DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (currently recited by claims 1-14) in the reply filed on October 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites having an “evaluation device…create a pattern relating to the temporal usage behavior of the operator of the dishwasher”. Claim 1 further comprises that a “control device…is configured…to proactively and predictively adjust and/or temporally vary, at least one treatment parameter…as a function of the created pattern”.
The limitation of creating “a pattern relating to the temporal usage behavior of the operator of the dishwasher” recites a limitation that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a “evaluation device” configured to perform the determining act. That is, other than reciting that a “evaluation device” performs the creating, nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation from being practically performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Applicant’s “evaluation device” is considered to be a generic computer component.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites that a “control device…is configured…to proactively and predictively adjust and/or temporally vary, at least one treatment parameter…as a function of the created pattern”, but applicant’s step of adjusting and/or temporally varying at least one treatment parameter is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application. How a judicial exception can be integrated into a practical application is discussed, for example, in MPEP 2106.05(f), and that section of the MPEP argues that “the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception” is one of things to consider when trying to determine if a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and in the examiner’s opinion, applicant’s limitation to “proactively and predictively adjust and/or temporally vary, at least one treatment parameter…as a function of the created pattern” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Although the claim recites an imaging device configured to capture images of washware in a dishwasher, this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, for example, Par. 0032-0039 and 0053 of US 2021/0076898 by Smith. See, for example Par. 0071 of US 2012/0138092 by Ashrafzadeh. See, for example, Par. 0029-0031 of US 2007/0181162 by Classen.
Claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and merely recites that the evaluation device generates statistics and/or a notification, and that concept is also an abstract idea.
Claim 4 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and merely recites how learning or observation are used to create an overall picture. Claim 4 reciting that a phase can be “initiated manually” is not an additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. The concept of manually initiating something (such as a phase) is well-known, routine, and conventional.
Claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and merely recites evaluating images to identify one or more categories of washware as present, which the human mind can also do.
Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 6 depends from claim 4 and merely recites types of development that can be observed over a learning or observation phase (which the human mind can also do), and claim 6 merely recites initiating “at least one measure influencing the quality of a washing liquid to be sprayed…and/or proactively and predictively at least one measure influencing the cleaning power of the dishwasher”, yet such measuring influencing is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application. How a judicial exception can be integrated into a practical application is discussed, for example, in MPEP 2106.05(f), and that section of the MPEP argues that “the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception” is one of things to consider when trying to determine if a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and in the examiner’s opinion, applicant’s limitation to initiate “at least one measure influencing the quality of a washing liquid to be sprayed…and/or proactively and predictively at least one measure influencing the cleaning power of the dishwasher” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application.
Claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and merely recites determinations that can be made during a learning or observation phase (all of which the human mind can also do), and claim 14 merely recites setting “treatment parameters adapted” to such determinations, yet such parameter setting is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application. How a judicial exception can be integrated into a practical application is discussed, for example, in MPEP 2106.05(f), and that section of the MPEP argues that “the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception” is one of things to consider when trying to determine if a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and in the examiner’s opinion, applicant’s limitation to set “treatment parameters” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application.
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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the operator" in line 10 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “to generate statistics and/or a corresponding notification”. This language doesn’t make sense because if “or” is chosen from the “and/or” options, it is not clear what the word “corresponding” then refers to. “Corresponding to what?” is the question that pops up when “or” is selected from the “and/or” options.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the overall picture" in line 3 of claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “overall picture” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “overall picture” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 4 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my data concerning temporal usage qualifies as an overall picture or not?”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the time of the corresponding image capture". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 earlier recites “the images” (plural), but the phrase "the time of the corresponding image capture" recites a singular image, not a plurality of images.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the image capture region" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the time of the corresponding image capture" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 (from which claim 6 ultimately depends) recites “images” (plural), but the phrase "the time of the corresponding image capture" recites a singular image, not a plurality of images.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the quality of a washing liquid" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Any washing has a plurality of qualities (such as its temperature, its color, its density, and so on). Thus, it is not clear what is meant by the phrase “the quality of a washing liquid”. The term “quality” is confusing for another reason: the term quality can refer to the degree of excellence of something – that is, the grade of a thing. An example from everyday life might be: “wow, this is high-quality grape juice!”. Thus, “quality” is confusing because it could be interpreted as a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “the control device” (in line 2 of claim 7) but it is not clear if this phrase refers to the “a control device” in line 12 of claim 1 or to the “a control device” in line 8 of claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cleaning performance" in line 5 of claim 7 (and in other lines of claim 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “strongly” in line 42 of claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strongly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 7 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my soiled washware qualifies as strongly soiled or not?”
Claim 7 recites the phrase “pre-clearing or washing module” in line 41. It is not clear what this phrase “pre-clearing” means. Applicant’s specification does not explain what this phrase means. The scope of claim 7 is thus unclear.
Claim 8 recites “the control device” (in line 2 of claim 8) but it is not clear if this phrase refers to the “a control device” in line 12 of claim 1 or to the “a control device” in line 8 of claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “in a controlling manner” in line 8. The meaning of this phrase is not clear. “Manner” is such a vague word that the exact meaning of “in a controlling manner” is unclear. Claim 8 is already reciting what the control device is configure to automatically do. The phrase “in a controlling manner” is therefore seemingly superfluous language, thus contributing to the uncertainty of why this phrase “in a controlling manner” is present.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the soil-carrying capacity" in line 7 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the pronoun “it” in line 8, but it is not clear what the pronoun “it” refers to. That is, does the word “it” refer to the “soil-carrying capacity” or the “washing liquid” or something else?
Claim 9 recites “adjust it to the determined development over time of the average degree of soiling and/or the determined developed over time of the average type of soiling”. The phrase “adjust it to” is confusing because (assuming “it” refers the soil-carrying capacity recited in claim 9) it is not clear what exactly it means to adjust a soil-carrying capacity to one or more of the determined developments.
Claim 10 recites that “the control device is configured for setting or adjusting the soil-carrying capacity of the washing liquid to be sprayed by the at least one washing system to proactively and predictively set, in a controlling manner, a temperature of the washing liquid and/or a cleaning agent concentration of the washing liquid”. This is a run-on sentence, and the grammar makes it unclear what exactly is being recited. It seems to be reciting that the soil-carrying capacity of the liquid is adjusted/set in order to set a temperature or cleaning agent concentration of the liquid, and that makes no sense.
Claim 10 recites “in a controlling manner” in line 4. The meaning of this phrase is not clear. “Manner” is such a vague word that the exact meaning of “in a controlling manner” is unclear. Claim 10 is already reciting what the control device is configure to automatically do. The phrase “in a controlling manner” is therefore seemingly superfluous language, thus contributing to the uncertainty of why this phrase “in a controlling manner” is present.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the treatment period" in lines 3-4 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first sub-period of the observation period" in line 7 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one second sub-period of the observation period" in lines 9-10 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first relative value of the average load level" in lines 12-13 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the loading of the dishwasher (1) with washware corresponding to the second relative value of the average load level" in lines 15-16 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second relative value of the average load level" in lines 15-16 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “definable” in line 20m of claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “definable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. People might disagree over whether or not a washware category is “definable” or not.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “a loading of the dishwasher with the at least one washware category”, and the claim also recites “which is preferably larger than the loading of the dishwasher with the at least one washware category corresponding to the second relative value of the average load level of the dishwasher” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one washware category corresponding to the second relative value of the average load level of the dishwasher with the at least one washware category with the at least one washware category" in lines 28-30 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first relative value of the average degree of soiling" in lines 37-38 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “a soil input into the dishwaher”, and the claim also recites “which is preferably larger than the soil input into the dishwasher corresponding to the second relative value” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second relative value of the average degree of soiling of the washware" in lines 40-41 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first relative value of the average type of soiling" in lines 48-49 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the type of soiling of the washware corresponding to the second relative value" in lines 50-51 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 contains many “and/or” statements, and it is noted that many of the phrases (such as “the first sup-period of the observation period”) lacking antecedent basis are repeated throughout claim 11. Overall, claim 11 contains so many 35 U.S.C. 112(b) problems that the exact meaning of the claim is truly incomprehensible. The examiner suspects that a few language tweaks won’t be sufficient to fix claim 11. Applicant is encouraged to consider doing a complete rewrite of claim 11.
The term “relatively small number” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively small number” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 14 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my number qualifies as a relatively small number or not?”
The term “relatively high number” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high number” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 14 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my number qualifies as a relatively high number or not?”
The term “strongly” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strongly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 14 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my soiled washware qualifies as strongly soiled washware or not?”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the degree of soiling" in lines 30-31 of claim 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This “the degree of soiling” language recurs in the last two lines of claim 14.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the type of soiling" in line 31 of claim 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This “the type of soiling” language recurs in the last line of claim 14.
The term “lightly” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 14 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my soiled washware qualifies as lightly soiled washware or not?”
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0369076 by McGinness in view of U.S. 2023/0240508 by Miller in view of U.S. 2021/0076898 by Smith in view of U.S. 2021/0330171 by Lehmann.
With regard to claim 1, McGinness teaches a commercial dishwasher that comprises one or more spray arms (one is illustrated as item 162 in Figure 1) for washing and rinsing dishes (Abstract; Par. 0044-0046). McGinness teaches that the dishwasher comprises a controller 200 that is configured, in a washing day, to temporally vary (and in an automatic manner) at least one treatment parameter according to which the dishes are to be treated during washing and/or rinsing as a function of a pattern; namely, during predetermined short-cycle-time-period(s) of the washing day, the controller 200 has the dishwasher performing dishwashing with a “short cycle”, and during times (during the washing day) that are not the short-cycle-time-period(s), the controller 200 has the dishwasher performing dishwashing with a longer (longer in terms of how long it takes to process of load of dishes) “default cycle” (Par. 0018, 0042, 0043, 0050, 0051, 0054, 0058-0060, 0105, and 0106). McGinness’s dishwasher is a commercial dishwasher, and McGinness points out that a restaurant may have certain times of day (for example, around breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner) wherein the dishwashing is in heavy demand (Par. 0061 and 0106). In the teachings of McGinness, these heavy-demand times are the short-cycle-time-period(s) of a given dishwasher in a given restaurant (Par. 0061 and 0106). McGinness teaches that the short cycles (as compared to the “default” cycles) require such parameter changes as higher temperatures or higher cleaning-product usage, but McGinness teaches that these short cycles have the advantage of being faster (as compared to the “default” cycles), thus advantageously allowing for faster dishwashing when demand is heavy (such as around breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner; Par. 0054, 0058-0061, and 0106). In the apparatus of McGinness, the dividing of a washing day into short-cycle-time-period(s) (when short cycles are executed) and non-short-cycle-time-period(s) (when “default” cycles are executed) forms a pattern. McGinness teaches that this pattern (of when short-cycle-time-period(s) occur in a washing day) is “customizable” to suit the needs of a particular location (Par. 0050).
McGinness does not teach that this pattern is created by an evaluation device.
Miller teaches that machine learning can successfully be used to determine what time(s) of day a user prefers to use a dishwasher (Par. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dishwasher of McGinness such that the controller comprises a controller module (reads on evaluation device) that uses machine learning during a time period to determine what time(s) of day the restaurant’s dishwasher is particularly busy such that the “customizable” (Par. 0050 of McGinness) pattern of McGinness can be created by the learning module – thus resulting in a customized pattern for a particular dishwashing at a particular restaurant. McGinness teaches that their pattern (of when short-cycle-time-period(s) occur in a washing day) is “customizable” to suit the needs of a particular location, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Miller, who teaches that machine learning can successfully be used to determine what time(s) of day a user prefers to use a dishwasher.
