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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the above reply.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the recitation of “a plurality of upgrade functions for change or addition of the options” is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant intends. What structural limitation ins being recited by the upgrade functions? Are they being recited as being structurally configured to controller, operation part, or terminal? Or are they merely an intended use “for change or addition of the options” as claimed? Applicnat is reminded that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)) and that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)). Clarification and correction of the structural recitations is required.
Similarly regarding claim 4, “a first washing option for adjustment…” and “a second washing option for adjustment…” are unclear as to what structure and/or configuration is being recited. The intended use “for adjustment” reads on any washing option selected.
Similarly regarding claim 7, what structure and/or configuration is being recited by the negative limitation of “a remaining upgrade function is not set in the controller”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 106676833 A to Lu (machine translation provided).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7-11, Lu discloses a laundry treating apparatus (washing machine, see p. 1 of translation) comprising:
a cabinet (implicit/inherent to conventional washing machine);
a tub provided in the cabinet to accommodate water (implicit/inherent to conventional washing machine);
a drum rotatably provided in the tub to accommodate laundry (implicit/inherent to conventional washing machine; also note step 1-4 on p. 7 of translation describing the program automatically reducing target rotating speed));
an operation part provided in the cabinet to provide information to a user and to be operated by the user (see “operation part” in claim 1); and
a controller (see control unit in claim 1; note also “program controller” in claim 8) configured to perform a laundry washing course based on an operation signal transmitted from the operation part or a terminal of the user (claim 1, the control unit connected to the server through a remote communication device),
wherein a plurality of options comprising set values adjustable based on the operation signal is stored in the controller (see claim 1: a program regulation module is one parameter with upload and download program function and/or the washing program of washing machine for adjusting function of function module, a program regulation module is for realizing the user loading washing program edited to the washing machine on the program regulation module),
wherein a plurality of upgrade functions for change or addition of the options is provided to the user through the operation part or the terminal (see claim 1: a program regulation module is one parameter with upload and download program function and/or the washing program of washing machine for adjusting function of function module, a program regulation module is for realizing the user loading washing program edited to the washing machine on the program regulation module; the user through connection communicates with the control part of the operating part inputs washing, program regulation module and the washing to be uploaded to the server),
wherein an upgrade function selected by the user from among the plurality of upgrade functions is set in the controller terminal (see claim 1: a program regulation module is one parameter with upload and download program function and/or the washing program of washing machine for adjusting function of function module, a program regulation module is for realizing the user loading washing program edited to the washing machine on the program regulation module; the user through connection communicates with the control part of the operating part inputs washing, program regulation module and the washing to be uploaded to the server; note such recitation implicitly taches that anything changed by user is set in the controller), and
wherein the plurality of upgrade functions comprises a washing option upgrade function to change a washing option for adjustment of the washing course among the plurality of options terminal (see claim 1: a program regulation module is one parameter with upload and download program function and/or the washing program of washing machine for adjusting function of function module),
wherein a plurality of option values of the washing option is stored in the controller, wherein one of the plurality of option values is determined to be a set value of the washing option based on the operation signal and is reflected in the washing course, and wherein, if the washing option upgrade function is set, the controller changes at least one of the plurality of option values of the washing option or adds an option value (see claim 1: a program regulation module is one parameter with upload and download program function and/or the washing program of washing machine for adjusting function of function module; note that downloading a program implicitly/inherently discloses storing the program parameters and options),
wherein the operation part or the terminal outputs an upgrade screen on which the plurality of upgrade functions is selectably displayed, and wherein, among the plurality of upgrade functions on the upgrade screen, an upgrade function selected by the user is set in the controller, and a remaining upgrade function is not set in the controller (note display part in claim 1, as well as program regulation mode adjusting function of uploaded/downloaded programs),
wherein the upgrade screen does not display an upgrade function preset in the controller (see above, note the screen is fully capable of not displaying at least some upgrade functions),
wherein a plurality of option values of the washing option is stored in the controller (see claim 1 above), wherein one of the plurality of option values is determined to be a set value and is reflected in the washing course, wherein the operation part or the terminal outputs a washing option setting screen on which the plurality of option values is selectably displayed, and wherein, if the washing option upgrade function is set in the controller, a number or display form of the plurality of option values on the washing option setting screen is changed (see claim 1 above, specifically the display part, and the adjusting parameters of uploaded and downloaded program functions),
wherein, if the washing option upgrade function is set in the controller (see above and claim 1), a form in which one of the plurality of option values displayed on the washing option setting screen output from the operation part or the terminal is selected is changed (see claim 1 above; manifestly, the display part displays the adjusted parameters of the washing course),
wherein, if the washing option upgrade function is set, the washing option setting screen is output such that a selection mark located corresponding to an option value to be selected as a set value from among the plurality of option values is displayed so as to be movable by the user (see claim 1 above; manifestly, the display part displays the adjusted parameters of the washing course).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of EP 2860295 A1 to Yagi et al. (“Yagi”).
Regarding claims 3-6, Lu discloses the claimed invention including operation of a conventional washing machine. Lu further discloses adjusting washing course parameters and implicitly/inherently discloses a detergent supply part (conventional component of a washing machine) but Lu does not expressly disclose details regarding controlling the detergent supply part during a washing course. Yagi teaches an art-related washing machine and control thereof, including storing detergent amount for a washing course (see ¶ [0148] and detergent information storage).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to modify parameters in a washing course, such as that in Lu, using detergent supply part and associated control thereof, in order to adjust/modify the washing options as desired including detergent supply. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust/modify the result effective variables of washing course detergent supply parameters to any desired amount to yield the desired washing affect, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II) regarding Routine Optimization.
Regarding claims 12-13, all of the structural features as claimed are recited in Lu and Yagi above, and the optimization of washing functions are considered prima facie obvious as indicated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. Barr can be reached at 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights