DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 6/25/2026.
Claims 1-8 are pending and 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 .
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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2018/0202091 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0305851 A1), Lee et al. (AU 2016384539 B2) and Li et al. (US 2018/0057987 A1).
Re claim 1, Son discloses a laundry treating apparatus (abstract, title) comprising:
a first laundry treating apparatus (ref. 110, see fig. 2) comprising:
a cabinet (ref. 111),
a drum (¶ [0126] a first drum) disposed in the cabinet and configured to receive laundry,
a driver (ref. 114) configured to rotate the drum,
a manipulation portion (see fig. 2 portion occupied by ref. 200) configured to receive a selection command for selecting a course or an operation triggering an operation of the driver,
a display portion (ref. 210, 220 ¶ [0166]-[0167] display unit) configured to display state information including at least one of a name, a selected state, or an executed state of the course or the option that triggered the operation of the driver (fig. 10a-c), and
a second laundry treating apparatus (ref. 120) configured to be separated from the first laundry treating apparatus and to receive laundry,
wherein the first laundry treating apparatus further comprises:
a communication module (ref. 300, ¶ [0151]) configured to communicate with the second laundry treating apparatus, and
a switching portion (¶ [0147]-[0148] switch provided in the cabinet…connected to an external power supply source…a second power supply source for supplying power to the second treating unit) disposed at the cabinet and configured to receive a connection command that causes the communication module to communication with the second laundry treating apparatus (¶ [0173], [0219]-[0220]), and
wherein the second laundry treating apparatus is configured to, based on the connection command being input to the switching portion, receive power, and
wherein the display portion is configured to:
display information regarding the second laundry treating apparatus based on connection command being input to the switching portion (¶ [0036]-[0038], [0095], [0186] displays based on sensing whether one or both treating units are activated; [0044]-[0045] “course display step may be repeated, when the operation command performable in the selected treating unit is not input in the course input sense step”).
Son does not explicitly disclose a setting portion disposed at an outside of the manipulation portion and the display portion and configured to receive a change command to change the operation of the driver, and display information regarding the first laundry treating apparatus based on a control command for independently selecting or executing a course or an option being received at the second laundry treating apparatus after the connection command is input to the switching portion.
Regarding the setting portion, Kwon discloses it is well-known in the laundry treating apparatus interface art (abstract) to provide a setting portion (see fig. 3, ref. 170 operate/pause, ref. 160d add laundry) disposed at an outside of the manipulation portion (refs. 140) and the display portion (ref. 130) and configured to receive a change command to change the operation of the driver (e.g. pause and add laundry will stop the driver).
Regarding display information regarding the first laundry treating apparatus based on a control command being received at the second laundry treating apparatus, Lee discloses it is known in the laundry treating apparatus art (abstract) to provide display information regarding the first laundry treating apparatus based on a control command being received at the second laundry treating apparatus after the connection command is input to the switching portion (p. 30 lines 13-17, p. 33 lines 6-11, claims 2-3, second clothes treating apparatus may be released…based on a user input…such that second graphic objects disappear and the icons included in the first group appear; see also claim 9-10 guidance information of second treating apparatus after executing function of the first treating apparatus [and the reverse being prima facie obvious, i.e. finish executing second treating apparatus, results in guidance for the first treating apparatus]).
Although Lee further discusses determination of the second laundry treating apparatus being unavailable, e.g. because another stroke is already being executed, to result in a notification of unavailability, Lee does not explicitly discuss the display information of the first laundry treating apparatus when the stroke of the second laundry treating apparatus was executed.
However, Li explicitly discloses changing a display information to simultaneously display operating states of the corresponding washing units in real time according to the operating states of the corresponding washing unit (¶ [0086]-[0087]), e.g. switching to an operation interface/starting the program (¶ [0086], [0065] “start keys…clicked….starting washing operation….display screen 110 is transformed to an operation interface….split into screens to simultaneously display the operating states of the washing unit) (see also ¶ [0047] control of second washing unit in original states and display showing information including adjusting and splitting the screen in real-time to simultaneously display each of the washing units). That is, where Lee teaches showing only the first laundry treating apparatus information upon powering off the second laundry treating apparatus, Li additionally teaches the display splitting to show information of both washing units information [and therefore information of the first laundry treating apparatus] when there is a change/start/command for independently executing a washing operation of either the first or the second laundry treating apparatus.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include a setting portion disposed at an outside of the manipulation portion and the display portion, as suggested by Kwon, in order to pause or interrupt a washing process for changes; and to further include refreshing the display based on a command and/or power off the second laundry treating apparatus, as suggested by Lee, in order to avoid user confusion when the second laundry treating apparatus is unavailable; and to further including refreshing the display to include information of the first laundry treating apparatus upon receiving a start washing operation command, as suggested by Li, in order to provide the user with relevant operation information.
Re claim 3, Regarding “a third laundry treating apparatus configured to be separated from the second laundry treating apparatus and to receive laundry, wherein the communication module is configured to communicate the third laundry treating apparatus, and wherein the third laundry treating apparatus is configured to, based on the connection command being input to the switching portion, receive power”, the mere duplication of laundry apparatuses and connection the communication module is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the known art to have multiple washing and drying apparatuses (Son see e.g. fig. 1 showing ref. 10 and ref. 21, or fig. 2 ref. 120 appearing to have a top and side load treating unit). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts.
Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2018/0202091 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2018/0305851 A1) and Lee et al. (AU 2016384539 B2) and Li et al. (US 2018/0057987 A1), and further in view of Ha (US 2014/0156082 A1) (previously cited).
Re claim 2, Son discloses as shown above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second laundry treating apparatus is controlled to power off when the connection command is input to the switching portion and a predetermined reference time has passed. However, Ha discloses it is very old and well-known in the home appliance control art to automatically power off a washing machine (i.e. laundry treating apparatus) when operations are completed. Regarding “a predetermined reference time”, the use of a timeout or inactive wait period is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e. power-saving mode, for purposes of saving energy. (Alternatively, the operation of a timed cycle is also a “predetermined reference time”).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laundry treating apparatus of Son/Kwon/Lee to further include an automatic power off feature, as suggested by Ha, in order to enable remote power off and power-savings upon completion or inactivity.
Re claim 4-8, Dependent claim 4-8 are drawn to similar features of the first/second/third treating apparatus is controlled to power off when the connection command is input to the switching portion and a predetermined reference time has passed and/or after completion of a course and/or an option being executed. Here, as discussed in the rejection to claim 2 above, the mere use of a known automatic shut off after completion of a course/predetermined timeout or inactive wait period is prima facie obvious, and it being obvious to control any and/or all of the connected laundry treating apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Specifically, Lee contemplates changing the display to only first laundry treating apparatus information when the second laundry treating apparatus is powered off, but does not address changes in the display while the second laundry treating apparatus is powered on and operated. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li et al. (US 20180057987 A1).
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights