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The restriction mailed 2/24/2026 has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
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: “garment treatment components” in claims 1 and 11; “output components” in claims 1 and 11; “washing components” in claim 3; “drying components” in claim 4.
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.
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.
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, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0324561) in view of Bajovic (US 2021/0182939).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kim discloses a garment treatment device and method comprising: garment treatment components (150-152); a tag reader (121 and/or NFC or RFID; paragraphs 257-262, 496-497); output components (311, 312); at least one memory storing one or more instructions (Figure 2: 170); and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory to cause the garment treatment device (180) to: obtain garment information of a plurality of garments accommodated in the garment treatment device through the tag reader (Fig. 17: 1710; Fig. 4: S401; paragraphs 257-262, 440, 441), determine, based on the obtained garment information, whether there is a garment that needs to be separated from other garments among the plurality of garments (1720; paragraph 443), and control the garment treatment components to wash or dry the other garments with or without the garment that needs to be separated according to a user input received in response to the guide information (paragraph 443-453; Fig. 4: S407).
Kim does not expressly disclose: based on determining that there is the garment that needs to be separated from the other garments, output, through the output components, guide information for guiding a user through separating the garment that needs to be separated from the other garments, along with identification information of the garment that needs to be separated. Rather, Kim discloses if materials of different laundry groups are detected, displaying or outputting through an audio output unit a notification message informing a user that materials of different laundry groups are detected and asking whether to wash laundries together or separately, and the user may be guided to determine how to appropriately wash laundries through a warning message when washing together is impossible (1720, 1750; paragraphs 443-445).
Bajovic discloses a clothing item cleaning appliance (320), such as a washing machine or drying machine and a device to read a clothing item ID, such as an RFID reader, NFC reader, or barcode reader (paragraph 44). The clothing item cleaning appliance sets its operation parameters to match the care and content information (paragraph 45). When the care and content information indicates a garment should not be washed in the machine or includes items of a different color, a display can indicate that the item(s) should be removed (paragraphs 55-56). The user can also override the error, and the machine can choose gentlest operating setting (paragraphs 55-56).
Because it is known in the art to indicate which clothes are incompatible and should be removed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing known steps for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have based on determining that there is the garment that needs to be separated from the other garments, output, through the output components, guide information for guiding a user through separating the garment that needs to be separated from the other garments, along with identification information of the garment that needs to be separated.
Claims 2 and 12 are considered to be met by Kim, in view of Bajovic, as applied above and which results in: wherein: the output components comprises a display, and based on determining that there is the garment that needs to be separated from the other garments, the at least one processor is further configured to display, through the display, an identification image of the garment that needs to be separated (Bajovic: paragraphs 55-56).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kim, in view of Bajovic is relied upon as above, and further discloses wherein: the garment treatment components comprises drying components (Kim: paragraphs 203-205, 225), and the at least one processor is further configured to: based on information about whether the plurality of garments are machine-dryable, which is included in the garment information of the plurality of garments, determine a garment that is not machine-dryable from among the plurality of garments, as the garment that needs to be separated from the other garments (Kim: Figures 6, 17; 1750; paragraph 449).
Kim, in view of Bajovic does not expressly disclose based on receiving a user input to start drying, which is input after the garment that needs to be separated is unloaded according to the guide information, control the drying components to dry the other garments.
Kim is relied upon as above and further discloses that the information includes whether clothes are to be dry cleaned (Figure 6). As discussed above, Bajovic discloses when the care and content information indicates a garment should not be washed in the machine or includes items of a different color, a display can indicate that the item(s) should be removed (paragraphs 55-56).
Because it is known in the art to remove certain items, and that a dry-clean only item may be present, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, performing the washing/drying without the dry clean only item, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have based on receiving a user input to start drying, which is input after the garment that needs to be separated is unloaded according to the guide information, control the drying components to dry the other garments.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kim, in view of Bajovic, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to: detect tag identifiers (IDs) of the plurality of garments through the tag reader, and obtain the garment information corresponding to the tag IDs, and the garment information corresponding to the tag IDs is garment information based on a user input received through a user device.
Bajovic is relied upon as above and further discloses a user device can send a query to a database, where the query includes the clothing item ID, and the database has the clothing item ID and the care and content information, and based on the clothing ID the care and content information from the database is retrieved (paragraphs 34, 77).
Because it is known in the art to query a database using a clothing ID, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, determining the care information using a known technique, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to: detect tag identifiers (IDs) of the plurality of garments through the tag reader, and obtain the garment information corresponding to the tag IDs, and the garment information corresponding to the tag IDs is garment information based on a user input received through a user device.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kim, in view of Bajovic, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output, through the output components, guide information for guiding the user through a washing method for the other garments, along with a washing method for the garment that needs to be separated.
Bajovic is relied upon as above and further discloses displaying the error includes displaying both the information “machine wash cold” and for the garment to be removed displaying the information “dry clean only” (paragraphs 55-56; Figure 6).
Because it is known in the art to display the information as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, conveying the instructions to the user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output, through the output components, guide information for guiding the user through a washing method for the other garments, along with a washing method for the garment that needs to be separated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 8-10, 13, 16, and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the garment treatment device or method as defined by the combinations of claims 1/3 or 11/13; the garment treatment device or method as defined by the combination of claims 1/6 or 11/16; the garment treatment device or method as defined by the combination of claims 1/8 or 11/18; or the garment treatment device or method as defined by the combination of claims 1/10 or 11/20.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, there is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Kim et al. (US 2021/0324561), to further include wherein the garment treatment components comprises washing components, and the at least one processor is further configured to: based on information about a degree of staining, which is included in the garment information of the plurality of garments, determine a garment that is likely to stain surrounding garments from among the plurality of garments, as the garment that needs to be separated from the other garments, and based on receiving a user input to start washing, which is input after the garment that needs to be separated is unloaded according to the guide information, control the washing components to wash the other garments.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, there is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Kim et al. (US 2021/0324561), to further include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to rotate a drum to move a position of the garment that needs to be separated to a top of the plurality of garments such that the garment that needs to be separated among the plurality of garments is visible in the drum.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, there is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Kim et al. (US 2021/0324561), to further include wherein: the garment information of the plurality of garments comprises notification setting information about whether to output a notification that a garment has been loaded into the garment treatment device, and the at least one processor is further configured to, as a tag ID of a garment for which a notification is set to be output among the plurality of garments is detected based on the notification setting information, output the notification that the garment with the tag ID has been loaded into the garment treatment device through the output components.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, there is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Kim et al. (US 2021/0324561), to further include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, when washing or drying is performed more than a predetermined number of times for the garment that needs to be separated, as the garment that needs to be separated is washed or dried without being separated after the guide information is output, change a washing method or a drying method for the garment that needs to be separated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 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) 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights