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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noren (4810306) in view of Erickson et al. (58006258).
Noren teaches a method of operating a dishwasher, the method comprising: partially draining a first amount of water from the wash tank, adding additional water in a second amount, thereby creating a partially refreshed tank of water, wherein the additional water does not include the water drained from the tank, and using the partially refreshed water for another wash process. Specifically, applicant is directed to abstract, which teaches recirculating water over the ware followed by fresh water spray rinse. A portion of the wash water is drained and a second portion is retained in the machine, wherein the retained portion is thereby combined with the fresh water to provide a volume of water for wash circulation of the next cycle (col. 3-4 bridging, col. 4, lines 1-50, col. 5, lines 1-65, col. 8, lines 1-56).
Re claims 1-2, Noren fail to specifically recite removing a first amount of water, which is less than an amount of water remaining in the tank, and further fails to teach 20-30 percent of capacity of the first amount of water in the wash tank. However, col. 5, lines 55-60 of Noren teaches that the retained quantity of wash water is “at least 25% of the total volume of wash water used each cycle. This is suggestive that the retained water can be less or more than the water that is being drained. Specifically, the examiner maintains the position that in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the quantity of water to be drained, the quantity determined by such factors as the level of contamination/particles present in the wash tank based on the dishware being cleaned, the type and number of wash cycles, the number of rinse cycles, and the turbidity of the water present in the tank. Specifically, draining the tank of a desired volume of wash water is well within the level of the skilled artisan.
Alternatively, the secondary reference of Erickson et al. is relied upon to cure the deficiency. Erickson et al. teach removing an initial portion of water, followed by draining and replacement of the water. Col. 10, lines 1-15 teaches that if the initial quantity of water is 12 quarts, 2-4 quarts can be removed to create a remaining portion of 8-10 quarts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Noren to include draining a first portion of water which is less than the total amount of water in the wash tank, and preferably 20-30 percent capacity of the water for purposes of flushing particulates from the water and replenishing the water for use with the next cycle. Re claims 1 and 3, refer to Erickson et al. which teach removal of a portion of water with replacement of an equal amount of water (col. 10, lines 35-40). Re claim 1, in reference to draining first amount of water from the bottom of the tank (drain valve 48), applicant is directed to col. 8, lines 20-35 of Noren. In reference to a freshwater rinse, refer to col. 8, lines 40-45. Re claim 3, in reference to creating a second partially refreshed tank, refer to col. 5, lines 55-60 and the abstract of Noren et al. which teaches removing a portion of wash water and adding fresh wash water for washing during the wash period of a subsequent cycle, which enables reduced water consumption. Re claim 10, refer to the abstract of Noren.
6. Claim(s) 4-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noren (4810306) in view of Erickson et al. (58006258) and further in view of Slabbekoorn et al. (US2014/0069465).
Re claims 4-5, Noren in view of Erickson et al. fail to teach a third partially refreshed tank or subsequent refresh tanks and partially draining. Slabbekoorn et al. teach a method of operating a dishwasher having a treating chamber for washing dishes. Paragraphs 19-20 teaches the dishwasher comprising a reuse tank 52 for capturing and storing liquid from multiple wash/rinse phrases, wherein the liquid includes water, detergent or a treatment aid, and the liquid is pumped to the reuse tank from the sump 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Noren to include third or subsequent refresh tanks and partially draining, as taught by Slabbekoorn et al. for purposes of collecting liquid for subsequent wash cycles. . Re claims 6 and 8-9, refer to paragraph 19 of Stabbenkoorn. Re claims 6 and 9 in reference to dosage, absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Noren, to include adjusting the processing parameters, such as the dosage of the detergent in order to effectively achieve the desired level of cleanliness on the dishware.
7. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noren (4810306) in view of Erickson et al. (58006258), Slabbekoorn et al. (US2014/0069465) and further in view of Staun (US2019/0254498A1).
Noren in view of Erickson et al., and Slabbekoorn et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the detergent chemistry being in solid form. Staun teach the detergent may be a variety of quantities, shapes, sizes, materials, and constructions, which can include tablets, gel-pack, or pod, and the detergents can include rinse aids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Noren to include solid detergents, as taught by Staun et al. which are conventionally used in a dishwashing appliance.
8. Claim(s) 11-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noren (4810306) in view of Erickson et al. (58006258), Slabbekoorn et al. (US2014/0069465) and further in view of Russell (4841581).
Noren et al. in view of Erickson et al. and Slabbekoorn et al. teach performing a wash cycle comprising recirculating water over the ware followed by fresh water spray rinse, wherein a portion of water drained is less than half of the entire volume of the wash tank. As previously discussed, Erickson et al. teach removing an initial portion of water (i.e. less than 1/2 of the entire volume), followed by draining and replacement of the water. Col. 10, lines 1-15 of Erikson et al. teaches that if the initial quantity of water is 12 quarts, 2-4 quarts can be removed to create a remaining portion of 8-10 quarts. Stabbenkoorn et al. teach in paragraph 12 that the detergent dispenser can include a detergent and/or a rinse aid to be selectively dispensed into the treating chamber in a regulated quantity and at a predetermined time or multiple times during a cycle of operation. Re claim 11, in reference to after performing a partial drain function, performing a rinse drain function including supplying fresh water dosed w/ rinse aid and a sanitizer, applicant is directed to co. 8, lines 1-57 of Noren, wherein a sanitizer reads broadly on a detergent.
Re claim 11, Noren et al. in view of Erickson et al. and Slabbekoorn et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the drain ball. Russell teaches a drain plug for a dishwasher comprising a drain ball body. Col. 2, lines 45-50 teaches the drain ball assembly 10 of the drain plug assembly permits the wash solution from the dishwasher sump to drain into the drain pipe. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Noren et al. to include, a drain ball, as taught by Russell, for purposes of permitting drainage of the wash solution from the sump to the drain. In reference to opening a fill valve to supply fresh water, applicant is directed to col. 7, lines 30-35 of Noren which teaches a solenoid operated fill valve to control the supply of fresh water. In reference to the detergent comprising a rinse aid, refer to the teachings of Slabbekoorn et al., as previously discussed. Re claim 11, Noren et al. in view of Erickson et al., Slabbekoorn et al. and Russell teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of supplying a fresh water dosed with rinse aid and detergent in a volume equal to the volume drained. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the amount of rinse aid/detergent being added since Slabbekoorn et al. teach that the detergent and/or a rinse aid can be selectively dispensed into the treating chamber in a regulated quantity and at a predetermined time or multiple times during a cycle of operation.
Re claim 12, the limitations are broadly interpreted as meaning that the wash water can perform another function than being recirculated, such as draining. Noren teaches that a portion of the wash water is drained and a second portion of the wash water is retained in the machine and combined with the fresh rinse water to be pumped wash recirculated. The examiner argues that applicant’s claim broadly reads on the portion of the wash water being drained. Re claim 13, Russell et al. teach the drain ball as previously discussed, and it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan, absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, to partially or fully drain the wash water depending upon the cycle being performed. Re claim 14-15, Erickson et al. teach removing an initial portion of water, followed by draining and replacement of the water. Col. 10, lines 1-15 teaches that if the initial quantity of water is 12 quarts, 2-4 quarts can be removed to create a remaining portion of 8-10 quarts. Re claims 16 and 18-19, Stabbenkoorn et al. teach dispensing a detergent in combination with a rinse aid, wherein the detergent reads broadly on a sanitizer. Further, in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Noren, to include adjusting the processing parameters, such as the dosage of the detergent in order to effectively achieve the desired level of cleanliness on the dishware.
9. Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noren (4810306) in view of Erickson et al. (58006258), Slabbekoorn et al. (US2014/0069465), Russell (4841581) and further in view Staun (US2019/0254498).
Noren et al. in view of Erickson et al., Stabbenkoorn et al. and Russell et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the detergents and rinse aids being in solid form. Staun teach the detergent may be a variety of quantities, shapes, sizes, materials, and constructions, which can include tablets, gel-pack, or pod, and the detergents can include rinse aids, wherein the detergent reads broadly on a rinse aid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Noren to include detergents and rinse aids in solid form, as taught by Staun et al. which are conventionally used in a dishwashing appliance.
Response to Arguments
10. The rejection of claims as being unpatentable over Noren in view of Erickson et al. are maintained for the reasons recited above. Re claims 1 and 11, Applicant continues to argue that the prior art of Noren fails to teach less than a majority of the water being replaced. Applicant directs the examiner to col. 8, lines 20-56 of Noren which teaches retaining 0.8 gallons of water in the sump and adding 1.5 gallons of fresh rinse water. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons. Col. 5, lines 55-60 teaches that the retained quantity of wash water is “at least 25% of the total volume of wash water used each cycle. This is suggestive that the retained water can be less or more than the water that is being drained. Specifically, the examiner takes the position that in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the quantity of water to be drained, the quantity determined by such factors as the level of contamination/particles present in the wash tank based on the dishware being cleaned, the type and number of wash cycles, the number of rinse cycles, and the turbidity of the water present in the tank. Specifically, draining the tank of a desired volume of wash water is well within the level of the skilled artisan. Furthermore the secondary reference of Erickson et al teaches draining less than the amount of water remaining in the tank. Additionally, applicant’s own specification supports lack of criticality and/or unexpected results, as paragraphs 20 and 34 of the instant specification clearly teaches that the tank can be partially drained or fully drained depending upon the number of cycles.
11. Applicant further argues that the prior art of Erickson does not teach refreshing wash water between consecutive wash cycles. Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the instantly claimed invention. Furthermore, applicant's own specification supports the lack of criticality and/or unexpected results, as the tank can be partially or fully drained depending upon the number of cycles.
12. The examiner maintains the position that in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the quantity of water to be drained, the quantity determined by such factors as the level of contamination/particles present in the wash tank based on the dishware being cleaned, the type and number of wash cycles, the number of rinse cycles, and the turbidity of the water present in the tank. Specifically, draining the tank of a desired volume of wash water is well within the level of the skilled artisan. Furthermore the secondary reference of Erickson et al teaches draining less than the amount of water remaining in the tank. Additionally, applicant’s own specification supports lack of criticality and/or unexpected results, as paragraphs 20 and 34 of the instant specification clearly teaches that the tank can be partially drained or fully drained depending upon the number of cycles.
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 on 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
bsc
Prosecution Insights