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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 1/4/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-17 are pending.
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.
1. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-17 are directed to facilitating the sale of a laundry article and facilitating the operation of a laundry appliance, which amount to a commercial interaction and managing personal behaviors. Commercial interactions and managing personal behaviors fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-9 and 10-17 each recite a method and at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which the sale of laundry article and the operation of a laundry appliance are facilitated, in the following limitations:
receiving an offer for sale of a laundry article from…a first user account;
receiving an access request for the laundry appliance
activating the laundry appliance in response to the access request, whereby the laundry appliance performs a laundry treatment operation, wherein the laundry treatment operation comprises operating at least one mechanical component of the laundry appliance, whereby the laundry article is operated on by the at least one mechanical component and thereby treated in the laundry appliance during the laundry treatment operation;
determining the laundry treatment operation is within a completion threshold;
causing a notification to be presented…that the laundry treatment operation is within the completion threshold, wherein the notification comprises a notification that the laundry article has been treated in the laundry appliance and is available for inspection or purchase.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction by receiving an offer for sale and manages personal behavior by activating a laundry appliance and monitoring and communicating its status. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity and managing personal behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
a first remote user interface device associated with
from the first remote user interface device
on a second remote user interface device associated with a second user account
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“via a network interface”, “using a processor”, “via the network interface”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, transmitting). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 45-46 indicate that the “[a]ny suitable device separate from the laundry appliance 1002 that is configured to provide and/or receive communications, information, data, or commands from a user may serve as the remote user interface device 1000, such as a smartphone (e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 4), smart watch, personal computer, smart home system, or other similar device”, and paragraph 70 indicates that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding independent claim 10, the claim sets forth a process in which the sale of laundry article and the operation of a laundry appliance are facilitated, in the following limitations:
receiving an offer for sale of a laundry article from…a first user account;
receiving an access request for the laundry appliance
activating the laundry appliance in response to the access request, whereby the laundry appliance performs a laundry treatment operation; wherein the laundry treatment operation comprises operating at least one mechanical component of the laundry appliance, whereby the laundry article is operated on by the at least one mechanical component and thereby treated in the laundry appliance during the laundry treatment operation;
causing a confirmation prompt to be presented...after completing the laundry treatment operation, wherein the confirmation prompt comprises a prompt to confirm that the laundry article has been treated in the laundry appliance and is in acceptable condition;
receiving a payment authorization…in response to the confirmation prompt; and
applying a credit to the first user account in response to the payment authorization.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction by receiving an offer for sale and facilitating payment and manages personal behavior by activating a laundry appliance. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity and managing personal behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 10 does recite additional elements:
a first remote user interface device associated with
from the first remote user interface device
from a second remote user interface device associated with a second user account
on the second remote user interface device
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“via a network interface”, “using a processor”, “via the network interface”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, transmitting). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 45-46 indicate that the “[a]ny suitable device separate from the laundry appliance 1002 that is configured to provide and/or receive communications, information, data, or commands from a user may serve as the remote user interface device 1000, such as a smartphone (e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 4), smart watch, personal computer, smart home system, or other similar device”, and paragraph 70 indicates that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claims 2-9, 11-17
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 merely set forth embellishments to the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 10, applied to the same generic computing environment. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible for similar reasons to claims 1 and 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, and are persuasive in light of the present amendments. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts:
The Office Action alleges that claims 1 and 10, each of which includes the recitation of "activating the laundry appliance in response to the access request, whereby the laundry appliance performs a laundry treatment operation," are directed to "commercial interaction and managing personal behaviors." Office Action, e.g., pp. 3, 4, and 7. The claimed laundry treatment operation, however, is plainly not a commercial interaction or a personal behavior. As defined, e.g., in 55 of the application, the laundry treatment operation clearly includes tangible operations on tangible matter and the laundry appliance does not merely perform a commercial interaction or personal behavior when carrying out the laundry treatment operation. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is incorrect - claims 1 and 10 set forth a specific and tangible laundry treatment operation performed by the laundry appliance, and the laundry treatment operation is not "personal behavior."
Moreover, claims 1 and 10 are amended to explicitly incorporate the definition of "laundry treatment operation" as was set forth in the application as filed. Thus, for this additional reason, claims 1 and 10 are clearly directed to more than merely "personal behavior."
In response, the Examiner notes that here, applicant has only considered the “activating” limitation in a vacuum when arguing it is not directed to “commercial interaction and managing personal behaviors”. Taken in the context of the overall claimed invention, and the disclosure, the “activating” limitation effectively serves as an instruction to a person to initiate normal and expected operation of a laundry appliance performing a laundry treatment within a commercial scheme to coordinate laundry item transactions with laundry treatment operations in a laundry facility (see Specification, [0004]). Applicant does not purport to invent a manner of laundering an article, instead purporting to invent integration of known laundering operations into a commercial transaction. Therefore, further describing the well-known operation of a laundry appliance does not serve to render the claims eligible.
Applicant further asserts:
Additionally, claims 1 and 10 are amended to more clearly integrate the laundry treatment operation (e.g., the operation of at least one mechanical component of the laundry appliance as set forth in amended claims 1 and 10), into the methods as a whole. For example, amended claims 1 and 10 expressly include the laundry article is treated during the laundry treatment operation, amended claim 1 states that the notification presented on the second remote user interface device includes a notification that the laundry article has been treated in the laundry appliance and is therefore available for inspection or purchase, and amended claim 10 sets forth that the prompt presented on the second remote user interface device includes a prompt to confirm that the laundry article has been treated in the laundry appliance and is in acceptable condition. Accordingly, for this additional reason, amended claims 1 and 10 are, as a whole, directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
In response, the Examiner asserts that further limiting the notification contents and/or conditions does not serve to alter or further describe the additional limitations in such a manner that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea, but instead merely serves to further limit the abstract idea itself. A more specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and such a limitation does not render the claims eligible.
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 MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights