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 .
Status of Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 09/11/2025, Applicant on 12/08/2025, amended Claims 1 and 10, and cancelled Claims 2-3, 11-12. Claims 1, 4-10, 13-18 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections have been updated to address amendments and maintained below.
Applicants’ amendments render moot the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to include new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments as outlined below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues that in light of the mechanical operations performed as part of the claims, it would be incorrect to categorize the abstract ideas of operating laundry appliances as “Mere Data Gathering”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant does cite particular instances of data gathering that do not involve interacting with a tangible system, see 2106.05(g) under Mere Data Gathering – examples i-ii clearly encompass physical operations to be performed. The question of whether the mechanical operations are merely data gathering does not turn on whether the operations are tangible or not, but rather the nature of how collected data is utilized. As operations are performed to serve as input to Applicant’s layout optimization, that marker means that we cannot in isolation point to the mechanical operation of appliances as indicia of integration into a practical application. Operating the appliance to collect data is not outside the bounds of the abstract process of layout optimization; it would be necessary as a first step to effect the rest of Applicant’s claimed load balancing procedure.
Applicant further argues that the claim is not directed to layout optimization, but rather a means of operating a group of laundry appliances. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the language of Claim 1, the operation of appliances and their mechanical components is merely a means of collecting data needed to provide a recommendation on appliance positioning as outlined above.
Finally, Applicant argues that there is a demonstrated improvement, as swapping laundry appliances effects load balancing and thus reduces individual machine wear. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claimed method may certainly be an improvement to arranging laundry appliances, note that per MPEP 2106.05(a), "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." Just as Examiner notes above that the mechanical operation of the appliances cannot automatically render the claims eligible and the broader context of how those operations fit into the method is relevant, the context in which this improvement is realized is relevant here. In the language of Applicant’s amended claim, Examiner agrees that there is a benefit to render the total amount of wear on two laundry appliances with different usages “approximately equal”. However, this is ultimately still an improvement to what amounts to a mental process of layout optimization.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 103
Firstly, Applicant argues that there is no apparent reason to combine references from distinct fields. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant notes on Page 10 of Remarks, the fact turns on “Floris is analogous art to the claims”. Examiner agrees, but notes that the management of commercial spaces, as cited as the rationale to combine Floris with Belveal, is exactly the problem that Applicant’s claimed invention teaches. See amended Claim 1, “identifying a first set…wherein the first set of laundry appliances comprises high-use laundry appliances…identifying a second set of laundry appliances…wherein the second set comprises low-use laundry appliances”. The problem that the claimed invention solves is exactly that of optimizing space utilization in a commercial environment. In [0002] of Applicant’s specification, “Some laundry appliances, such as commercial laundry appliances, may be organized in groups, e.g., with multiple washing machine appliances and multiple dryer appliances in the group. For example, such larger groups may be found in a laundromat, dormitory, or apartment building, etc”. Means of obtaining utilization data in a commercial environment is analogous to the problem that the claimed invention seeks to solve as such utilization data would be essential as a basis for optimization decisions. Dependent Claims 6-8, which prescribe a more granular analysis of utilization data, further speak to the need for means of obtaining such data as Floris teaches.
Applicant further argues that that rejections do not teach determining which machine is closest to another machine – in the language of the amended Claims, “determining which laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances is closest to each laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances”. This is rendered moot in light of new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Examiner respectfully points to the updated rejections below in view of Lyu.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A method of operating a group of laundry appliances, the method comprising: performing a first set of cycles comprising a total number of cycles with the group of laundry appliances over a time period, wherein each laundry appliance of the group of laundry appliances performs a portion of the total number of cycles, wherein each cycle comprises causing at least one mechanical component of the respective laundry appliance to be operated, whereby a first amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of each laundry appliance is incurred during the first set of cycles; identifying a first set of laundry appliances from the group of laundry appliances based on the portion of the total number of cycles performed by each laundry appliance in the first set of laundry appliances, wherein the first set of laundry appliances comprises high-use laundry appliances; identifying a second set of laundry appliances from the group of laundry appliances based on the portion of the total number of cycles performed by each laundry appliance in the second set of laundry appliances, wherein the second set of laundry appliances comprises low-use laundry appliances; determining which laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances is closest to each laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances; providing a recommendation to relocate at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances, wherein the recommendation to relocate the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances comprises a recommendation to swap locations of the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances with the closest laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances; and performing a second set of cycles comprising the total number of cycles with the group of laundry appliances after swapping locations of the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances with the closest laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances, wherein each laundry appliance of the group of laundry appliances performs a portion of the total number of cycles, wherein each cycle comprises causing at least one mechanical component of the respective laundry appliance to be operated, whereby a second amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of each laundry appliance is incurred during the second set of cycles, wherein the second amount of wear on each mechanical component is different from the first amount of wear on the respective mechanical component, wherein a total amount of wear on each mechanical component is equal to the sum of the first amount and the second amount, and wherein the total amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances is approximately equal to the total amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of the closest laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process.
“identifying a first set of laundry appliances…”, “identifying a second set of laundry appliances, “providing a recommendation to relocate at least one laundry appliance…” recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4-9 recite an abstract idea by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
Independent claim 10 recites an abstract idea by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations as claim 1.
Dependent claims 13-18 recite an abstract idea by virtue of their dependency from claim 10.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of operating a group of laundry appliances, the method comprising: performing a first set of cycles comprising a total number of cycles with the group of laundry appliances over a time period, wherein each laundry appliance of the group of laundry appliances performs a portion of the total number of cycles, wherein each cycle comprises causing at least one mechanical component of the respective laundry appliance to be operated, whereby a first amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of each laundry appliance is incurred during the first set of cycles; identifying a first set of laundry appliances from the group of laundry appliances based on the portion of the total number of cycles performed by each laundry appliance in the first set of laundry appliances, wherein the first set of laundry appliances comprises high-use laundry appliances; identifying a second set of laundry appliances from the group of laundry appliances based on the portion of the total number of cycles performed by each laundry appliance in the second set of laundry appliances, wherein the second set of laundry appliances comprises low-use laundry appliances; determining which laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances is closest to each laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances; providing a recommendation to relocate at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances, wherein the recommendation to relocate the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances comprises a recommendation to swap locations of the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances with the closest laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances; and performing a second set of cycles comprising the total number of cycles with the group of laundry appliances after swapping locations of the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances with the closest laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances, wherein each laundry appliance of the group of laundry appliances performs a portion of the total number of cycles, wherein each cycle comprises causing at least one mechanical component of the respective laundry appliance to be operated, whereby a second amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of each laundry appliance is incurred during the second set of cycles, wherein the second amount of wear on each mechanical component is different from the first amount of wear on the respective mechanical component, wherein a total amount of wear on each mechanical component is equal to the sum of the first amount and the second amount, and wherein the total amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances is approximately equal to the total amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of the closest laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “a method of operating a group of laundry appliances”, “performing a total number of cycles…”, “causing at least one mechanical component of the respective laundry appliance to be operated”, “whereby a first amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of each laundry appliance is incurred”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), the operation of laundry machines for the purpose of informing layout optimization falls under the category of Mere Data Gathering; the claim is fundamentally directed towards a mental process of optimizing the layout of a laundromat, and the process of performing said cycles merely serves as data upon which to base an optimized layout on.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claims 4-9 do not recite any additional limitations beyond that which is found in claims they are dependent on, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above.
Independent Claim 10 recites substantially similar additional elements of “A method of operating a group of laundry appliances” and “wherein the first set of laundry appliances performed…”. These do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 13-18 do not recite any additional limitations beyond that which is found in claims they are dependent on, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claims 10 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claims 4-9, 13-18 do not recite any additional elements beyond those recited in the claims from which they depend, and as a result, Claims 2-9, 11-18 do not include any additional elements that either integrate under Step 2A Prong II or amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
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.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal(US 20200012244 A1) in view of Floris(US 20090300174 A1) in further view of Brietman(US 10275746 B1) in further view of Lyu(CN108846502A).
Claims 1, 10
As to Claim 1, Belveal teaches:
A method of operating a group of laundry appliances, the method comprising: performing a first set of cycles comprising a total number of cycles with the group of laundry appliances over a time period, wherein each laundry appliance of the group of laundry appliances performs a portion of the total number of cycles, wherein each cycle comprises causing at least one mechanical component of the respective laundry appliance to be operated
In [0165], "FIG. 21 depicts an example of the analytics UI 1902 presenting historical or trend data for utilization of a particular laundromat 100. The trend data may show the utilization of laundry machine(s) 112 in a laundromat 100 over a selectable period of time, such as over the past day, week, or month. In the example shown, the utilization is described as a percentage of the total cycles utilized. The utilization may also be described as the proportion of laundry machine(s) 112 used, or other metrics. The utilization may be presented as a graph, as in the example shown, or using other presentation methods". It is implicit that the action of a laundry machine operates mechanical components.
laundry appliance; portion of the total number of cycles performed
In [0165], "FIG. 21 depicts an example of the analytics UI 1902 presenting historical or trend data for utilization of a particular laundromat 100. The trend data may show the utilization of laundry machine(s) 112 in a laundromat 100 over a selectable period of time, such as over the past day, week, or month. In the example shown, the utilization is described as a percentage of the total cycles utilized. The utilization may also be described as the proportion of laundry machine(s) 112 used, or other metrics. The utilization may be presented as a graph, as in the example shown, or using other presentation methods".
determining which laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances is closest … laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances
Looking at Fig. 15A, such an example map UI would lend itself to finding the closest laundromat from a user, as well as the relative proximities of different laundromats with excess capacity. In [0035], "The availability information may also indicate machine(s) which are currently unavailable, e.g., in use or reserved for use. In some implementations, the availability information may indicate currently available laundry machine(s) in proximity to the current location of the user, such as within a predetermined threshold distance (e.g., 10 miles) of the user's current location or the current location of the user device. The availability information may be presented in the UI of the customer application, in a map and/or other suitable UI element that indicates the locations of the laundromat(s) with currently available laundry machine(s)".
performing a second set of cycles comprising the total number of cycles with the group of laundry appliances … wherein each laundry appliance of the group of laundry appliances performs a portion of the total number of cycles,
Given the flexibility of operational data collection in [0132], we can view these distinct periods as cycles preceding and following some defined point, “In some implementations, the microcontroller 302 may be configured to collect operational data regarding the operations of the laundry machine 112. Such operational data may be generated by the control module(s) 306, by the microcontroller 302, or by other components of the laundry machine 112, and collected by the microcontroller 302. The operational data may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: data describing an amount of time when the laundry machine 112 has been operating, or an amount of time when the laundry machine 112 has been idle; data describing the number, duration, and type of cycles run on the laundry machine 112; data describing a weight or other measured amount of laundry processed by the laundry machine 112; data describing the temperature of the laundry machine 112 at one or more times or over a period of time; data describing the current operational state; data describing the past operational state of the laundry machine 112 at one or more times; maintenance warnings or alerts; or other data. In some cases, the microcontroller 302 may periodically run tests, checks, or other diagnostics on the laundry machine 112 to measure its operating condition. The results of the diagnostics may also be included in the operational data. The operational data may be periodically generated and collected, or may be continuously generated and collected. The microcontroller 302 may send the operational data, via the network interface(s) 304a, to the management server device(s) 204”.
Belveal does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Floris teaches:
identifying a first set of ... from the group of … based on the ... by each … in the first set of ..., wherein the first set of … comprises high-use ...; identifying a second set of ... from the group of ... based on the … by each … in the second set of ..., wherein the second set of … comprises low-use ...;
In [0060], "Data analysis unit 210 and/or user interface 216 may also generate and display space utilization grid 307. Space utilization grid 307 may display an indication of aggregate utilization of spaces. For example, space utilization grid 307 may display utilization averaged over a period of time (more than one hour, a day, multiple days, the year, etc.), a particular large space (e.g., building/floor/sector) and "date from" to "date to" or "hour from" to "hour to" information. For example, space utilization grid 307 shows utilization in various spaces as "critical low" (Utilization below 15%), "low" (Utilization between 16-40%), "normal" (Utilization between 41-60%), "good" (Utilization between 61-80%), or "critical high" (Utilization above 80%)... Data analysis unit 210 may consider a great number of data points relating to utilization for each space (e.g., every identification device instance detected by the identifier(s) of the relevant spaces during the period selected by the user) to produce the numbers that are used to generate space utilization grid 307. Data analysis unit 210 may average the utilization over a time period or use some other formula or set of formulas to generate the data of space utilization grid 307".
to each … from the first set of …
We have means in Floris for viewing the relevant areas, with attention paid to relative utilization. In [0059], "Referring now to FIG. 5, space management system 201 may provide live tracking grid 306 via data analysis unit 210 and user interface 216. Live tracking grid 306 may display a map of a large space or area (e.g., a building floor). The large space or area may be shown broken up into a plurality of smaller spaces (e.g., workstations, conference rooms, shared spaces, etc.). The smaller spaces may be shown via a grid and/or other shapes or lines...According to a preferred embodiment, the spaces are shown with different colors to indicate utilization".
Belveal discloses a system for administering a collection of laundromats. Floris discloses a system meant to provide analysis of space utilization. Each reference discloses means for managing commercial spaces. Extending the granular means for tracking usage as recorded in Floris to the system of Belveal is applicable as both are concerned with the management of commercial spaces.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the granular means for utilization analysis as taught in Floris and apply that to the system as taught in Belveal. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit found in [0039] of Floris, "An exemplary embodiment provides a user with accurate space utilization data so that the user can make a performance measurement that can lead to improved specifications for the workplace".
Belveal combined with Floris does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Brietman teaches:
whereby a first amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of each laundry appliance is incurred during the first set of cycles
Implicitly, there is wear that operating a machine causes. Further, there is concern regarding component monitoring as noted in Col 4 Lines 20-27, “Unlike some of the prior art options. the present invention…improves the serving of laundry machines by informing service providers which parts to bring; improves information about the use of laundry machines by sending information back to manufacturers regarding use”. Monitoring of service analytics is reported in Col 8 Lines 42-54, “Additional communications may facilitate optional features of the present invention. For example, a communication from said laundry machine 100 to a manufacturer of said laundry machine 100 will facilitate use feed back to said manufacturer of said laundry machine 100 and service of said laundry machines 100. … Communication from said laundry machine controller 300 to said operators of said laundry machines 100 will facilitate balancing use of said laundry machines 100, and collecting information about said user”.
providing a recommendation to relocate at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances or the second set of laundry appliances, wherein the recommendation to relocate the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances comprises a recommendation to swap locations of the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances with the … laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances
Implicitly, if we identify high-use machines, we are identifying low-use machines as those that aren't highly used. In Col 3 Lines 11-24, "More particularly, the present invention gives the operator the knowledge he needs to increase the life of the machines by “rotating the tires”. It should be noted that swapping the position of the machine with 1000 turns with the position of the machine with 400 turns will result in better use of the machines...This is done by comparing individual use cycles of particular machines with the average utilization of such machines, and moving high-use machines further from the laundry-room entrance (or other high-use location), for example.".
after swapping locations of the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances with the … laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances, … wherein each cycle comprises causing at least one mechanical component of the respective laundry appliance to be operated, whereby a second amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of each laundry appliance is incurred during the second set of cycles, wherein the second amount of wear on each mechanical component is different from the first amount of wear on the respective mechanical component, wherein a total amount of wear on each mechanical component is equal to the sum of the first amount and the second amount, and wherein the total amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of the at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances is approximately equal to the total amount of wear on the at least one mechanical component of the … laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances.
In Col 3 Lines 11-24, "More particularly, the present invention gives the operator the knowledge he needs to increase the life of the machines by “rotating the tires”. It should be noted that swapping the position of the machine with 1000 turns with the position of the machine with 400 turns will result in better use of the machines. The present invention allows monitoring of machine use, display of cycle recommendations, rotation of machine position in laundry room to balance usage and, hence, extend machine life for a particular set of machines. This is done by comparing individual use cycles of particular machines with the average utilization of such machines, and moving high-use machines further from the laundry-room entrance (or other high-use location), for example". We understand this load balancing to amount to approximately equalizing the wear on the mechanical components of the laundry machines in question. We understand the mechanical component wear and usage to be implicit to operating a machine. See Col 4 Lines 20-27 and Col 8 Lines 42-54 as outlined above.
Belveal combined with Floris discloses a system for managing a commercial space, especially in the context of a laundromat with attention paid to utilization metrics. Brietman discloses a system meant to provide means to remotely manage a collection of washing and drying laundry machines. Each reference discloses means for administering a collection of washers and dryers. Extending the relocation recommendations as recorded in Brietman is applicable to Belveal combined with Floris as they are both fundamentally directed to managing sets of washer and dryers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the position analysis as taught in Brietman and apply that to the system as taught in Belveal combined with Floris. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting such analysis found in Col 17-20, "The present invention allows monitoring of machine use, display of cycle recommendations, rotation of machine position in laundry room to balance usage and, hence, extend machine life for a particular set of machine".
Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Lyu teaches:
determining which … from the … set of … appliances is closest …; closest…appliance
In [0014-0016], “Optionally, establishing the optimization objective function corresponding to the lowest logistics cost during the handling of all equipment in the workshop based on the obtained first function variable includes: when the equipment in the workshop is laid out in a multi-row layout, the optimization objective function corresponding to the lowest logistics cost is established by the following formula: Where C is the total logistics cost, f<sub>ij</sub> is the material handling frequency between equipment i and equipment j, p<sub>ij</sub> is the handling cost per unit distance for material handling between equipment i and equipment j, d<sub>ij</sub> is the distance between equipment i and equipment j, and n is the number of equipment in the workshop”. In [0034], “Optionally, establishing an optimization objective function based on the optimization objective includes: when there are at least two optimization objectives, determining the weights corresponding to the at least two optimization objectives respectively; and establishing the at least two optimization objectives into a single optimization objective function based on the determined weights corresponding to the at least two optimization objectives respectively”. Finding the closest appliance from a given appliance would be a logical extension of the optimization routine of Lyu as it would entail according maximum weight to the distances between appliances and zero weight to other specified objectives.
closest … appliance from the second … appliances; closest … appliance from the second … appliances; closest … appliance from the second … appliances;
See above.
Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman discloses a system for managing a commercial space, especially in the context of a laundromat with attention paid to utilization metrics. Lyu discloses a system meant to analyze usage and productivity of a series of machines in an industrial context. Each reference discloses means for administering a plurality of equipment in a commercial space. Extending the optimization of space as recorded in Lyu is applicable to Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman as they are both fundamentally directed to the management of administering a plurality of commercial machines in the context of utilization.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the position analysis as taught in Lyu and apply that to the system as taught in Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit of adopting such analysis found in [0008] of Lyu, “This invention provides a method and apparatus for optimizing the layout of a workshop production line, which at least solves the technical problems of waste of production resources, high cost, and low user experience caused by the use of a single optimal algorithm to obtain the layout of workshop production lines in related technologies”.
Claim 10 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as disclosed above.
Claims 4,13
As to Claim 4, Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Belveal combined with Floris does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Brietman teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein determining which laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances … to … laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances is based on a floor plan, the floor plan comprising location information of each laundry appliance from the group of laundry appliances.
In [0059], " In some implementations, the customer application executing on the user device 104 may present information describing the location(s) of available laundry machine(s) 112 in the laundromat 100. Such information may be presented in a schematic or map of the laundromat 100, or any other type of way-finding information".
Floris teaches:
to each … from the first set of …
We have means in Floris for viewing the relevant areas and their relationships to each other, with attention paid to relative utilization. In [0059], "Referring now to FIG. 5, space management system 201 may provide live tracking grid 306 via data analysis unit 210 and user interface 216. Live tracking grid 306 may display a map of a large space or area (e.g., a building floor). The large space or area may be shown broken up into a plurality of smaller spaces (e.g., workstations, conference rooms, shared spaces, etc.). The smaller spaces may be shown via a grid and/or other shapes or lines...According to a preferred embodiment, the spaces are shown with different colors to indicate utilization".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the granular means for utilization analysis as taught in Floris and apply that to the system as taught in Belveal. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Lyu teaches:
determining which … appliance …is closest to … appliance
In [0014-0016], “Optionally, establishing the optimization objective function corresponding to the lowest logistics cost during the handling of all equipment in the workshop based on the obtained first function variable includes: when the equipment in the workshop is laid out in a multi-row layout, the optimization objective function corresponding to the lowest logistics cost is established by the following formula: Where C is the total logistics cost, f<sub>ij</sub> is the material handling frequency between equipment i and equipment j, p<sub>ij</sub> is the handling cost per unit distance for material handling between equipment i and equipment j, d<sub>ij</sub> is the distance between equipment i and equipment j, and n is the number of equipment in the workshop”. In [0034], “Optionally, establishing an optimization objective function based on the optimization objective includes: when there are at least two optimization objectives, determining the weights corresponding to the at least two optimization objectives respectively; and establishing the at least two optimization objectives into a single optimization objective function based on the determined weights corresponding to the at least two optimization objectives respectively”. Finding the closest appliance from a given appliance would be a logical extension of the optimization routine of Lyu as it would entail according maximum weight to the distances between appliances and zero weight to other specified objectives.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the position analysis as taught in Lyu and apply that to the system as taught in Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 4.
Claims 5, 14
As to Claim 5, Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Belveal combined with Floris does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Brietman teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining an average of the total number of cycles per laundry appliance, wherein the first set of laundry appliance is identified based on each of the high-use laundry appliances having performed more than the average number of cycles per laundry appliance
In Col 3 Lines 11-24, "More particularly, the present invention gives the operator the knowledge he needs to increase the life of the machines by “rotating the tires”. It should be noted that swapping the position of the machine with 1000 turns with the position of the machine with 400 turns will result in better use of the machines...This is done by comparing individual use cycles of particular machines with the average utilization of such machines, and moving high-use machines further from the laundry-room entrance (or other high-use location), for example.".
and wherein the second set of laundry appliance is identified based on each of the low-use laundry appliances having performed less than the average number of cycles per laundry appliance.
In Col 3 Lines 11-24, "More particularly, the present invention gives the operator the knowledge he needs to increase the life of the machines by “rotating the tires”. It should be noted that swapping the position of the machine with 1000 turns with the position of the machine with 400 turns will result in better use of the machines...This is done by comparing individual use cycles of particular machines with the average utilization of such machines, and moving high-use machines further from the laundry-room entrance (or other high-use location), for example.".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the swapping recommendations of Brietman and apply that to the system of Belveal combined with Floris. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 5.
Claims 6, 15
As to Claim 6, Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Belveal teaches:
laundry appliances;
In [0165], "FIG. 21 depicts an example of the analytics UI 1902 presenting historical or trend data for utilization of a particular laundromat 100. The trend data may show the utilization of laundry machine(s) 112 in a laundromat 100 over a selectable period of time, such as over the past day, week, or month. In the example shown, the utilization is described as a percentage of the total cycles utilized. The utilization may also be described as the proportion of laundry machine(s) 112 used, or other metrics. The utilization may be presented as a graph, as in the example shown, or using other presentation methods".
Belveal does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Floris teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein each of the high-use ... performed more than twice the average number of cycles per ...
In [0060], "Data analysis unit 210 and/or user interface 216 may also generate and display space utilization grid 307. Space utilization grid 307 may display an indication of aggregate utilization of spaces. For example, space utilization grid 307 may display utilization averaged over a period of time (more than one hour, a day, multiple days, the year, etc.), a particular large space (e.g., building/floor/sector) and "date from" to "date to" or "hour from" to "hour to" information. For example, space utilization grid 307 shows utilization in various spaces as "critical low" (Utilization below 15%), "low" (Utilization between 16-40%), "normal" (Utilization between 41-60%), "good" (Utilization between 61-80%), or "critical high" (Utilization above 80%)...Data analysis unit 210 may consider a great number of data points relating to utilization for each space (e.g., every identification device instance detected by the identifier(s) of the relevant spaces during the period selected by the user) to produce the numbers that are used to generate space utilization grid 307. Data analysis unit 210 may average the utilization over a time period or use some other formula or set of formulas to generate the data of space utilization grid 307.".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the granular utilization analysis of Floris and apply that to the system of Belveal. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 6.
Claims 7, 16
As to Claim 7, Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Belveal teaches:
laundry appliances; number of cycles per laundry appliance
In [0165], "FIG. 21 depicts an example of the analytics UI 1902 presenting historical or trend data for utilization of a particular laundromat 100. The trend data may show the utilization of laundry machine(s) 112 in a laundromat 100 over a selectable period of time, such as over the past day, week, or month. In the example shown, the utilization is described as a percentage of the total cycles utilized. The utilization may also be described as the proportion of laundry machine(s) 112 used, or other metrics. The utilization may be presented as a graph, as in the example shown, or using other presentation methods".
Belveal does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Floris teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein each of the low-use ... performed less than half the average ...
In [0060], "Data analysis unit 210 and/or user interface 216 may also generate and display space utilization grid 307. Space utilization grid 307 may display an indication of aggregate utilization of spaces. For example, space utilization grid 307 may display utilization averaged over a period of time (more than one hour, a day, multiple days, the year, etc.), a particular large space (e.g., building/floor/sector) and "date from" to "date to" or "hour from" to "hour to" information. For example, space utilization grid 307 shows utilization in various spaces as "critical low" (Utilization below 15%), "low" (Utilization between 16-40%), "normal" (Utilization between 41-60%), "good" (Utilization between 61-80%), or "critical high" (Utilization above 80%)...Data analysis unit 210 may consider a great number of data points relating to utilization for each space (e.g., every identification device instance detected by the identifier(s) of the relevant spaces during the period selected by the user) to produce the numbers that are used to generate space utilization grid 307. Data analysis unit 210 may average the utilization over a time period or use some other formula or set of formulas to generate the data of space utilization grid 307.".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the granular utilization analysis of Floris and apply that to the system of Belveal. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 7.
Claims 8, 17
As to Claim 8, Belveal combined with Floris and Brietman teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Belveal does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Floris teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the period of time is three months.
In [0060], "Data analysis unit 210 and/or user interface 216 may also generate and display space utilization grid 307. Space utilization grid 307 may display an indication of aggregate utilization of spaces. For example, space utilization grid 307 may display utilization averaged over a period of time (more than one hour, a day, multiple days, the year, etc.), a particular large space (e.g., building/floor/sector) and "date from" to "date to" or "hour from" to "hour to" information. For example, space utilization grid 307 shows utilization in various spaces as "critical low" (Utilization below 15%), "low" (Utilization between 16-40%), "normal" (Utilization between 41-60%), "good" (Utilization between 61-80%), or "critical high" (Utilization above 80%)...Data analysis unit 210 may consider a great number of data points relating to utilization for each space (e.g., every identification device instance detected by the identifier(s) of the relevant spaces during the period selected by the user) to produce the numbers that are used to generate space utilization grid 307. Data analysis unit 210 may average the utilization over a time period or use some other formula or set of formulas to generate the data of space utilization grid 307.".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the granular utilization analysis of Floris and apply that to the system of Belveal. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 8.
Claims 9, 18
As to Claim 9,
Belveal teaches:
laundry appliances
In [0165], "FIG. 21 depicts an example of the analytics UI 1902 presenting historical or trend data for utilization of a particular laundromat 100. The trend data may show the utilization of laundry machine(s) 112 in a laundromat 100 over a selectable period of time, such as over the past day, week, or month. In the example shown, the utilization is described as a percentage of the total cycles utilized. The utilization may also be described as the proportion of laundry machine(s) 112 used, or other metrics. The utilization may be presented as a graph, as in the example shown, or using other presentation methods".
Belveal does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Floris teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first set of ... and the second set of ... each comprise the same number of …,
Implicitly, if we identify high-use machines, we are identifying low-use machines as those that aren't highly used. In Col 3 Lines 11-24, "More particularly, the present invention gives the operator the knowledge he needs to increase the life of the machines by “rotating the tires”. It should be noted that swapping the position of the machine with 1000 turns with the position of the machine with 400 turns will result in better use of the machines...This is done by comparing individual use cycles of particular machines with the average utilization of such machines, and moving high-use machines further from the laundry-room entrance (or other high-use location), for example.".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the granular utilization analysis of Floris and apply that to the system of Belveal. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Belveal combined with Floris does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Brietman teaches:
wherein the recommendation to relocate at least one laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances or the second set of laundry appliances comprises a recommendation to swap locations of each laundry appliance from the first set of laundry appliances with one corresponding laundry appliance from the second set of laundry appliances.
Taking these two sets as two sets of one machine respectively, in Col 3 Lines 11-24, "More particularly, the present invention gives the operator the knowledge he needs to increase the life of the machines by “rotating the tires”. It should be noted that swapping the position of the machine with 1000 turns with the position of the machine with 400 turns will result in better use of the machines...This is done by comparing individual use cycles of particular machines with the average utilization of such machines, and moving high-use machines further from the laundry-room entrance (or other high-use location), for example.".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the swapping recommendations of Brietman and apply that to the system of Belveal combined with Floris. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 9.
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 THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623