DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsrud et al. (U.S 2020/0248351 A1), hereinafter “Monsrud” in view of Berkey (U.S. 8,961,782) and in further view of Lescovich et al. (U.S. 5,401,396), hereinafter “Lescovich”.
As for claim 1, Monsrud teaches a reservoir device comprising: (a) a set of connections configured to couple to a waste water output and one or more water inputs of a washing machine (the line including reuse pump 64 connects to the wastewater output of the washer and line 44 connects to the washer input at 42); (b) a reservoir (60) configured to receive and store a volume of waste water from the washing machine; (c) one or more treatment devices configured to convert the volume of waste water into a volume of recycled water (e.g. the lint filter 70 or the antimicrobial additions of [0103]; (d) a processor (e.g. the programmable logic controller of [0115-0116; 0346; or controller of claim 9) configured to--based on a selected type of wash cycle--control the addition of recycled water from the reservoir a programmed controller (see 0294, 0311, 0316 and figure 10). Monsrud teaches a plurality of cycle types that include a wash cycle type (the wash phase of figure 10), a first rinse cycle type (the rinse phase of figure 10) after the wash cycle type and a subsequent rinse cycle type after the first rinse cycle type (see 0007 and 0068).
Monsrud isn’t specific that the processor identifies the cycle type but such would have been obvious in order to control the water reuse device as desired—e.g. as shown in figure 10 or indicated in 0316 “a PLC controller can accept programmable signals from the wash machine to instruct the relay when to fill from the tank andwhento fill from the valve(s)”. As for (d)(i)-(iii), Monsrud also teaches the processor configured to store a water use sequence for each of the plurality of cycle types, wherein the water use sequence for each respective cycle type indicates whether that respective cycle type uses recycled water or fresh water; and (iii) based upon the cycle type identified by the processor in (d)(i) that corresponds to the identified cycle type in (d)(i) (A) provide at least a portion of the volume of recycled water to the washing machine for the cycle; or (B) provide a volume of
PNG
media_image1.png
672
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
fresh water to the washing machine for the cycle. The controller communicates with the machine controller to identify the type of linen being washed [0325] and controls the proportion of reuse water or freshwater in each of the plurality of cycles of each type of load [0324-0326; see table 4 and figure 10].
PNG
media_image2.png
543
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for the new limitations added to claim 1, Monsrud already teaches wherein the one or more treatment devices comprise: (a) one or more filters configured to separate a contaminant from the volume of waste water [0080-0081]; and (b) a treatment module (50) configured to introduce at least one treatment to the volume of waste water.
Monsrud doesn’t specify automated anti-clogging and self-cleaning configured to clear the at least one filter of the contaminant and divert the contaminant to a waste outlet. However, such is made obvious in view of Berkey.
PNG
media_image3.png
497
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Berkey teaches a tank for receiving laundry greywater including multiple filters for treating the greywater for reuse. He also teaches an automated cleaning means (backwash assembly 28) for removing contaminants from the filters (see the first paragraph of the Detailed Description section and figures 13-14). It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the automated backwash assembly of Berkey in the invention of Monsrud, since Berkey teaches the benefit of preventing clogging in the same environment of treating laundry greywater for reuse. This would allow continuing operation the of filters. It also would have been obvious since Monsrud teaches an auto-dump feature for removing debris from the tank [0094] including a dump valve 88 and drain waste outlet 66 which would remove the cleared contaminant from the tank.
Monsrud, as modified above doesn’t specify the anticlogging device to include a mechanical brushing arm to clear the at least one filter of the contaminant, but such is taught by Lescovich. Lescovich teaches a brushing arm 89. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the brushing arm 89 of Lescovich in the invention of the modified Monsrud, since Lescovich teaches the benefit of helping to remove contaminants during backwashing (see abstract and col. 5, lines 37+).
As for claim 4, Monsrud teaches the treatment module being configured to introduce at least one of the listed chemistries, e.g. bleach and/or subject the volume of the wastewater to UV light or ozone [0102-0103].
As for claim 5, Monsrud teaches (a) a first water sensor module (e.g. turbidity, pH sensor, etc. [0326]), configured to measure a set of pre-storage characteristics of the volume of waste water prior to storing the volume of waste water in the reservoir (the sensor can be located in the washer tank or at the drain of the washer tank); (b) a diverter valve (58) configured to selectively dispose of the volume of waste water via a drain outlet of the reservoir device prior to storing the volume of waste water in the reservoir; wherein the processor is further configured to: (i) determine whether the volume of waste water is usable based on the set of pre- storage characteristics; and (ii) when the volume of waste water is not usable, operate the diverter valve to cause the volume of waste water to be disposed of (see 0326 and figure 15).
As for claims 8 and 11-12, upon modification, it would have been obvious for the machine controller to provide an electrical communication signal to the controller of the reservoir device to identify the type of cycle (which would include cycle characteristics) and thereof to operate the reservoir device as in 0322 and 0325 would necessarily require the limitations of claims 8 and 11. Also, it would be necessary for the reservoir device control to include matching data corresponding to the machine controller signal in order to identify the cycle.
As for claims 13-15, depending upon the selected cycle type, the corresponding water use sequence, as well as, the characteristics of the water in the washing tank via sensors [0326], the processor causes a volume of recycled water to be provided for use, wherein the volume of wastewater is disposed of or saved in the reservoir 60; causing the wastewater produced by the first rinse cycle type to be disposed or saved; and causing the volume of wastewater produced by the subsequent rinse cycle to be saved in the reservoir. See figure 10, table 4, and paragraphs 0133; 0285-0292; 0323-0326.
As for claim 3, Monsrud teaches a plurality of filters including a filter at the outlet of the washing machine [0081] and that the reservoir tank may be equipped with a filter/strainer and a lint screen [0078]. He doesn’t specify the micron rating of each filter but such would have been within ordinary skill depending upon the size and amount of contaminants expected and desired to be removed in the environment of use.
As for Claim 6, Monsrud teaches a second water sensor module configured to measure a set of post-storage characteristics of the volume of recycled water prior to providing the volume of recycled water to the washing machine (Monsrud teaches a temperature sensor of water in the reservoir [0321]); (b) determining, by the processor, whether the volume of recycled water is usable based on the set of post-storage characteristics (e.g. whether the temperature has fallen between 20-30° C or lower [0093]) ; (c) when the volume of recycled water is not usable: (i) operating, by the reservoir device, a drain valve of the reservoir device to cause the volume of recycled water to be disposed of via a drain outlet (in this case the dump valve to drain) of the reservoir device.
Monsrud doesn’t specify activating a drain pump to remove water from the reservoir, but such would have been within ordinary skill when flow to the drain is not gravity driven. It also would have been obvious since Monsrud already teaches a pump 72 removing water from the reservoir.
As for step (ii) operating, by the reservoir device, a water feed valve to provide fresh water to the washing machine, Monsrud already teaches opening the freshwater feed valve when reservoir water is not available.
As for claim 18, Monsrud teaches programmable controller is programmed to rinse with hot and/or cole water depending upon what temperature is optimal for each linen type and soil type [0309-0310] such that the limitations of claim 18 would be obvious.
As for claim 17, Monstrud teaches using a volume of fresh water and/or recycled water depending upon what is programmed in the PLC [0301, 0310, table 4, and claim 18]. What proportion of reuse water and freshwater is used in a particular rinse phase would have been obvious depending upon what would be optimal for each linen type and soil type.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsrud in view of Zhou (U.S. 2020/0300664 A1), hereinafter “Zhou”.
Monsrud teaches using fill signals sent from the machine controller to the valves to determine flow data (flow out or off and whether a proper level has been reached 0294) [as in claim (a), (b)].
Monsrud doesn’t specify that his processor is further configured to cause an interface to display on a user device, wherein the interface comprises: (a) a description of the first set of flow data; (b) a description of the second set of flow data; and (c) a recommendation for using the washing machine and the impact that following the recommendation will have on the first set of flow data and the second set of flow data.
However, Zhou teaches monitoring water usage in washing machines [0026] and generating two sets of flow data--e.g. the average water uses of a user’s plumbing fixture (e.g. washer) and the average for other uses and sending the data to an interface (the user’s computer device, abstract) along with recommendations in improve conservation of water. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the processor of Mansrud to configured to produce such data and recommendations of Zhou since conservation of water is the goal of Mansrud.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsrud in view of the Japanese reference JP 2013229009 A, hereinafter ‘009. Monsrud doesn’t specify a cycle sensor including an imaging device to capture images of the control panel. But such is taught by ‘009.
‘009 teaches a camera module 100 at a control module 200 of a washing machine 300. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the camera module of ‘009 at the control panel of Monsrud since ‘009 teaches the benefit of recognizing gestures indicating desired operation of a washing machine.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsrud in view of Pollett (U.S. 2015/0368840 A1).
Monsrud doesn’t specify a cycle sensor comprising a microphone configured to capture audible sounds produced by the washing machine during the cycle but such is taught by Pollett. Pollett teaches a microphone for indicating the operation of a washing machine [0045]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the microphone of Pollett in the invention of Monsrud, since Pollett teaches the benefit of sensing a characteristic and status of a wash cycle.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsrud in view of Retolaza Gavina et al. (U.S. 2011/0036760 A1), hereinafter “RG” and in further view of Berkey (U.S. 8,961,782) and Lescovich.
Claim 19 adds the additional limitations of a primary filter configured to receive a volume of wastewater from a reservoir, a water sensors module receiving a volume of wastewater from the reservoir to determine a presence of contaminants in the water; and the processor configured to determine if the volume of wastewater is reusable.
RG teaches a primary filter 15 and sensor module 25 for measuring solids, both receiving wastewater from a reservoir 1 [as in claim 19]. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the filter 15 and sensor module 25 of RG in the invention of Monsrud, since RG teaches the benefit of disposing of wastewater that is unsuitable for the subsequent reuse (abstract).
As for the new limitations added to claim 1, Monsrud already teaches wherein the one or more treatment devices comprise: (a) one or more filters configured to separate a contaminant from the volume of waste water [0080-0081]; and (b) a treatment module (50) configured to introduce at least one treatment to the volume of waste water.
Monsrud doesn’t specify automated anti-clogging and self-cleaning configured to clear the at least one filter of the contaminant and divert the contaminant to a waste outlet. However, such is made obvious in view of Berkey.
PNG
media_image3.png
497
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Berkey teaches a tank for receiving laundry greywater including multiple filters for treating the greywater for reuse. He also teaches an automated cleaning means (backwash assembly 28) for removing contaminants from the filters (see the first paragraph of the Detailed Description section and figures 13-14). It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the automated backwash assembly of Berkey in the invention of Monsrud, since Berkey teaches the benefit of preventing clogging in the same environment of treating laundry greywater for reuse. This would allow continuing operation the of filters. It also would have been obvious since Monsrud teaches an auto-dump feature for removing debris from the tank [0094] including a dump valve 88 and drain waste outlet 66 which would remove the cleared contaminant from the tank.
Monsrud, as modified above doesn’t specify the anticlogging device to include a mechanical brushing arm to clear the at least one filter of the contaminant, but such is taught by Lescovich. Lescovich teaches a brushing arm 89. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the brushing arm 89 of Lescovich in the invention of the modified Monsrud, since Lescovich teaches the benefit of helping to remove contaminants during backwashing (see abstract and col. 5, lines 37+).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsrud in view of Mertz (U.S. 5,307,650). Monsrud doesn’t specify that step (d)(i) identifying the cycle type being performed based on elapsed time of the plurality of cycles. However, Mertz teaches a timing system that sends signals at the end of the cycles (e.g. rinse and washing). See e.g. claims 1 and 2. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the timing system of Mertz in the invention of Monsrud since Monstrud teaches operating the washer according to a program in the controller of the washing machine that also sends signals to the valves that are received by the processor of the reservoir to determine the cycle type. Upon modification, the cycle is determined by the lapse of time of each cycle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsrud in view of Retolaza Gavina et al. (U.S. 2011/0036760 A1), hereinafter “RG” and as modified in the rejection of claim 19 and in further view of Zhou (U.S. 2020/0300664), hereinafter Zhou. The modified Monsrud doesn’t specify his device to include a case with a stand, a control interface with a display with touchscreen capabilities to display flow information. However, such is taught by Zhou. Zhou teaches his system to include a user computing device 106 can include a personal computing device of the user such as a mobile phone, a tablet, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a voice recognition device, a wearable smart device, such as a smart watch, or other types of personal computing devices that are accessible by the user, examples of which are well known to include the aforementioned limitations. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the computing devices of Zhou including with the reservoir device of the modified Monsrud since Zhou teaches the benefit of monitoring water flow in the systems for washers [0026] to make recommendations of water conservation—the goal of Monsrud.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. The newly applied reference of Lescovich makes obvious the added limitations to claims 1 and 19.
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 Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p 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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. 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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights