DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 5/14/2026.
Claims 15-34 are pending, Claims 33-34 are withdrawn, and Claims 15-32 have been examined.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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 15-32, in the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not teach all the same or corresponding special technical features. This is not found persuasive because the prior art teaches all the argued shared features, as shown in the rejection below. As to Applicant’s arguments as to motivation and impermissible hindsight, Examiner respectively disagrees. As to Kim and unlocked, Examiner disagrees that the water and agitation are part of the weight-detection rotation, Kim clearly contemplates weight-detection and rotation first (¶ [0180]-[0181] detecting the weight…is first performed). Applicant’s cited addition of water is for volume-detecting and/or wash cycle. It further being illogical to add water weight when calculating weight as it would skew measurements upward. As to Quinn, Quinn is cited for simply the conventional knowledge of a lock and displaying a measured weight for user information. As such, the features are not special and do not link to form a single general inventive concept.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 33-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/14/2026.
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 15, 17-20 and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210207304 A1) (previously cited) in view of Quinn (EP 0294014 A1) (previously cited).
Re claim 15, Kim discloses a laundry treating apparatus (ref. 1) comprising:
a cabinet (ref. 10) that defines an opening;
a door (ref. 30) coupled to the cabinet and configured to open and close the opening;
a drum (ref. 50) disposed inside the cabinet and configured to accommodate laundry;
a motor (ref. 60) connected to the drum to rotate the drum;
a display (ref. 11) configured to display information; and
a power portion (see fig. 1 unlabeled buttons adjacent refs. 11 and 12; It further being conventionally known in the art to provide a power button) disposed on the cabinet and configured to receive a command to supply power,
wherein the motor is configured to, based on the command being input on the power portion, rotate the drum to determine the weight of the laundry (¶ [0041]), and wherein the display is configured to display information of the laundry (¶ [0057]-[0058], [0220]-[00224] information is changed so as to be suitable for the value related to the properties of the laundry measured in the laundry-property-detecting step).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a locker configured to lock the door to the cabinet and to unlock the door from the cabinet; rotate the drum while the locker unlocks the door; and display weight information of the laundry after the drum starts rotating (Examiner highlights Kim displays washing information that changed based on the measured weight, but not explicitly displaying the weight itself).
However, Quinn discloses it is well-known in the laundry treating apparatus art (abstract) to provide a locker (col. 3 lines 42-44 control…lock on the machine loading door) configured to lock the door to the cabinet and to unlock the door from the cabinet and to display weight information of the laundry after measuring the weight (claims 8-9; ¶ [0065], [0069]-[0070] case the display to indicate the weight).
Regarding “rotate the drum while the locker unlocks the door” and “displaying weight information…after the drum starts rotating”, Kim acquires weight information by rotation (¶ [0041]). It thus being obvious in the combination where Kim is modified to display the measured weight, this must take place after having measured the weight, by rotation. Regarding “unlocks the door”, it is inherent in Kim that the door must have been unlocked to add laundry to the washing machine; and here, where Kim is silent as to a lock, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to leave the door unlocked. It further being simply a selection of one of only two known options, locked or unlocked. It further being obvious that locking is not required until water is added (as previously argued by Applicant).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the modify the apparatus of Kim, to further include a locker and to display the measured weight information, as suggested by Quinn, in order to provide a lock to prevent accidental access during washing and to provide user-relevant information.
Re claim 17, Kim further discloses an execution portion (see fig. 1 ref. 12 or unlabeled button left of refs. 11, 12) configured to receive an execution command to execute a course (¶ [0220]-[0223] command of approval). Regarding “wherein the execution portion is configured to receive the execution command while the display displays the weight information after the drum starts rotating”, Kim further discloses user approval after reviewing information based on laundry-property-detecting step (¶ [0220]-[0223]).
Re claim 18-19, Quinn further discloses wherein the weight information comprises a weight of the laundry (claims 8-9; ¶ [0065], [0069]-[0070]). Re claim 19, Regarding “wherein the weight information comprises a range of a weight of the laundry”, the mere display of statistical deviation and/or rounding categories (e.g. light, medium, heavy, maximum load) is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 20, Quinn further discloses wherein the weight information comprises: a weight of the laundry (see rejection to claims 18-19 above). Regarding “a threshold range for changing at least one of (i) a detergent amount corresponding to the weight of the laundry or (ii) a course execution time corresponding to the weight of the laundry”, Kim further discloses reference values and setting rotation time period and agitation cycle (¶ [0011], [0023]-[0025]).
Re claim 25, Kim further discloses comprising an execution portion configured to receive an execution command for executing a course (see fig. 1 ref. 12 or unlabeled button left of refs. 11, 12). Regarding “wherein the locker is configured to lock the door to the cabinet based on receiving the executing command being received”, Quinn further discloses control operation of the lock (¶ [0017]) and it being prima facie obvious to only lock the door after power on/start of the wash cycle.
Re claim 26, Regarding “wherein the display is configured to display an execution time of the course based on the execution command being received”, Kim and/or Quinn discloses displaying the execution time (Kim ¶ [0057]; Quinn ¶ [0017]).
Re claim 27, Regarding “wherein the display is configured to display both of the weight information and the execution time of the course simultaneously”, the simultaneous display of useful user information is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of informing the user about the laundry and the operation.
Re claim 28, Regarding “wherein the motor is configured to, while the door is unlocked, rotate the drum within a predetermined angle to thereby cause the laundry in the drum to be separated from an inner wall of the drum or to change an arrangement of the laundry in the drum”, Kim discloses rotating the laundry (¶ [0041]) and is therefore expected to yield the same result of laundry separating or changing, as claimed.
Re claims 29-32, Kim further discloses comprising a control panel configured to control operation of the display (ref. 12). Regarding “a control panel configured to control operation of the locker”, here, the inclusion of a manual door lock or a start button that will result in locking the door when wash operation starts is prima facie to one of ordinary skill in the art, for purposes of operating the washing machine and locking when water is added to prevent leaks. Regarding “comprising a plurality of buttons disposed on the cabinet, and wherein at least one of the plurality of buttons comprises the power portion”, Kim discloses a plurality of buttons (see fig. 4) and a power portion (see unlabeled buttons surrounding knob; moreover the inclusion of a power button being conventionally known). Regarding “wherein at least one of the plurality of buttons comprises an execution portion configured to receive an execution command for executing a course”, Kim discloses an input unit including approval so that the washing process is performed (ref. 12 ¶ [0058], [0223]) (also consider unlabeled start button surrounding knob, see fig. 4).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210207304 A1) (previously cited) in view of Quinn (EP 0294014 A1) (previously cited), as applied above, in view of Johansson et al. (US 2022/0195649 A1).
Re claim 21, Kim/Quinn discloses as shown above including adding detergent (Kim ¶ [0002]), but does not explicitly discloses wherein the weight information comprises an amount of detergent for washing the laundry. However, Johansson discloses it is known in the laundry treating apparatus art (abstract) to provide wherein the weight information comprises an amount of detergent for washing the laundry (¶ [0074] detergent calculated based on the load detected, ¶ [0090]-[0091] calculating a resource threshold).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weight information of Kim/Quinn to further include an amount of detergent for washing the laundry, as suggested by Johansson, in order to optimized detergent use as a function of laundry amount.
Re claim 22, Johansson further discloses further comprising a sensor (ref. 58 ¶ [0066],[0068]) configured to detect whether the door is opened and closed, wherein the motor is configured to weigh the laundry based on that the sensor detecting a first occurrence of the door being opened or closed (¶ [0033]-[0034], [0091], [0123]), and wherein the display is configured to display the weight information after the weighing based on the sensor detecting the first occurrence of the door being opened or closed (¶ [0107] detected laundry load is displayed). Regarding “rotate the drum” Kim discloses rotation for weighing the laundry (see rejection to claim 15 above).
Re claim 23, Regarding “wherein the motor is configured to, based on the sensor detecting a second occurrence of the door being opened or closed after the first occurrence, rotate the drum again after the drum stops, and wherein the display is configured to display again the weight information after the drum starts rotating based on the sensor detecting the second occurrence of the door being opened or closed”, Johansson discloses if the door is opened again [after the first closing], the laundry load is against determined after closing the door (¶ [0091]).
Claims 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210207304 A1) (previously cited) in view of Quinn (EP 0294014 A1) (previously cited) and/or Johansson (US 2022/0195649 A1), as applied above, in view of Bae et al. (US 20100031451 A1).
Re claims 16 and 24, Kim/Quinn and/or Johansson discloses as shown above and Kim further discloses wherein the motor is configured to rotate the drum at a predetermined angle to measure weight (¶ [0041]), but does not explicitly disclose less than one revolution while the door is unlocked. However, Bae explicitly discloses it is known in the laundry treating apparatus art to provide measuring a weight by rotation less than one revolution (¶ [0028] less than 180 degrees).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weight detection of Kim to further include rotation less than one revolution, as suggested by Bae, in order to simply and accurate sense the laundry amount.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights