DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Guo obtains real-time weight for detergent dosing and program recommendation and does not mention saving a weight for later threshold comparison. However, Guo is not presently cited for teaching the corresponding claim limitations directed to judging whether a last saved weight exceeds a threshold. Applicant further asserts that Balinski teaches continuous/repeated real-time weight measurements and does not disclose using a last saved weight as a first comparison basis. However, Balinski teaches that its controller may receive “a repeatedly output signal indicative of the amount of the laundry loaded in the treatment chamber” or alternatively the controller may “repeatedly sense the amount by sensing the change in amount of the treating chamber during loading” (para. 45). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that sensing a change in amount necessarily would require incremental saving of a previously-sensed weight since the total weight is judged against a threshold. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also understood that even in the case of continuous or repeated output of the weight, that is continuously or repeatedly judged against a threshold, a “last saved weight” may reasonably be interpreted to be a weight at any given point in time, even if sensed continuously. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the function taught by Balinski of providing a real-time weight indication to a user “during loading” so that “the user may add or remove laundry to optimally fill the treating chamber” (para. 57) is suggestive of incremental addition of laundry by a user such that a weight does not continuously change; in other words, in practice the judging of weight against the threshold is performed incrementally against a “last saved” (most recently sensed) weight. It would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed judging and the method taught by Balinski are practically, functionally, and patentably indistinct.
Applicant also presents remarks regarding asserted purposes and benefits of the present invention. Applicant states that Guo does not achieve a “senseless” activation of the voice module; that Balinski “motivates the skilled person toward more frequent weighing, not toward the claimed strategy of avoiding unnecessary weighing by reusing a saved weight value” and “teaches away from the electrical energy-saving strategy in the present invention;” that the combination of Guo and Balinski would lead a skilled person to “the opposite of the present invention’s teaching of reducing measurement and relying on saved historical values;” and that the present invention enables automatic activation without user operation, a “senseless” activation. However, such assertions are not persuasive since they are directed to intended benefits and/or are outside the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the objection to claim 14 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims and Applicant’s remarks overcome the rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 11-20 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are 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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN113046993A by Guo et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130312202 by Balinski et al.
As to claim 11, Guo teaches a control method for a clothing treatment apparatus comprising a treatment cylinder (barrel, abstract), an image acquisition module, voice module, and weighing module (para. 14), the method comprising acquiring an image of a user (para. 26); judging whether the user has clothing in their hand (para. 26); when there is clothing in the user’s hand, acquiring weight of clothing in the treatment cylinder (para. 26); and selectively activating the voice module (para. 16) and activating the weighing module (para. 20).
Guo does not teach judging whether a last saved weight of clothing in the treatment cylinder exceeds a threshold and activating the voice module or the weighing module based on the judgment result. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform this operation. Guo teaches activating the voice module to prompt a user whether to begin a cycle and wash clothes after clothes are placed in the treatment cylinder (para. 20). Balinski teaches that the amount of clothes in a treating chamber should satisfy a threshold weight for optimal cleaning (paras. 36, 46) and further teaches monitoring the weight and indicating to a user when the chamber is optimally filled and ready to being a cycle (para. 55). Balinski further teaches that its controller may receive “a repeatedly output signal indicative of the amount of the laundry loaded in the treatment chamber” or alternatively the controller may “repeatedly sense the amount by sensing the change in amount of the treating chamber during loading” (para. 45). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that sensing a change in amount necessarily would require incremental saving of a previously-sensed weight since the total weight is judged against a threshold, and that a “last saved weight” may be a weight at any given point in time when a repeated output of weight is continuously or repeatedly judged against a threshold, as is taught by Balinski. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the function taught by Balinski of providing a real-time weight indication to a user “during loading” so that “the user may add or remove laundry to optimally fill the treating chamber” (para. 57) is suggestive of incremental addition of laundry by a user such that the judging of weight against the threshold is performed incrementally against a “last saved” (most recently sensed) weight.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by Guo to judge whether a last saved weight of clothing in the treatment cylinder exceeds a threshold to selectively activate a voice module for prompting the user to begin a cycle based on the judgement so that the chamber is not overfilled and the amount of clothing is ideal for optimal cleaning based on the teachings of Balinski. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to selectively activate the weighing module based on whether the last saved weight exceeds the threshold based on the teachings of Guo that suggest weighing is terminated once a user is prompted to initiate a cycle (see paras. 20-23) and the teachings of Balinski that state that the weighing module remains activated when the weight does not exceed a threshold (para. 45).
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to activate the voice module when the last saved weight of clothing in the treatment chamber exceeds the threshold. Balinski teaches audibly indicating to a user when the weight of clothing exceeds a threshold (fig. 4, para. 39), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use the voice module of Guo for an audible indication since Guo teaches the use of its voice module for audible indications to a user. Balinski further teaches that its weighing module is activated when the weight of clothing does not exceed the threshold in order for the weight to be continuously monitored (para. 46).
As to claim 13, Guo teaches that its voice module has a pronunciation mode (i.e. generates a voice) and a pickup mode (i.e. listens for a user voice command) (paras. 20, 23) and further teaches controlling the voice module to enter the pronunciation mode (para. 20).
As to claim 14, Guo teaches controlling the voice module to send a wash clothing prompt after entering a pronunciation mode (para. 20).
As to claim 15, Balinski teaches acquiring the weight in the treating chamber as discussed above; the weight would necessarily be saved in order to judge whether it exceeds the threshold.
As to claim 16, Guo teaches controlling the voice module to enter the pickup mode after entering the pronunciation mode to prompt the user (paras. 20, 23).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN113046993A by Guo et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130312202 by Balinski et al. as applied to claims 11 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200255999 by Son et al.
As to claim 17, Guo teaches valid voice instructions to include a start washing instruction (para. 23), but does not teach controlling the voice module to exit the pickup mode when the module does not receive an instruction within a preset time. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to exit the pickup mode when the module does not receive an instruction. Son teaches powering off modules, including a voice module, when not in use in order to reduce power consumption (fig. 6A, para. 12). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by Guo to exit a pickup mode when an instruction is not received within a preset time in order to power off the voice module to reduce power consumption. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 18, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to control the voice module to operate at a first power (e.g. off or reduced) after exiting the pickup mode in order to reduce power consumption, as suggested by Son.
As to claim 19, Guo does not teach turning off the image acquisition module when there is no clothing held by the user. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to turn off the module when there is no clothing and it is not in use in order to reduce power consumption based on the teachings of Son discussed above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN113046993A by Guo et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130312202 by Balinski et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160116891 by Megger et al.
As to claim 20, Guo does not explicitly teach a human body detection module, and thus does not also teach activating the image acquisition module when a user has been detected to enter a preset area. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a detection module and perform the claimed operation. Megger teaches a human body detection module and placing an appliance in a ready state when a user has been detected in a preset area (paras. 12-14). Megger further teaches that the presence detection may also be used to activate other controls, such as voice control (para. 24). Megger suggests that this allows for reduction of power usage (para. 17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by Guo to detect whether a user is in a preset area and then activating the image processing module in order to reduce energy usage by powering the module off when not in use. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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
Prosecution Insights