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
Claims 2-3 objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 2-3 “names is selected” should be “names being selected” and “the selected one” should be “the selected one of the plurality of course names”. 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 10-15 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "a user interface", “an image”, “a first page”, “a course display portion”, and “a specific treatment course”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if these limitations are the same or different to those recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, they will be interpreted as the same.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "a first inputter”, “a second page”, “a plurality of course names”, and “a list”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if these limitations are the same or different to those recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, they will be interpreted as the same.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US20120056827A1).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a laundry treating apparatus (Fig.1) provided with a plurality of treatment courses for treating laundry (Fig.4), the laundry treating apparatus comprising: a UI section with a user interface (UI) including a screen where an image is output (Figs.3-4 several images e.g. icon lower right corner or upper left corner) and a first inputter configured to receive an input of a user (full-touch LCD 30 with input functions), wherein the screen is configured to output a first page (Fig.3) or a second page (Fig.4-5), wherein the first page includes a course display portion where a specific treatment course specified among the plurality of treatment courses is displayed (Fig.3 "Eco Wash"), wherein the second page displays a list including a plurality of course names respectively corresponding to the plurality of treatment courses (Fig.4 list of wash programs), wherein the image of the screen is switched from the first page to the second page based on the input of the user via the first inputter ([0142] switched by field wash program on the first page).
As to claim 2, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein based on one of the plurality of course names being selected in the second page, the screen is configured to output the first page where a treatment course corresponding to the selected one is specified as the specific treatment course (see [0149]-[0150]),
As to claim 3, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the screen is equipped as a touch screen configured to receive a touch input of the user, wherein based on an area corresponding to one of the plurality of course names being selected from the list on the second page, the screen is configured to output the first page where a treatment course corresponding to the selected one is specified as the specific treatment course (see [0149]-[0150] & Figs.5-6),
As to claims 4-5, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein among the plurality of course names in the second page, a course name of the specific treatment course is displayed to be distinguished from the remaining courses and the course name of the specific treatment course and the remaining course names are displayed in different colors (see figure 5 selection and information on the right hand side),
As to claim 6, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the second page displays a portion of the list and a remaining portion is displayed via scrolling of the user, wherein the second page output based on switching form the first page, a course name of the specific treatment course is included in the portion of the list before the scrolling (see [0143] and Fig.4),
As to claim 7, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the screen is equipped as a touch screen configured to receive a touch input of the user, wherein the first inputter is displayed on the first page (see full-touch LCD 30, and [0142]),
As to claims 8-9, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 7 wherein the first inputter is provided in an area occupied by the course display option and the first inputter is provided overlapping an area where the specific treatment course is displayed (see Figs.3-5, also [0142]).
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) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20120056827A1) in view of Coffman (US20150345068A1).
As to claims 10 & 13-14, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UI includes a touchscreen configured to output an image and receive a touch input of a user (see [0149]-[0150] & Figs.3-6), wherein the touch screen is configured to output the first page that includes a course display portion where the specific treatment course is displayed (see Fig.3 & 6) and a touch and scroll function can be utilized to view and select a specific course, wherein the scroll direction allows for selection of the course (see Figs.3-5). Although Kim does not explicitly disclose a swiping gesture, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that the scrolling feature would envisage such a feature. However, assuming arguendo that such is not the case, the following alternative rejection is provided. Kim does not disclose a swiping gesture, however the use of a swiping gesture on a UI interface for a laundry machine is well-known in the art, as seen by Coffman.
Coffman discloses an art related laundry apparatus (abstract & [0001]), wherein is known that swiping motions are a known form of selecting a laundry cycle from a list of cycles (see Figs.2-10 & [0049-0051]) and a single course from many can be selected based on the swipe direction. Coffman also provides such swiping with a visual indicator (refs 300-304) which allows for recognition of the sequence of the displayed treatment courses on the screen. Accordingly, a skilled artisan recognizes that a swiping operation is a known alternative for a scrolling option to peruse options on an interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to utilize a swiping gesture in place of a scrolling gesture in order to browse through the plurality of cycles and select the desired cycle, as they are understood be known alternatives to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known browsing movement operation in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, a skilled artisan would also find it obvious to include the visual indicator (see Coffman refs 300-304) to allow a user to understand the sequence of cycles and garner information regarding the number of possible cycles.
As to claim 11, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the portion of the touchscreen for the swipe gesture to be input is a portion of the course display portion (see Kim Figs.3-6 & Coffman Figs.2-10).
As to claim 12, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein swiping in a first direction from the first treatment course leads to a second treatment course, and swiping in a second direction different to that of the first leads to a third treatment course (see Kim Figs.1-3 & Coffman Figs. 2-10).
As to claim 15, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the UI section includes the first inputter and outputs a first or second page (see Kim Figs.3-6), wherein a plurality of course names corresponding to the plurality of courses are displayed as a list in the second page (see Kim Figs.4-5), wherein when the first inputter is selected during the output of the first page, the second page is output on the touch screen (see Kim Figs.3-5 & [0140-0150]), wherein when one of the plurality of course names is selected in the second page, a treatment course of the selected course name is specified as the specific treatment course (see Kim Fig.6).
As to claim 16, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the course display portion displays the name of the specific course and a description of the treatment course (see Figs.3 & 6, where the parameter indicates a description). However, assuming arguendo that Kim does not disclose a written description of the course, such a feature is known by Coffman.
Coffman discloses an art related laundry apparatus (abstract & [0001]), wherein is known to provide a description of the course to a user [0062], thereby allowing a user to apprised of what the course entails.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to provide a description of the course to the user, so as to inform the user as to what the course entails.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20120056827A1) in view of Li (US20180057987A1).
As to claim 17, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein a plurality of options are provided to the treatment courses, wherein the first page further includes an option display portion where the plurality of options provided by the specific treatment course are displayed (e.g., see Kim Fig.6 adjustable parameters). Modified Kim does not disclose the option display portion being positioned downward of the course display portion. However, a skilled artisan would recognize such a feature as a mere design choice regarding layout of the UI. Further, such a configuration is known in the art, as seen by Li.
Li discloses an art related washing machine interface (abstract), wherein it is shown that a known manner of providing course options is to locate them below a course displaying portion (see Figs.3A-3D). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would recognize that such a layout providing the course options below the course display portion is a known alternative layout for a UI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to change the UI layout for the options, as desired, including utilizing known configurations in the art, such as locating the options below the course display portion with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan recognizes that such variations merely amount to a design choice made by a skilled artisan (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 18, Modified Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the option names and option values of the plurality of options are displayed in the option display portion (see Kim Fig.6 & Li Figs.3A-3D). It is also noted that the limitations of claim 18 are optional, when a single of the treatment courses is provided with options.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20120056827A1) in view of Heo (US20110241508A1).
As to claims 19-20, Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UI section is provided on a control panel (see Kim Fig.1). Kim does not disclose a first and second treating apparatus configuration as required by claims 19 & 20. However, such a configuration is known in the art, as seen by Heo.
Heo discloses an art related laundry treatment apparatus (abstract) comprising: a first treatment apparatus (ref 100) having a first front panel (ref 115) provided at a front side thereof and a first drum configured to receive laundry therein [0047]; a second treatment apparatus (ref 200) positioned on the first treatment apparatus, the second treatment apparatus comprising a second front panel provided at a front side (see Fig. 1) thereof and a second drum configured to receive laundry therein [0047]; and a control panel (ref 120/220 including refs 180 & 10) provided between the first front panel and the second front panel and providing a user interface (UI, see refs 150/250) configured to control at least one of the first treatment apparatus or the second treatment apparatus [0048-0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kim to utilize the dual laundry apparatus configuration of Heo in order to allow for increased laundry treating capacity by providing two laundry apparatuses.
Conclusion
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