DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/30/2026.
Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (KR 20080079913 A) (machine translation attached) in view of Andersson (US 2013/0204406 A1), Yang et al. (US 2014/0229896 A1), Yoon et al. (US 2020/0024784 A1) and How to Customize or Remove Widgets – Garmin Instinct Tutorials (“Garmin Instinct Tutorials”) (available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKg3OUA63W0).
Re claim 1, Chang discloses a washing machine (¶ [0001], see fig. 1) comprising:
a control panel including a display (ref. 34) configured to display an operation state of the washing machine;
an input unit (ref. 32); and
a controller (ref. 50) configured to perform control to:
in response a user input to enter an editing mode for editing which washing modes of a plurality of washing modes are selected washing modes to be used by the washing machine (¶ [0012] “the user can select up to eight desired laundry lists from the entire laundry list in consideration of the fact that eight laundry lists are provided in the 'Laundry by Mom' menu”) and which washing modes of the plurality of washing modes are unselected washing modes not to be used by the washing machine (¶ [0012] “the control unit 50 changes the selected laundry list for each category selected and stores it in the memory 54”; Examiner finds the ability to change and reselect the laundry list to satisfy “unselected”. Nonetheless, to any extent “change” is unclear as to “unselected”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable a second input on a selected item to be deselected, i.e. a toggleable selection common in most selection interfaces),
enter the editing mode (¶ [0012] “Laundry by Mom” menu; see also “changed laundry lists”),
when in the editing mode,
display on the display, the washing modes of the plurality of washing modes as respectively being selected washing modes or unselected washing modes (see figs. 6-7; (¶ [0012] “laundry list for each category”; see also “eight laundry lists are provided in the ’Laundry by Mom’ menu),
in response to a user input to select a washing mode of the plurality of washing modes that is displayed as being an unselected washing mode, cause the washing mode to be a selected washing mode and change the display of the washing mode so that the washing mode is displayed in the editing mode as being a selected washing mode (see figs. 6-7, finger in dash) (¶ [0012] “optimum recommended laundry course information for the laundry list selected by the user is displayed”), and
in response to a user input to unselect a washing mode of the plurality of washing modes that is displayed as being a selected washing mode, cause the washing mode to be an unselected washing mode and change the display of the washing mode so that the washing mode is displayed in the editing mode as being an unselected washing mode (Examiner finds the ability to change and reselect the laundry list to satisfy “unselected”. Nonetheless, to any extent “change” is unclear as to “unselected”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable a second input on a selected item to be deselected, i.e. a toggleable selection common in most selection interfaces), and
after exiting the editing mode,
display, on the display, the selected washing modes based on the selection from the editing mode, without displaying the unselected washing modes (¶ [0012] “Laundry by Mom” menu/ “eight laundry lists are provided in the ‘Laundry by Mom’ menu).
Chang does not disclose a jog dial and the display based on previous frequency usage of the selected washing modes; and an operation state of a dryer; communication circuitry configured to communicate with the dryer; and to display the operation state of the dryer on the display based on selection of a dryer selection icon provided on the control panel, transmit a dryer control command received from the control panel to the dryer through the communication circuitry; and does not explicitly disclose display only one at a time, as claimed.
However, Andersson discloses it is very old and well-known in the appliance interface art to provide a jog dial for movement and selection (see figs. 2-3 and 29, refs. 7 control buttons and ref. 8 execution button ¶ [0038] control button being a rotatable knob).
Regarding “with, for each rotation of the jog dial, more than one, but not all, of the washing modes of the plurality of washing mode being simultaneously displayed”, Examiner highlights that Anderrsson teaches scrolling with the jog dial (¶ [0015]-[0016], [0052]-[0053], [0056], [0059]) while showing more than one but not all (see e.g. figs. 6, 10, 24-27, 29 showing 3 options out of more than 3 options for which scrolling reveals additional options; see also figs. 15, and 17-21 showing 5 options of greater than 5 options) and a scroll bar evidencing further options (see figs. 2-3 ¶ [0037] menu structure indicator 9). This in combination with Chang having more than 3 plurality of washing modes in the editing mode, makes it prima facie obvious to arrive at the interface as claimed with more than one, but not all, of the washing modes of the plurality of washing mode being simultaneously displayed during editing mode, when adapting the jog dial interface of Anderrsson.
Regarding, “based on the frequency of usage”, Yang discloses it is very old and well-known in the washing machine art (abstract) to provide a jog dial including more than one, but not all, menu items (ref. 110 wheel input, see figs. 1 and 3-6, RE “more than one but not all” see figs. 3-4 ABCD and then BCDE) and to display items of a plurality of items based a frequency of usage (¶ [0055]-[0056] store user’s frequences of use…displaying…according to high orders of the user’s frequencies of use starting from the left side to the right side).
Regarding “a dryer”, Yoon discloses it is well-known in the washing machine art (abstract, ¶ [0002]) to provide a display (ref. 110, 114 user interface panel and display ¶ [0022]; see also fig. 3 ref. 316 ¶ [0033]) configured to display an operation state of a washing machine and an operation state of a dryer (see figs. 5-6 ¶ [0041] display switchable between first appliance 301 tab 316 and second appliance 302 tab 318); communication circuitry (controller 150 ¶ [0022]-[0023]) configured to communicate with the dryer; and to display the operation state of the dryer on the display based on selection of a dryer selection icon provided on the control panel (see figs. 5-6), transmit a dryer control command received from the control panel to the dryer through the communication circuitry (¶ [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding “only one at a time”, Examiner finds it is prima facie obvious change in the number of displayed menu items/washing mode to select “one” displayed at a time in view of Yang teaching 4 (see figs. 3-4) and Andersson teaching 3 to 5 (see figs. 6, 8-10, 15-16, 18-21 and 24-29).
Nonetheless, Garmin Instinct Tutorials is cited for explicitly disclosing it is known in the user interface selection art, to provide “widgets” (Garmin’s equivalent to a quick select/favorites menu) that are displayed “only one at a time” (Timestamp 0:12 to 0:24).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input unit of Chang to further include a jog dial, as suggested by Andersson, in order to enable easy scrolling through menus (Andersson ¶ [0015]); and to further include based on a frequency of usage, as suggested by Yang, in order to simplify and predict user input; and to further include a display and communication circuitry for a dryer, as suggested by Yoon, in order to ease access for appliances in difficult to access areas; and to further modifying the display to display only one menu item/washing mode at a time, as suggested by Garmin Instinct Tutorial, in order to maximize display space for each icon/mode for ease of viewing.
Re claim 2, Chang further disclose an inputter configured to receive the user input to enter the editing mode, wherein the controller is configured to perform control to enter the editing mode in response to the user input being received by the inputter (If the user selects the ‘entire laundry list’…user can select up to eight desired laundry lists from the entire laundry list are provided in the ‘Laundry by Mom’ menu).
Re claim 3, Chang further discloses wherein the controller is configured to perform control to: in response to a powering on of the washing machine after exiting of the editing mode, display on the display, based on rotation of the jog dial (Andersson), the washing modes of the plurality of washing modes that are selected washing modes, without displaying the washing modes that are unselected washing modes (‘Laundry by Mom’ menu, i.e. a favorites menu).
Re claim 4, Regarding “wherein, to display a washing mode as being a selected washing mode, the controller is configured to perform control so that a check mark is displayed with the washing mode, and to display a washing mode as being an unselected washing mode, the controller is configured to perform control so that the washing mode is displayed without a check mark”, the use of a checkmark as a substation to highlighted rim (see Chang figs. 7-8) is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in interface design (i.e. “Item check boxes” option in Windows Explorer or Google Photos). There being no patentable feature is checkboxes for selection.
Re claim 5, Independent claim 5 reads as a combination claim to limitations rejected above, except to language to “excludes unselected washing modes”. Here, the “favorite’s” or “Laundry by Mom” menu excludes any non-selected washing modes (¶ [0012]).
Re claims 6-7, Regarding “wherein the controller is configured to perform control to, in response to powering on of the washing machine, display, on the display, a washing mode which was most frequently selected among the selected washing modes included in the updated washing mode list”, the display of the favorites mode and therefore most likely to select wash cycle mode is prima facie obvious for convenience of the user, as it reduces interface actions for the most probabilistic selection. Moreover, Yang discloses the display of first items based on frequency of usage immediately upon power on (¶ [0105] display a plurality of first items… if power is applied to the laundry treating apparatus…ready to treat the laundry).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown in the rejection above, in view of How to Customize or Remove Widgets – Garmin Instinct Tutorials (“Garmin Instinct Tutorials”) (available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKg3OUA63W0).
In response to Applicant’s arguments as Yang, Examiner respectfully disagrees in part with the assertion that “Yang simply discloses the simultaneous display of items 151 in an order…”. Here, Yang discloses displaying some of items/washing mode 151 and when turning the jog dial, sequentially displaying only one washing mode 151, while removing only one washing mode 151 (see fig. 4, showing scrolling only one item/washing mode 151 at a time, i.e. “E” replaces “A”). As such, it can be seen that the only difference from Applicant’s claim language is simply the specific number of washing modes shown on the display, i.e. one displayed at a time, as opposed to 4 in Yang and 3 to 5 in Andersson.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights