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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14 are pending on the application, of which claims 1, 4-11 & 13-14 are amended.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Although applicant has made amendments to the claims, it is believed that rejection in view Ricklefs still reads on the claim under a certain interpretation of the phrase “the controller … user course” as recited in claim 1.
In view of the amendments to the claims an alternative rejection is provided should the provision of factory defaults present in the custom course not read on a controller recommendation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, although applicant has amended the claim to include the limitation of recommending a course, the limitation does not specify how the recommendation is made. Thus, such a feature is read on merely by default values prior to adjustment in the creation of a customized course.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ricklefs (US20080235613A1).
As to claim 1, Ricklefs discloses a laundry treating apparatus (abstract) comprising: a cabinet (Fig.1 ref 102); a drum [0016] rotatably disposed inside the cabinet and configured to accommodate laundry therein; and a controller [0018] disposed inside the cabinet and configured to store a plurality of treatment courses for treating the laundry (see [0018] in conjunction with [0029 & 0042] indicating plurality of courses are pre-stored), wherein the plurality of treatment courses include an existing course preset in the controller [0042], and further include a user course additionally stored in addition to the existing course as a user sets an option [0039-0042 & 0048]. The limitation of the controller being configured to recommend course for the use to set as the user course merely indicates that the controller should provide some course or course parameters for the user course. Ricklefs indicates that the default user cycle maybe be factory settings prior to customization by the user [0042]. Thus, Ricklefs indicates that a recommended course is provided (i.e., the factory default) for the user to set as a user course (e.g., not changing the parameters of the custom user course allows the user course to be stored as default when selecting the user and separate from a default selection without selecting a user). Ricklefs also indicates that the cycle displayed will be the last cycle used by the user [0030 & 0033]. Accordingly, such a display of the previous cycle parameters also reads on a recommended course to set as the user course for the current cycle. Thus, in either the case in which a user course is not customized yet, the saved user course contains recommended parameters forming a recommended course.
As to claim 2, Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the user course remains stored as part of the plurality of treatment courses even after the controller is powered off and then powered on again (see [0038], permanently stored).
As to claim 3, Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cabinet is equipped with an output device (e.g. see Figs.5-6 ref 702 & 702’ showcasing a display, see also Figs.7A-7I) configured to output a screen to the user (Figs.7A-7I), wherein the output device outputs a course selection screen where one of the plurality of treatment courses is selected, wherein the user course is displayed on the course selection screen as the one of the plurality of treatment courses along with the existing course (see Fig.6).
As to claim 4, Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to create the user course based on an input received via an input device disposed on the cabinet (see Figs.1A, 1D, 3D-4C &7A, also [0033, 0036, 0039, & 0042-0044]).
As to claim 5, Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein an output device (e.g. see Figs.5-6 ref 702 & 702’ showcasing a display, see also Figs.7A-7I) disposed on the cabinet (see Figs.1A & 1D) and configured to output a screen to allow the user to create the user course after the screen has been output (see Ricklefs Figs.3D-4C & 7A).
As to claim 6, Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein controller is configured to create the user course as a new course distinct from the existing course by changing a setting value of the option from the existing course [0034, 0036, & 0047].
As to claim 7, Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the existing course is one of a plurality of existing courses set in the controller [0029 & 0042], wherein the controller is configured to create user course as a new course by allowing the user to change a setting value of one of the plurality of existing courses selected by the user [0034, 0036, 0047].
As to claim 8, Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to store an additional course as part of the plurality of treatment courses in the controller, and the user course corresponds to the additional course (see Fig.6 & [0034, 0036, & 0047]).
As to claim 9, Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to allow the additional course to be able to be deleted by the user (see [0043] deletion of a user will delete associated custom course).
As to claim 10, Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 8, wherein the cabinet comprises an output device (e.g. see Figs.5-6 ref 702 & 702’ showcasing a display, see also Figs.7A-7I) configured to output a screen, wherein the controller is configured to output an additional course recommendation screen providing the additional course to the output device (see Fig.6 showcasing additional courses, e.g., kid’s clothes, karate clothes, jeans), wherein the controller is configured to store the additional course selected by the user on the additional course recommendation screen as part of the plurality of treatment courses (see [0018, 0038-0040, 0042, & 0048] indicating that the courses are stored in the memory of the computing environment, i.e., controller).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 11-12 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricklefs (US20080235613A1) in view of Do (KR20060000004A).
As to claims 11-12, Ricklefs teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to perform a course selection process of selecting one of the plurality of treatment courses as a selected course by the user [0031-0037], wherein in the course selection process, a setting value of the option for the selected course is changeable by the user [0034-0036]. Ricklefs does not disclose the storing of the number of times the option for the course has been selected in the past and setting such option as the preferred value when above a predetermined amount and utilizing a stored value when such preferred value is not stored. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Do.
Do discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that after powering on the appliance and a course is selected, a determination can be made whether or not a preferred state of the selected course is present (pages 8-9). If a preferred state is not stored then the default factory value is utilized (page 7). It is further disclosed that if a user selects a preferred state a preset number of times it can be stored as the preferred state for future action (page 9) in order to save hassle and improve user satisfaction (page 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ricklefs to determine if a setting value for a selected course is changed more than a predetermined number of times and if so to set such setting value as the preferred value in order to save hassle and improve user satisfaction (Do page 10).
As to claim 14, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to perform a preferred value reflection function of applying the preferred value as the setting value and terminating the preferred value reflection function based on an input via an input device disposed in the cabinet and configured to receive a user command of the user (i.e., Ricklefs [0033-0036], upon a desire to utilize a course with a different value from that which is stored, the user can operate the soft keys to input a different value, thereby reading on a preferred value reflection function being released by an input device).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricklefs (US20080235613A1) in view of Hahn (US20210180232A1).
As to claim 13, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 11, wherein the controller stores a setting value repeatedly set by the user (see Do pages 7-9). Modified Ricklefs does not explicitly disclose said value being set when occurring in succession a certain number of times or more in the past course selection processes as the preferred value. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Hahn.
Hahn discloses an art related laundry apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that utilizing a number of times an option has been set in succession can be utilized for determining whether to store such a value [0130-0131]. Hahn suggests that such a manner is an alternative to merely a predetermined number of times an option is set (see Fig.6 & [0128-0129]).
Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to store the value as a preferred value should the user repeatedly set the value in succession a certain number of times, as such is known to be an obvious alternative variant known in the art (Hahn [0130-0131]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner for determining to store a preferred value in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success, especially when both manners are known in the art.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricklefs (US20080235613A1) in view of Choi (US20230399786A1) and Kwon (US20180305851A1). The following alternative rejection is provided assuming arguendo that factory default for user custom courses does not read on a recommended course.
As to claim 1, Ricklefs discloses a laundry treating apparatus (abstract) comprising: a cabinet (Fig.1 ref 102); a drum [0016] rotatably disposed inside the cabinet and configured to accommodate laundry therein; and a controller [0018] disposed inside the cabinet and configured to store a plurality of treatment courses for treating the laundry (see [0018] in conjunction with [0029 & 0042] indicating plurality of courses are pre-stored), wherein the plurality of treatment courses include an existing course preset in the controller [0042], and further include a user course additionally stored in addition to the existing course as a user sets an option [0039-0042 & 0048]. Kwon does not disclose the controller being configured to recommend a course for the user to set as the user course, however such a feature would be obvious in view of Choi and Kwon.
Choi discloses an art related laundry apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to allow a user to input information regarding the type of laundry to be cleaned in order to allow a controller to recommend potential wash cycle parameters (Fig.8). The recommended course can also be edited and saved in order to provide a user customized course [0058]. A recommended course allows for managing of clothes in an optimal way based on clothing characteristics [0094].
Kwon discloses an art related laundry treating appliance (abstract), wherein a user display which allows for a user to select a recommended course or customize a recommended course (Figs.3, 5-9, & 12, [0199, 0204-0205]). In recommending a course a user’s convenience can be maximized [0127].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ricklefs to allow the controller to recommend a course for the user to set as the user course in order to provide an optimal way to manage clothing and increase user convenience (Choi [0058 & 0094] & Kwon [0127]). A skilled artisan also recognizes that by allowing a recommendation of a user course based on the clothing additional time can be saved.
As to claim 2, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the user course remains stored as part of the plurality of treatment courses even after the controller is powered off and then powered on again (see Ricklefs [0038], permanently stored).
As to claim 3, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cabinet is equipped with an output device (e.g. see Ricklefs Figs.5-6 ref 702 & 702’ showcasing a display, see also Figs.7A-7I) configured to output a screen to the user (Ricklefs Figs.7A-7I), wherein the output device outputs a course selection screen where one of the plurality of treatment courses is selected, wherein the user course is displayed on the course selection screen as the one of the plurality of treatment courses along with the existing course (see Ricklefs Fig.6).
As to claim 4, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to create the user course based on an input received via an input device disposed on the cabinet (see Ricklefs Figs.1A, 1D, 3D-4C &7A, also [0033, 0036, 0039, & 0042-0044]; see also Kwon and Choi showcasing input of user to create the user course on either cabinet or user terminal).
As to claim 5, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein an output device (e.g. see Ricklefs Figs.5-6 ref 702 & 702’ showcasing a display, see also Figs.7A-7I) disposed on the cabinet (see Ricklefs Figs.1A & 1D) and configured to output a screen to allow the user to create the user course after the screen has been output (see Ricklefs Figs.3D-4C & 7A; see also Kwon and Choi).
As to claim 6, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to create the user course as a new course distinct from the existing course by changing a setting value of the option from the existing course (Ricklefs [0034, 0036, & 0047]; see also Kwon and Choi).
As to claim 7, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the existing course is one of a plurality of existing courses set in the controller (Ricklefs [0029 & 0042]), wherein the controller is configured to create user course as a new course by allowing the user to change a setting value of the option by the user from one of the plurality of existing courses selected by the user (Ricklefs [0034, 0036, 0047]).
As to claim 8, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to store an additional course as part of the plurality of treatment courses in the controller, and the user course corresponds to the additional course (see Ricklefs Fig.6 & [0034, 0036, & 0047]).
As to claim 9, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to allow the additional course to be able to be deleted by the user (see Ricklefs [0043] deletion of a user will delete associated custom course).
As to claim 10, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 8, wherein the cabinet comprises an output device (e.g. see Ricklefs Figs.5-6 ref 702 & 702’ showcasing a display, see also Figs.7A-7I) configured to output a screen, wherein the controller is configured to output an additional course recommendation screen providing the additional course to the output device (see Ricklefs Fig.6 showcasing additional courses, e.g., kid’s clothes, karate clothes, jeans), wherein the controller is configured to store the additional course selected by the user on the additional course recommendation screen as part of the plurality of treatment courses (see Ricklefs [0018, 0038-0040, 0042, & 0048] indicating that the courses are stored in the memory of the computing environment, i.e., controller).
Claim(s) 11-12 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricklefs (US20080235613A1) in view of in view of Choi (US20230399786A1) and Kwon (US20180305851A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Do (KR20060000004A).
As to claims 11-12, Ricklefs teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to perform a course selection process of selecting one of the plurality of treatment courses as a selected course by the user (Ricklefs [0031-0037]), wherein in the course selection process, a setting value of the option for the selected course is changeable by the user (Ricklefs [0034-0036]). Ricklefs does not disclose the storing of the number of times the option for the course has been selected in the past and setting such option as the preferred value when above a predetermined amount and utilizing a stored value when such preferred value is not stored. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Do.
Do discloses an art related washing machine (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that after powering on the appliance and a course is selected, a determination can be made whether or not a preferred state of the selected course is present (pages 8-9). If a preferred state is not stored then the default factory value is utilized (page 7). It is further disclosed that if a user selects a preferred state a preset number of times it can be stored as the preferred state for future action (page 9) in order to save hassle and improve user satisfaction (page 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ricklefs to determine if a setting value for a selected course is changed more than a predetermined number of times and if so to set such setting value as the preferred value in order to save hassle and improve user satisfaction (Do page 10).
As to claim 14, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to perform a preferred value reflection function of applying the preferred value as the setting value and terminating the preferred value reflection function based on an input via an input device disposed in the cabinet and configured to receive a user command of the user (i.e., Ricklefs [0033-0036], upon a desire to utilize a course with a different value from that which is stored, the user can operate the soft keys to input a different value, thereby reading on a preferred value reflection function being released by an input device).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricklefs (US20080235613A1) in view of in view of Choi (US20230399786A1) and Kwon (US20180305851A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hahn (US20210180232A1).
As to claim 13, Modified Ricklefs teaches the laundry treating apparatus of claim 11, wherein the controller stores a setting value repeatedly set by the user (see Do pages 7-9). Modified Ricklefs does not explicitly disclose said value being set when occurring in succession a certain number of times or more in the past course selection processes as the preferred value. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Hahn.
Hahn discloses an art related laundry apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that utilizing a number of times an option has been set in succession can be utilized for determining whether to store such a value [0130-0131]. Hahn suggests that such a manner is an alternative to merely a predetermined number of times an option is set (see Fig.6 & [0128-0129]).
Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to store the value as a preferred value should the user repeatedly set the value in succession a certain number of times, as such is known to be an obvious alternative variant known in the art (Hahn [0130-0131]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner for determining to store a preferred value in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success, especially when both manners are known in the art.
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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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)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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights