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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
1) server communication unit in claims 1 and 10;
2) server controller in claims 1 and 10;
3) washing apparatus in claims 1 and 10;
4) drying apparatus in claims 1 and 10;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
ART REJECTION:
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) 1-2,9-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch(USPGPUB 2018/0305856 A1) in view of Scheckelhoff et al(USPGPUB 2023/0132718 A1).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Welch includes:
1) receiving, by a server communication unit of a management server, a first message notifying an end of washing of laundry from the washing apparatus washing the laundry is met by the server(128), which executes operations of laundry management systems(see: Welch, sec[0036]), and wherein the server receives messages from laundry machines(102a,102b) pertaining to the operational state of the laundry machine(see: Welch, sec[0039]);
2) calculating, by a server controller of the management server, a time duration for which the laundry has been left in a neglected manner in the washing apparatus, based on the first message and the second message is met by the controller(120) keeping track of time elapsed after laundry machine reaches cycle complete(see: Welch, sec[0051]). And wherein the server(128) includes sensor(150) which detects the operational status of the machine, and wherein the main server receives and compiles the operational information to be presented or displayed for users(see: Welch, sec[0054])
3) comparing, by the server controller of the management server, the time duration for which the laundry has been left in a neglected manner in the washing apparatus with a reference time duration is met by the timer in the sensor(150), which would track the amount of time after the cycle is complete, in the same manner as that of the controller(120);
4) controlling, by the server controller of the management server, a notification process to the washing apparatus or the drying apparatus, based on the comparing result is met by the server(128) receiving the operational state information, compiling it with other operational information, and causing the information to be displayed for users to view on a webpage or mobile application for indicating status to a user(see: Welch, sec[0054]).
- Welch does not teach:
1) receiving, by the server communication unit, a second message notifying a start of drying from a drying apparatus to dry the laundry of the washing apparatus.
Although use of dryers and receiving message notifying of a dryer starting is not taught by Welch, use of systems which monitor the status of a dryer, along with a washer is well known. In related art, Scheckelhoff et al(Scheckelhoff) teaches a method for determining operations within a laundry treatment appliance, wherein upon completion of a washing operation within the washing machine appliance, a user may move a laundry load from the washing machine to the dryer appliance(100)(see: Scheckelhoff, sec[0033]). And wherein an external communication system(190) permits the controller(166) of dryer appliance(100) to communicate with external devices through a network(192). Wherein remote server(196) is in communication with dryer appliance(100) to communicating operating parameters or performance characteristics(see: Scheckelhoff, sec[0029-0030]), which would have inherently included dryer start time.
Since the use of dryer appliances, which communicate operating parameters to a remote server is well known, as taught by Scheckelhoff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the dryer appliance(100) of Scheckelhoff, into the system of Welch, since this would have allowed comprehensive monitoring of washed items, such that the amount of time that the clothes would have been left unattended would have been minimized.
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the controlling of the notification process includes:
i) creating, by the server controller of the management server, a notification message to be output from the washing apparatus or the drying apparatus and transmitting, by the server communication unit, the notification message to at least one of the washing apparatus or the drying apparatus is met by the main messaging device(240) of the server, which sends messages to the remote messaging device(140) such that the messaging device(140) knows to send out a message pertaining to a cycle ending and or a grace period of a certain duration has begun(see: Welch, sec[0041]).
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) generating, by the server controller, a pushing message to be transmitted to a user terminal linked to the washing apparatus and the drying apparatus and transmitting, by the server communication unit, the pushing message to the user terminal is met by the messages being sent to a user’s remote communication device advising of the status of the operational state of the machine(102)(see: Welch, sec[0028]).
-- Claim 10 recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 10 above.
-- Claim 18 depends from claim 10, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 9 and 10 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, and 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, CURTIS A KUNTZ can be reached at 571-272-7499. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687