DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims. Riedenklau was not relied on to teach the newly-introduced subject matter of claim 12.
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 12, 13, and 16-20 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 12, 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102020112205A1 by Riedenklau in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230172423 by Calvimontes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210076898 by Smith et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220053993 by Woo.
As to claim 12, Riedenklau teaches a washing device for a dishwasher comprising an image acquisition device 8 (fig. 1, para. 21) to acquire an image of dishware; a spray arm 5 to spray a washing medium, the spray arm necessarily being provided with water outlet holes (fig. 1); and a processor configured to perform a cleaning method comprising acquiring a first image of dishware within the dishwasher (fig. 2, para. 23); identifying a dirt on the dishware according to the first image (para. 31); determining a corresponding washing mode according to the dirt type (para. 33); controlling the dishwasher to successively clean the dishware according to the washing mode, acquiring a second image after each washing is completed, and comparing the images to determine whether the dirt is removed and to determine the effectiveness of the washing mode based on whether the dirt is removed (para. 34).
Riedenklau teaches that dirt is identified and classified in order to suggest an appropriate washing program (paras. 31, 33), but does not set forth particular types of identified dirts. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that types of dirt are known to include at least one of a temperature sensitive type, a pressure sensitive type, and a detergent sensitive type (see Calvimontes, para. 17; see also para. 101 of the present specification showing that a dirt type taught by Calvimontes may be a dirt type contemplated by the present inventors). Calvimontes also teaches that identification of a dirt is used to set an appropriate washing program (para. 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the dirt type identification taught by Riedenklau would include a type of dirt comprising at least one of a temperature sensitive type, a pressure sensitive type, and a detergent sensitive type since common dishware soiling includes at least one of the claimed dirt types and also in order to suggest a most appropriate washing program for such commonly known types of dirt.
Riedenklau does not teach converting the first and second images to gray. However, Smith teaches analyzing images in a dishwasher process and further teaches that converting images to gray reduces the amount of data to improve speed and efficiency of image classification analysis while still ensuring accurate classification results (para. 76). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by Riedenklau so that the first and second images are converted to gray in order to improve speed and efficiency of its image classification analysis.
Riedenklau teaches that dirt recognition includes generally known classical calculation methods such as edge detection and recognition of shapes (paras. 25, 31) and that images are compared to determine cleaning progress (para. 34). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Riedenklau’s teachings of edge and shape detection represent identifying a characteristics of the dirt by a boundary features method, segmenting contours of the dirt according to the edge characteristics of the dirt, extracting a first and second contours of the dirt in the respective first and second images, and comparing the contours to determine whether the dirt is removed. The claimed boundary feature method and extracting segmented contours would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be processes of edge and shape detection, and comparing contours would have also been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be included in a process of comparing images in which edge detection and recognition of shapes has taken place in order to determine whether dirt is removed, as suggested by Riedenklau.
Riedenklau teaches determining the location of dishware and processing image sections assigned to several different dishware objects (paras. 9, 27) and further teaches suggesting a washing mode based on the distribution (location) of soiling (para. 33). Riedenklau is silent as to particulars of a washing mode based on a location of dishware and soiling. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to control the dishwasher according to a washing mode that uses spray arm water outlet holes corresponding to dishware location while closing other water outlet holes. Woo teaches a dishwasher that uses image detection of dishware and soiling, the dishwasher having a spray arm capable of selectively opening water outlet holes corresponding to a dishware location while closing other water outlet holes (paras. 145-154). Woo teaches that this provides an intensive wash mode that allows for effective removal of contaminants left on particular areas of dishware (para. 157). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the dishwasher of Riedenklau in a mode that uses water outlet holes corresponding to a dishware location and closes other water outlet holes in order to target dishware with remaining dirt to effectively remove the contaminants, as taught by Woo.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
As to claim 13, Riedenklau teaches a dishwasher comprising the washing device of claim 12 (fig. 1).
As to claim 16, Riedenklau suggests that a washing mode is determined according to a dirt (paras. 31, 33), which one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to comprise establishing a relationship between the dirt and a washing mode and determining the mode accordingly. While Riedenklau does not explicitly teach that a washing mode comprises any one of a detergent, temperature, and pressure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such parameters of a washing mode are common and established parameters in dishwashing modes. Furthermore, Calvimontes explicitly teaches that determining a corresponding washing mode according to a dirt type comprises establishing a mapping relationship between the dirt type and a washing mode and determining a washing mode corresponding to the dirt type according to the mapping relationship (paras. 85, 99), wherein the washing mode comprises any of a detergent, temperature, and pressure (para. 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to determine the washing mode as claimed based on the suggestions of Riedenklau, teachings of Calvimontes, and the understanding of common dishwashing mode parameters.
As to claim 18, Riedenklau teaches separating out parts of the dishware with the dirt (paras. 25, 31), but is silent as to the particulars of the separating, and thus does not explicitly teach grayscale binarization of the first image and separating through local threshold separation and calculating an area of the dirt. Riedenklau also does not explicitly teach configuring a washing time. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform the claimed configuration of washing time and separating out parts of the dishware with the dirt.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform a grayscale conversion of an image in view of Smith (see Smith, para. 76). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that classical image processing including edge detection, as taught by Riedenklau (see para. 25), inherently would include binarization of the image upon conversion to grayscale and separating out parts of the dishware with the dirt through a threshold separation since detection of an edge would involve a threshold of grayscale binarization to determine a delineation between objects, in this case between dirt and dishware.
Calvimontes teaches that a degree of soiling (para. 2) and quantity of soiling (para. 85) is determined to determine an appropriate washing mode and that a washing time is configured after determining a washing mode based on soiling (para. 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious, based on the teachings of Riedenklau, Calvimontes, and Smith to configure a washing time of the washing mode based on the claimed method of grayscale binarization, separating by a local threshold separation, calculating an area (corresponding to an amount or quantity) of the dirt, and setting the washing time according to the area in order to optimize the washing mode and a washing time based on identified dirt and degree of soiling.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102020112205A1 by Riedenklau in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230172423 by Calvimontes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210076898 by Smith et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220053993 by Woo as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220287540 by Rupp et al.
As to claim 17, Riedenklau teaches identifying the dirt comprises using a self-learning neural network model (para. 11). However, Riedenklau is silent as to particulars of it usage of the model, and thus does not teach establishing a database based on pre-acquired dirt images and dirt type labels, pre-training an image recognition model, and imputing the first image into the model and determining the dirt type. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to train a model and use the model to determine a dirt type.
Smith teaches using a model database pre-trained with pre-acquired images to determine article types and soil levels by imputing an image into the model (paras. 31-32), and Rupp teaches pre-training a model with pre-acquired images through a database and inputting an image into the model to determine a dish characteristic (paras. 10-15), and further teaches that training and using a model for image analysis allows for a dishwashing appliance to recognize a load especially well to accurately adapt its behavior in dependence on the load (para. 51). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the washing device of Riedenklau to establish, train, and determine a dirt type by inputting an image to the trained model in order to more accurately recognize a dirt type based on the teachings of Smith and Rupp.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230172423 by Calvimontes et al.
As to claim 21, Calvimontes teaches a washing device for a dishwasher comprising an image acquisition device 110 to acquire an image of dishware (fig. 1, para. 80); a spray arm to spray a washing medium in a washing area (while Calvimontes does not explicitly teach a spray arm, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a spray arm was well-known and common and would have been an expected means to carry out the functions disclosed by Calvimontes, see para. 19); and a processor 100 to perform a cleaning method (para. 80), the method comprising controlling the dishwasher to wash the dishware according to a default washing mode for a preset time (para. 101, e.g. a prewash portion of the washing program); acquiring an image of washed dishware (para. 101, ascertaining a current dirt characteristic using image analysis, see para. 99); determining whether a dirt is removed according to the image (para. 101, ascertaining a current dirt characteristic; note that “whether a dirt is removed” in interpreted as set forth in the present specification, para. 109, which states that it “means that the dirt has a sign of being washed off, and is not limited to being completely washed clean”; Calvimontes teaches that dirt may be ascertained to be partially washed off, e.g. “half of the carbohydrates and a third of the proteins have been washed off”); in determination that the dirt is (partially) removed, controlling the dishwasher to wash according to the default washing mode until complete removal of the dirt (para. 101, passing to main wash portion of the washing program and washing continues until it is ascertained that soiling is no longer present); and in determination that the dirt is not removed, switching the default washing mode to a second washing mode and washing the dishware according to the second mode until complete removal of the dirt (para. 101, e.g. fats still remain, washing program is changed to have a new optimized detergent mixture).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious the claimed method and its principles of operation based on the teachings of Calvimontes. Calvimontes makes clear that if an image of washed dishware indicates that some dirt has been removed the washing program may continue until all dirt is removed, and Calvimontes further makes clear that if a dirt is not removed at all that corrective actions to modify the washing program should be performed, such as a second mode using a new detergent mixture (para. 101) or having an extended portion (para. 87). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Calvimontes’s teachings that a washing mode may be dynamically controlled or altered based on progress, or lack thereof, of dirt removal until the dirt is completely removed.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711