DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited combination fails to describe or suggest a screen output unit to display an option proposal screen and an option unit disposed separately from the screen output unit, and in particular that the option unit is configured to display recommended options corresponding to the recommended option values displayed on the option proposal screen. However, Heater et al. teaches a screen output unit 52 (functionally equivalent to the screen output unit 530 of Kim) “for selecting and/or displaying one or more of the user-selectable parameters” (para. 18) and an option unit 56 “for setting and/or displaying one or more of the user-selectable parameters” (para. 19). Heater clearly suggests that its option unit 56 is intended to be a complementary display of the parameters shown on its screen output unit 52. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that the option unit 56 of Heater is intended to be a complementary display based on its limited size and structure that presents parameters in a more simple manner than the main screen output unit for the purpose of quick observation of the parameters based on color and/or intensity of a lighting element (see fig. 2). Based on Heater’s disclosure of a main screen output unit and a complementary option unit, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify Kim to have such option unit, and upon such modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the option unit would display the recommended option values as a complementary display as intended.
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, 8, 9, 12-14, 16-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170321367 by Kim et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150049455 by Heater et al.
As to claim 1, Kim teaches a laundry treatment apparatus comprising a cabinet (para. 67); a drum in the cabinet (para. 85); a manipulator 510, 540, 560 at the cabinet (fig. 2) and comprising a multi-function button unit 540, 560 configured to be manipulated by a user; a screen output unit 530 at the manipulator configured to output a course selection screen that allows the user to select any one of a plurality of courses (fig. 2); wherein the screen output unit is configured to, based on manipulation of the multi-function button unit while the course selection screen is output, display an option proposal screen to provide a plurality of change proposals including recommended option values of at least one option for the course (fig. 4).
Kim does not teach an option unit disposed separately from the screen output unit to display at least one option that defines conditions for performing a course, the option unit configured to display recommended options corresponding to the recommended option values displayed on the option proposal screen. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus of Kim to have an option display unit, separate from the screen output unit, to display at least one option and is configured as claimed. Heater teaches a main screen output unit 52 to display option setting values and spaced apart option display units 56 to also display the setting values (paras. 18-19). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that separate option display units would provide a simple, readily understood graphical representation of the relative amount of a setting value, in particular when displayed in a variety of colors or intensities, as suggested by Heater. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have been motivated to have a separate option unit configured to display recommended options corresponding to the recommended option values displayed on the option proposal screen in order to have a simple, readily understood graphical representation of the options, as suggested by Heater.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 8, Kim teaches that the option proposal screen is provided in a pop-up form in the course selection screen (figs. 2 and 4, the option proposal screen shown in fig. 4 “pops up” when selected).
As to claim 9, Kim teaches that the screen output unit is switched from an entire portion of the course selection screen (fig. 2) to the option proposal screen (fig. 4).
As to claim 12, Kim teaches that the course selection screen includes a function display area to display a function of the button unit, wherein the screen output unit is configured to display a function of entry into the option proposal screen in the function display area (fig. 2, para. 135).
As to claim 13, Kim teaches that the screen output unit is configured to return to the course selection screen from the option proposal screen based on the manipulation signal of the button unit being generated (para. 125, “OK” returns to the course selection screen of fig. 2).
As to claim 14, Kim teaches that the option proposal screen includes the function display area, wherein the screen output unit is configured to display a termination function of the option proposal screen in the function display area (para. 125, “OK” returns to the course selection screen of fig. 2).
As to claim 16, Kim teaches a controller connected to the manipulator and screen output unit and configured to store the plurality of courses (para. 139), wherein an initial option setting value for at least one option for each of the courses is preset (para. 88), wherein the screen output unit is configured to output an option proposal screen with a change proposal including different option setting values from the initial values (fig. 4, e.g. number of rinses change proposal is displayed and selectable), and the controller is configured to, based on the change proposal being selected, set the option with one of the option setting values instead of the initial option value (fig. 4, e.g. the user selects the desired number of rinses that may be different than the preset default number of rinses for the course).
As to claim 17, Kim teaches that the plurality of change proposals has different option setting values (fig. 4, e.g. different number of rinses option values are provided).
As to claim 18, Kim teaches that the controller pre-stores change proposals applicable to each of the courses and controls the screen output unit to display one of the change proposals applicable to a displayed courses in the option proposal screen (fig. 4, e.g. different pre-stored number of rinses change proposals are displayed).
As to claim 19, Kim teaches that the controller is provided not to provide a change proposal for some of the courses (para. 86, variation of setting values may be limited in one or more courses).
As to claim 22, Kim teaches that the screen output unit selectively displays the plurality of change proposals in the option proposal screen and a currently displayed change proposal is changed based on the manipulation signal of the manipulator (fig. 4, number of rinses is displayed and the manipulator changes a displayed change proposal, the “twice” change proposal is displayed in the figure).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170321367 by Kim et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150049455 by Heater et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210180232 by Hahn et al.
As to claims 20 and 21, Kim does not teach that the plurality of change proposals includes a most frequent proposal. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Kim to have most frequent change proposals. Hahn teaches proposed option changes based on the number of times a user has set an option value being greater than or equal a preset reference number of times, the option value having the highest use frequency being set as a most frequent proposal (paras. 115-119, 127-129). Hahn further teaches that including a most frequent option change proposal allows for a user’s washing preference to be immediately provided to reduce user operation (para. 146) and to automatically provide the washing option frequently used when the user is changed (para. 147). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus taught by Kim to have a most frequent option proposal to realize the advantages taught by Hahn. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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