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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Within line 7 of claim 1, please provide punctuation, such as a colon (“:”), after “comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3 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.
Within line 6 of claim 2, the applicant recites, “at least one elongation”. Is the “at least one elongation” different than the previously introduced singular “elongation” (third line of claim 1)?
All remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent form a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KITAGAWA et al. (US 2018/0163342 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, KITAGAWA discloses an autonomous laundry folding system(1; 1B), comprising: a folding device comprising a rotatable platform (410 of 402; rotatable about shaft 412) configured to receive a laundry article (T) on a surface thereof and an elongation (at least one of 310A, 310B which are components of 300A, 300B, respectively) configured to fold the laundry article (T) on the rotatable platform (410) (Figures 1, 5-8, 18-22 and 52); and a controller (900; Figures 10 and 52) in communication with the folding device (note elements 904 and 906; Figures 10 and 52) and a remote device (“information terminal such as a smartphone, a personal computer, or the like”; para 0590) running a user application for communicating instructions to the folding device to fold the laundry article (para 0590), the user application comprising: a graphic display comprising one or more images of the laundry article being displayed on a display screen of the remote device to a user of the remote device (para 0590; “when the type of the processing subject T cannot be recognized by the control device 900B during the recognition process, the user may issue an enquiry as to the type of the processing subject T or the like by transmitting an image of the processing subject T to the other device”; prompt) (note that “a graphic display” on the smartphone or personal computer is inherent so that the user is able to view the transmitted image), and a user input field configured to receive a user input comprising at least one of an article type identification and a folding preference (para 0590; “commands related to processing may be received by the other device”) (note that an article type is input by a user on the other device, such as a smartphone, based on the transmitted image; additionally, note that folding instructions are provided based on the article type).
Regarding claim 2, KITAGAWA discloses wherein the user input is configured to be received at the user input field (inherent feature of “other device”, such as smartphone, based on para 0590) and transmitted to the controller (900) via a communication network (LAN, Bluetooth, WiFi, infrared, NFC, DLC, or the like; para 0590), and the controller (900) is configured to instruct one or more times one or more of a platform drive (906; 406) of the folding device to rotate the rotatable platform (410; 402) and an elongation drive (904; includes all motors associated with movement of 310A, 310B as shown in figure 5) in operable communication with at least one elongation (310A, 310B) to move the at least one elongation to fold the laundry article disposed on the rotatable platform (410; 402) according to at least one of a default folding sequence associated with the article type and the folding preference (“folding information” is obtained based on the article type; note figure 11 and paragraphs 0264 and 0335).
Regarding claim 3, KITAGAWA discloses wherein the at least one elongation (310A, 310B) is configured to raise and lower from the surface of the rotatable platform (410; 402) and move parallel to the surface to fold the laundry article (note that the retaining mechanisms 310A, 310B can move in all X, Y and Z directions and are therefore considered fully capable of providing the claimed function) (regardless, note figures 18-22 and 27-49 which shows are claimed movements of the at least one elongation 310A, 310B).
Regarding claim 4, KITAGAWA discloses wherein the remote device comprises at least one of a computer terminal (personal computer) and a handheld device (smartphone) in communication with the controller (900) via a remote communication network (LAN, Bluetooth, WiFi, infrared, NFC, DLC, or the like) (para 0590).
Regarding claim 10, KITAGAWA discloses wherein the displayed one or more images are taken by one or more cameras (500; 502, 504) calibrated at a fixed position and orientation relative to the rotatable platform (410; 402) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the laundry article (such as a T-shirt, “T”) of KITAGAWA is fully capable of belonging to a household of the user and being one of a plurality of household laundry articles in a load of laundry comprising a plurality of article types and sizes configured to be presented sequentially to the folding device (Figures 1-80). Note that this language is purely functional containing no further limiting structure. KITAGAWA discloses that the laundry article can be any type of garment (T-shirt and pants are shown in figures), fabric, textile, towel (also shown in figures), sheet, piece of paper, or the like and places no particular limitations on the material, shape and size of the laundry article (para 0023 and 0150)
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITAGAWA et al. (US 2018/0163342 A1).
Regarding claims 5-7, KITAGAWA discloses an autonomous laundry folding system including a folding device and remote device (smartphone) as discussed above wherein the remote device displays an image of a clothing article being processed and allows a user to determine the article type for transmission back to a controller of the folding device. However, KITAGAWA is silent regarding the interface of the remote device. All of applicant’s claims 5-7 recite common interface features (displaying graphics and text fields; user input through input field such as buttons, selectable text boxes, drop-down menus, etc.) that are considered old and known in the art in order to allow a remote device to convey information to a user and allow a user to provide instructions/commands in response thereto. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the remote device of the folding system of KITAGAWA with the features as recited within applicant’s claims 5-7, because such is considered old and known in the art in order to allow the remote device to convey information to a user and allow a user to provide instructions/commands in response thereto.
Regarding claim 8, KITAGAWA discloses an autonomous laundry folding system including a folding device and remote device (smartphone) as discussed above wherein the remote device is capable of receiving a processing status such as an error generated during drying. It is considered old and known in the art to cease or pause operation of a machine when an error is present in order to prevent damage to the article and/or machine. Since the remote device of KITAGAWA is configured to send user input in the form of commands to the folding machine based on the received processing status, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided user input as “a request for not folding the laundry article” by shutting down or temporary pausing the folding system because such is considered old and known in the art in order to prevent damage to the laundry article and/or folding system.
Claim(s) 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KITAGAWA et al. (US 2018/0163342 A1) in view of ZHAO et al. (CN 110629508 A).
Regarding claims 12, 14-15 and 17, KITAGAWA discloses an autonomous laundry folding system and [control] method as discussed above. To reiterate in reference to claim 12, KITAGAWA discloses a method of folding a laundry article (T) with a folding device comprising: receiving at a controller (900; figures 10 and 52) of the folding device commands (“commands related to processing”; para 0590) transmitted via a communication network (LAN, Bluetooth, WiFi, infrared, NFC, DLC, or the like; para 0590) from a remote device (“information terminal such as a smartphone, a personal computer, or the like”; para 0590) displaying on an inherent display screen one or more images of the laundry article (“the user may issue an enquiry as to the type of the processing subject T or the like by transmitting an image of the processing subject T to the other device”; para 0590) disposed on a rotatable platform (410; 402) (note that conveyor 204 could also be considered a “rotatable platform” as claimed) of the folding device (note that the cameras 502, 504 of 500 capture processing subject T throughout entire process as necessary; para 0207-0213) (Fig. 1); and the controller (900) instructing one or more drives (902, 904, 906; includes corresponding motors) of the folding device to at least one of rotate the rotatable platform (410; 402) (or alternatively, 204) and move an elongation (310A, 310B) to fold the laundry article (T) in accordance with the one or more folding instructions (“folding information”; Fig. 11) (Figures 1, 3, 5-8, 10-22). However, KITAGAWA fails to disclose the commands being transmitted to the controller of the folding device being “folding instructions” which instruct the one or more drives of the folding device to perform the folding operation.
ZHAO discloses a folding device (Figures 1 and 4) wherein a remote device (intelligent terminal 3000; such as a “mobile phone”; Fig. 6) transmits folding instructions (command to fold clothing item) through a communication module (3; Fig. 6) to a controller (1; Fig. 6) of the folding device to instruct one or more drives (2) of the folding device to perform a folding operation in order to allow a user greater flexibility and control (Figures 1, 4 and 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the remote device of KITAGAWA with the ability to transmit folding instructions to the controller of the folding device, thus operating the folding device, in light of the teachings of ZHAO, in order to allow a user greater flexibility and control.
Regarding claims 13, 16 and 18, KITAGAWA [in view of ZHAO] teaches an autonomous laundry folding system/method including a folding device and remote device (smartphone) as discussed above wherein the remote device displays an image of a clothing article being processed and allows a user to determine the article type for transmission back to a controller of the folding device. However, KITAGAWA and ZHAO are silent regarding the interface of the remote device. All of applicant’s claims 13, 16 and 18 recite common interface features with corresponding method steps for use (displaying graphics and text fields; user input through input field such as buttons, selectable text boxes, drop-down menus, etc.) that are considered old and known in the art in order to allow a remote device to convey information to a user and allow a user to provide instructions/commands in response thereto. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the remote device of the folding system of KITAGAWA in view of ZHAO with the features/steps as recited within applicant’s claims 13, 16 and 18, because such is considered old and known in the art in order to allow the remote device to convey information to a user and allow a user to provide instructions/commands in response thereto.
Regarding claim 19, KITAGAWA [in view of ZHAO] teaches an autonomous laundry folding system including a folding device and remote device (smartphone) as discussed above wherein the remote device is capable of receiving a processing status such as an error generated during drying. It is considered old and known in the art to cease or pause operation of a machine when an error is present in order to prevent damage to the article and/or machine. Since the remote device of KITAGAWA in view of ZHAO is configured to send user input in the form of commands to the folding machine based on the received processing status, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the user input of KITAGAWA in view of ZHAO as “a request for not folding the laundry article” by shutting down or temporary pausing the folding system because such is considered old and known in the art in order to prevent damage to the laundry article and/or folding system.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, KITAGAWA discloses, upon receiving the laundry article on the rotatable platform (40; 402 or 204), processing one or more images of the laundry article (T) output by one or more sensors (500; 502, 504) and received by the controller with a randomized forest recognition device (recognition unit 914) on tagged images stored in a memory to identify an article type and select an appropriate folding routine (para 0260-0264). However, even though KITAGAWA uses a machine learning module in the form of a “Random Forest”, KITAGAWA fails to disclose the use of a neural network classifier. The use of a neural network module (deep learning) is considered old and known in the art and is beneficial in dealing with massive and unstructured data sets to provide maximum performance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have replaced the machine learning module (Random Forest) of KITAGAWA in view of ZHAO with a neural network module/classifier because such is considered old and known in the art in order to provide maximum performance with a large data set.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, as cited on attached PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that both US 2012/0228340 A1 and US 2007/0021283 A1 disclose an automated folding system that captures information of an article in order to appropriately fold that article.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights