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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species 1B (claims 11-20) in the reply filed on December 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10, 21 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 20, 2025.
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.
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.
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) 11, 13, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,376,379 to North in view of JPH11-346987A to Yura et al. (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0367557 to Anim-Mensah et al.
As to claim 11, North discloses a method for washing a variable quantity of silverware and/or kitchen utensils in a body of wash fluid (see North page 1, lines 9-17), the method comprising the steps of: (a) providing an open top wash system comprising at least one open top permeable structure supported on a vertically movable frame; a drive mechanism operably connected to the vertically movable frame; an open top wash tank positioned in association with the vertically movable frame (see North Fig. 1 disclosing an open top permeable structure 24 supported on a vertically movable frame such as 20, 21, 22, 23 and an open top wash tank 25); (b) at least partially filling the open top wash tank with the body of wash fluid (see North Fig. 1, ref.#25 and page 1, lines 82-84); (c) inserting a quantity of silverware and/or utensils into the at least one open top permeable structure (see North page 2, lines 20-22); (d) operating the system to direct a sequence of vertical motions of the at least one open top permeable structure into, out of, or within the body of wash fluid, the sequence of vertical motions comprising: lowering the at least one open top permeable structure at least partially into the body of wash fluid, repeatedly raising and lowering the at least one open top permeable structure and raising the at least one open top permeable structure (see North page 2, lines 29-56).
North does not explicitly disclose that while the sequence of vertical motions is occurring, inserting a further quantity of silverware and/or utensils into the at least one open top permeable structure. It is known in the prior art to add additional items to be cleaned after the cleaning process has started (see, e.g., Yura paragraphs [0008]-[0012]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add additional items to be cleaned after the cleaning process has started as is known in the art.
The combination of North and Yura does not explicitly disclose a controller in operable communication with the drive mechanism and operating the controller to direct the sequence of vertical motions. Use of controllers are well-known for controlling components of parts washers systems such as lifts. Anim-Mensah discloses a lift mechanism using a motor and belt or chain drive which is operatively connected to a controller (see Anim-Mensah Fig. 1, rack 16, 16’, mechanism 24, controller 50 and paragraphs [0023]-[0025]). Use of a controller constitutes an obvious automation activity (see MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify North and Yura to have a controller control operation of the drive lift because said modification is an obvious automation activity in view of Anim-Mensah.
As to claim 13, the combination of North, Yura and Anim-Mensah discloses that one or more chemical additives may be introduced into the body of wash fluid (see North page 2, lines 65-67).
As to claims 15 and 16, the combination of North, Yura and Anim-Mensah discloses the basket is visible in the raised position and as such, the raised position provides a visual indication that allows the user to sense the load in the at least one open top permeable structure of which of the at least one open top permeable structure is full and which remain available for inserting a further quantity of silverware and/or kitchen utensils as well as allowing the user to determine an overload condition in any of the at least one open top permeable structure.
As to claim 17, the combination of North, Yura and Anim-Mensah discloses that the sequence of vertical motions are set, raising the at least one open top permeable structure out of the body of wash fluid, removing at least a portion of the quantity of silverware and/or kitchen utensils from at least one of the at least one open top permeable structure and repeating the step of operating the controller to direct a cyclic sequence of vertical motions of the at least one open top permeable structure (see North page 2, lines 20-56). While North does not explicitly disclose a timed completion, Anim-Mensah discloses that setting a predetermined time via the controller is known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see Anim-Mensah paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). Use of a controller constitutes an obvious automation activity (see MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify North and Yura to have the controller control the timing of the washing operation because said modification is an obvious automation activity in view of Anim-Mensah.
As to claim 20, the combination of North, Yura and Anim-Mensah discloses that the at least one open top permeable structure is held at least partially within the body of wash fluid (see North page 2, lines 20-56). While North does not explicitly disclose a timed holding, Anim-Mensah discloses that setting a predetermined time via the controller is known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see Anim-Mensah paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). Use of a controller constitutes an obvious automation activity (see MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify North and Yura to have the controller control the timing of the washing operation because said modification is an obvious automation activity in view of Anim-Mensah.
Claim(s) 12, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,376,379 to North in view of JPH11-346987A to Yura et al. (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0367557 to Anim-Mensah et al. as applied to claim 11, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0186081 to Dunn et al.
North, Yura and Anim-Mensah are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 11.
As to claim 12, the combination of North, Yura and Anim-Mensah discloses heating the body of wash fluid (see North page 2, lines 22-23) but does not explicitly disclose sensing a temperature of the body of fluid. Dunn discloses a similar wash system and method comprising a temperature sensor and controlling the temperature of the body of wash fluid (see Dunn Figs. 15 and 16 disclosing heating element 36, temperature sensor 38 and temperature switch 40; paragraphs [0045]-[0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a temperature sensor as disclosed by Dunn in order to ensure the optimal temperature is reached.
As to claim 14, the combination of North does not explicitly disclose varying a speed with which the repeated raising and lowering occurs. Anim-Mensah discloses that the cleaning time can be varied (see Anim-Mensah paragraph [0026]). Furthermore, Yura discloses that the washing time, rinsing time, etc. can be varied according to the changes in volume of dishes during operation (see Yura paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to vary the speed with which the repeated raising and lowering occurs as disclosed by Anim-Mensah and Yura in order to optimize operating time, power consumption, water usage and achieve energy savings (see Yura paragraph [0012]).
As to claim 18, the combination of North, Yura and Anim-Mensah does not explicitly disclose sensing a level of wash fluid in the open top wash tank and adding or removing wash fluid to maintain a preferred wash fluid level. Dunn discloses a similar wash system and method comprising a level sensor and controlling the level by adding or removing wash fluid to maintain a preferred wash fluid level (see Dunn paragraphs [0045]-[0051] and [0068]-[0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a level sensor and controlling the fluid level as disclosed by Dunn in order to ensure that enough wash fluid is contained in the wash tank.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,376,379 to North in view of JPH11-346987A to Yura et al. (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0367557 to Anim-Mensah et al. as applied to claim 11, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0199267 to Oakes.
North, Yura and Anim-Mensah are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 11.
As to claim 19, the combination of North, Yura and Anim-Mensah does not explicitly disclose sensing total dissolved solids in the wash fluid and on exceeding a preferred limit, draining the open top wash tank and refilling the open top wash tank with fresh wash liquid. Oakes discloses that it is known in the art to use a dissolved solids sensor to sense the amount of dissolved solids in the cleaning liquid and alerting the operator to replacing the cleaning fluid (see Oakes paragraph [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the use of a dissolved solids sensor as disclosed by Oakes in order allow the operator to make a more informed decision about when to cycle the water (see Oakes paragraph [0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights