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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement has been withdrawn in view of the canceled claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claim 15, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “a necessary notice” is because necessary is not defined what it’s necessary for or what the threshold of necessary is.
Claims 16-32 are rejected as they depend from Claim 15 without curing the deficiency.
Re Claim 16, it is unclear whether “the notice” refers back to the necessary notice of Claim 15.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 15-16, 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE BERNADO et al. (EP 3257996).
Re Claims 15 and 33, DE BERNADO et al. teaches a laundry treating apparatus comprising: a cabinet 6 that defines an opening; a door 24 coupled to the cabinet and configured to open and close the opening; a locker 58 configured to lock the door to the cabinet and to unlock the door from the cabinet; a drum 36 disposed inside the cabinet and configured to accommodate laundry; a motor (Fig. 3 and [0048]) connected to the drum and configured to rotate the drum; a display portion 50 disposed on the cabinet to display information; and a power portion disposed on the cabinet to receive a command to supply power. The motor provided is expected capable and at least obvious that it would rotate the drum with the door locked. The display portion being provided to recommend a course or display a necessary notice after the drum begins to rotate does not appear to be explicitly taught.
However, given that a display is taught and to issue a notification if the laundry amount lies outside a threshold range (See Claims 1-2, col. 15), it is expected and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the display portion display a notice such as an error when the laundry amount is outside the threshold range or at least during a wash or spin cycle (after the drum beings to rotate) to communicate to the user.
Re Claims 16 and 34, the display is expected capable of displaying a recommended course or notice while the door is unlocked, and is implied by DE BERNADO et al.
Re Claim 25, the buttons as shown in Fig. 1 are a manipulation portion, which are expected to execute and display the notice during normal use.
Re Claims 26-27, the display portion is expected and obvious for the display to display pre drum rotation and as the drum rotates and the motor to rotate to wash or sense with the door locked.
Re Claim 28, it is unclear whether a door sensor is claimed but it would be obvious to provide one to monitor the door lock status, especially because DE BERNADO et al. is teaching to check for safety conditions for unlocking the door lock, and monitoring the door lock with a sensor would help this in a well known way. See Col 15. Lines 5-10.
Re Claims 29-32, DE BERNADO et al. already teaches a plurality of buttons, it is expected and obvious that one of them will be a power button, one can execute a course, and the circular piece appears to be or at least make obvious a rotary knob which is also well known in the art.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE BERNADO et al. (EP 3257996) in view of CN 113550114, hereinafter referred to as “’114” further in view of CHA et al. (US 2021/0062397)
DE BERNADO et al. in view of ‘114 is relied upon as applied to the claims above.
Claim 24 is further directed toward a speaker and voice, which it is unclear whether DE BERNADO et al. teaches explicitly. However, it is well known in the washing machine art to use speakers to communicate with a user. For example, CHA et al. teaches a washing machine having an intelligent speaker 400 with a voice that talks to the user. See [0094].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to modify the washing machine with display as taught by DE BERNADO et al. and to provide a speaker for enhanced communication with the user as taught by CHA et al.
Examiner’s Note
US 2021/0363680 is cited as relevant and the closest art to Claims 17-23 as teaching an optimized AI-based control method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y KO whose telephone number is (571)270-7451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-270-1414. 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.
JASON Y. KO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/JASON Y KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711