DETAILED ACTION
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 31-39, drawn to a laundry treating apparatus.
Group II, claim(s) 40-49, drawn to a laundry treating apparatus.
Group III, claim(s) 50-60, drawn to a laundry treating apparatus.
Groups I, II and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a laundry treating apparatus comprising: a cabinet; a drum provided inside the cabinet, the drum being configured to accommodate laundry therein; a manipulation portion coupled to the cabinet, the manipulation portion being configured to receive a command for selecting or changing a course or an option for rotating the drum; a communicator provided inside the cabinet, the communicator being configured to receive an external signal; a controller configured to inspect the external signal or an internal state of the cabinet to generate notification information, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kwon et al. (EP 3396051 A1). Kwon et al discloses a laundry treating apparatus 20 (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a cabinet 21; a drum 24 provided inside the cabinet 21, the drum 24 being configured to accommodate laundry therein; a manipulation portion 100 coupled to the cabinet 21, the manipulation portion 100 being configured to receive a command for selecting or changing a course or an option for rotating the drum 24 (Fig. 3); a communicator 60 provided inside the cabinet 21 (Fig. 15, paragraphs [0138], [0317]), the communicator 60 being configured to receive an external signal (Fig. 10, 11, 15, paragraphs [0304], [0317]); a controller 400 configured to inspect the external signal or an internal state of the cabinet to generate notification information (Fig. 15)During a telephone conversation with Joseph Anderson on 8/3/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 31-39. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 40-60 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claims 31, 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (EP 3396051 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Kwon et al discloses a laundry treating apparatus 20 (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a cabinet 21; a drum 24 provided inside the cabinet 21, the drum 24 being configured to accommodate laundry therein; a manipulation portion 100 coupled to the cabinet 21, the manipulation portion 100 being configured to receive a command for selecting or changing a course or an option for rotating the drum 24 (Fig. 3); a communicator 60 provided inside the cabinet 21 (Fig. 15, paragraphs [0138], [0317]), the communicator 60 being configured to receive an external signal (Fig. 10, 11, 15, paragraphs [0304], [0317]); a controller 400 configured to inspect the external signal or an internal state of the cabinet to generate notification information (Fig. 15); and a display portion 130 configured to display the notification information to an outside at any one of a booting time point of supplying power to the display portion, a selection time point of the course or the option, an execution time point of executing the course or the option, and a completion time point of completing the course or the option (Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 33, Kwon et al. discloses wherein the notification information includes recommendation information for recommending the course or the option to a user (paragraphs [0175]-[0176]), and wherein the display portion is further configured to display the recommendation information at the booting time point or the selection time point (Fig. 26, paragraphs [0177]-[0178], [0513]-[[0514]).
Regarding claim 34, Kwon et al. discloses wherein the external signal includes one or more of weather, humidity, or temperature in an area in which the cabinet is located (paragraph [0309]), and wherein the controller is further configured to generate the recommendation information based on the external signal (paragraphs[0391]-[0394], [0450]-[0452]).
Regarding claim 35, Kwon et al. discloses wherein the controller 400 includes a storage 420 configured to store a usage history of the course or the option (paragraph [0408]-[0413]), and wherein the controller 400 is further configured to generate the recommendation information based on the usage history (paragraphs [0054], [0414]-[04190).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al.et al. (EP 3733952 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Park et al. discloses laundry treating apparatus 100 (Fig. 1) comprising: a cabinet 110; a drum 150 provided inside the cabinet 110, the drum 150 being configured to accommodate laundry therein; a manipulation portion 122 coupled to the cabinet, the manipulation portion 122 being configured to receive a command for selecting or changing a course or an option for rotating the drum (paragraph [0052]); a communicator 155 provided inside the cabinet (Fig. 3), the communicator 155 being configured to receive an external signal (paragraph [0071]); a controller 180 configured to inspect the external signal or an internal state of the cabinet to generate notification information (paragraphs [00720, [0073]); and a display portion 122 configured to display the notification information to an outside at any one of a booting time point of supplying power to the display portion, a selection time point of the course or the option, an execution time point of executing the course or the option, and a completion time point of completing the course or the option (Figs. 4-10).
Regarding claim 32, Park et al. discloses wherein the notification information includes condition information indicating that a condition required to execute the course or the option is insufficient (paragraph [0073]), and wherein the display portion is further configured to display the condition information at the booting time point or the selection time point (Fig. 9).
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.
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.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (EP 3396051 A1) in view of Park et al.et al. (EP 3733952 A1).
The laundry treating apparatus of Kwon et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 32 except for wherein the notification information includes condition information indicating that a condition required to execute the course or the option is insufficient, and wherein the display portion is further configured to display the condition information at the booting time point or the selection time point. Park et al. discloses wherein the notification information includes condition information indicating that a condition required to execute the course or the option is insufficient (paragraph [0073]), and wherein the display portion is further configured to display the condition information at the booting time point or the selection time point (Fig. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laundry treating apparatus of Kwon et al. to include condition information indicating that a condition required to execute the course or the option is insufficient as notification information, and to configure the display portion to display the condition information at the booting time point or the selection time point as taught by Park et al. in order to enable user to accurately execute processes and options.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (EP 3396051 A1) in view of Ko et al. (KR 10-2019-0016363 A).
For claim 36, Kwon et al. further discloses the controller includes a storage 420 configured to store a usage history of the course or the option (paragraph [0408]-[0413]). The laundry treating apparatus of Kwon et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 36 except for wherein the notification information includes arrangement information for preventing a course or an option without a usage history, during a specific period, from being displayed on the display portion, and wherein the display portion is further configured to display the arrangement information at the booting time point or the selection time point.
Claims 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (EP 3396051 A1) in view of Chae et al. (KR 10-2019-0058171 A1).
The laundry treating apparatus of Kwon et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 37 except for wherein the notification information includes action information indicating a state in which the course or the option is not capable of being continued or the course or the option is not capable of being executed, and wherein the display portion is further configured to display the action information at the execution time point. Chae et al. discloses a notification information includes action information indicating a state in which the course or the option is not capable of being continued or the course or the option is not capable of being executed, and wherein the display portion 240 is further configured to display the action information at the execution time point (Fig. 3, paragraph [0028] discloses the notification message includes information on the necessity of replacing internal parts, an operation error, or a service to be recommended to the user, wherein the display unit displays the notification message). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the notification information of the laundry treating apparatus of Kwon et al. to include action information indicating a state in which the course or the option is not capable of being continued or the course or the option is not capable of being executed, and wherein the display portion is further configured to display the action information at the execution time point as taught by Chae et al. in order to facilitate user to control the laundry treating apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for allowance of claims 38-39 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the notification information includes recommendation information for recommending ventilation of the drum, and wherein the display portion is further configured to display the recommendation information at the completion time point” in claim 38 which the prior art fails to teach or disclose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zellner e ta. (US 2005/0246639) discloses a notification information includes a correction information for inducing a user to correct a method of using option and display the information n display 300 (Fig. 6, paragraph [0032]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights