each transmits status information about the laundry facility over a network to users.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Boku to include reading a room key of the user during the reservation process of Boku, as suggested by Welch.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable a user to put charges for the use of laundry services on their room bill directly, as suggested by Welch. (see Welch [0044].)
Regarding Claim 4, Boku in view of Yoshinaga teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Boku differs from the claimed invention in that:
Boku does not clearly articulate [the information terminal communicating with the controller] using a predetermined web page accessed through a web browser.
However, Welch teaches a laundry service for a hotel ([0002] “[0002] Laundry services are commonly offered in a commercial setting, in which multiple washing machines and dryers are available for use to the public or a group of individuals. Similar services may be offered in other settings, such as multi-family housing, dormitories, hotels, or on cruise ships.”) where the information provided by the control system is served as a webpage ([0039] “Similarly, in various embodiments, main server 128 may provide a user interface on a webpage, mobile application, or the like, that may allow a user to reserve a laundry machine 102.”; [0054] “For instance, the operational information may be presented or displayed (step 406) on a webpage or mobile application indicating which and/or how many laundry machines 102 in an establishment are available at any time, or in real time.”)
Boku and Welch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each manages the use of a laundry facility, each transmits status information about the laundry facility over a network to users.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components; - the laundry system of Boku, which differs by the substitution of a web page accessible interface for the undisclosed-type graphical interface of Boku; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art; - as exemplified by the teachings of Welch, which disclose a web-page display for operational information for laundry machines; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Welch expressly suggests that webpages are suitable for displaying laundry room operational status data to end-users (see Welch [0054]), and accordingly, the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takanashi, US Pg-Pub 2019/0382940 – teaching remote operation of a self-service laundry system by a user-operated smartphone (see figs. 3-15) including a proximity linkage means for uniquely associating the smartphone with a given laundry machine (see fig. 1, inset including references 24, 25, 26.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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 at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119