The combination of McGinness in view of Miller teaches that the dishwasher is also configured to adjust parameter(s) of a short cycle based on the type (such as pots, pans, cups, and drinking glasses) of articles being cleaned by the dishwasher (Par. 0051 of McGinness). However, the combination of McGinness in view of Miller does not recite that the dishwasher comprises a camera system.
Smith teaches that a camera system inside a dishwasher can successfully be used by a controller (that performs image analysis) to determine what type of articles are loaded into the dishwasher (Abstract; Par. 0032-0039 and 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dishwasher of McGinness in view of Miller such that a camera system is located in the dishwasher and supplies its imagery data to the controller such that the controller can perform image analysis to determine what type(s) of articles have been loaded into the dishwasher. The combination of McGinness in view of Miller teaches that the dishwasher is configured to adjust parameter(s) of a short cycle based on the type (such as pots, pans, cups, and drinking glasses) of articles being cleaned by the dishwasher, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Smith, who teaches that a camera system inside a dishwasher can successfully be used by a controller (that performs image analysis) to determine what type of articles are loaded into the dishwasher. In this combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith, the camera imagery is used to determine what type(s) of articles are loaded into the dishwasher, which thus allows the dishwasher to accordingly adjust parameter(s) of a short cycle based on those determined type(s).
The combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith teaches that the dishwasher performs both washing and rinsing, but the combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith does not explicitly teach that the dishwasher comprises both a washing system and a rinsing system.
Lehmann teaches that a dishwasher can successfully perform washing using a washing system comprising a washing pump that delivers washing liquid to washing nozzles arranged on spray arms, and Lehmann teaches that such a dishwasher can also successfully perform rinsing by having a rinsing pump deliver rinsing liquid to rinsing nozzles arranged on spray arms (Par. 0048-0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dishwasher of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith by having the dishwasher comprise a washing system with a washing pump that delivers washing liquid to washing nozzles arranged on spray arms and by having the dishwasher comprise a rinsing system with a rinsing pump that deliver rinsing liquid to rinsing nozzles arranged on spray arms. The combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith teaches that the dishwasher performs both washing and rinsing, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Lehmann, who teaches that a dishwasher can successfully perform washing using a washing system comprising a washing pump that delivers washing liquid to washing nozzles arranged on spray arms and who teaches that such a dishwasher can also successfully perform rinsing by having a rinsing pump deliver rinsing liquid to rinsing nozzles arranged on spray arms.
With regard to claim 2, the combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann, as developed thus far, does not teach that the controller module that reads on applicant’s evaluation device also generates statistics.
Smith teaches that when a dishwashing cycle fails to successfully wash the dishware, a user may choose to perform a “rewash” wherein the same load of dishware is washed again, and Smith teaches that a control system can advantageously provide user(s) with statistical information about how often such rewashes are occurring, as this information may be useful to said user if the statistical information indicates that the dishwasher may be malfunctioning (Par. 0088 and 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dishwasher of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann such that the controller module that reads on applicant’s evaluation device is also used to generate (and provide to a user) statistics indicating how frequently rewashing occurs after “short” and “default” cycles. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Smith, who teaches that a control system can advantageously provide user(s) with statistical information about how often rewashes are occurring, as this information may be useful to said user if the statistical information indicates that the dishwasher may be malfunctioning. The dishwashing of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann performs “short” and “default” cycles, and such statistical information could be used by a user to determine if the dishwasher is malfunctioning during “short” and/or “default” cycles and needs to be upgraded to overcome such malfunctioning.
With regard to claim 3, in the combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann, when a “short” cycle is first performed (after a “default” cycle was last performed) in accordance with the created pattern, the following parameters are taught as parameters that can be adjusted to make the “short” cycle: a temperature of the wash liquid that is sprayed onto the washware, a temperature of rinsing liquids sprayed onto the washware, a duration of a washing phase, and a duration of a rinsing phase (Par. 0058-0060 of McGinness).
With regard to claim 14, in the combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann, the controller comprises a controller module that uses machine learning during a time period (reads on learning phase) to determine what time(s) of day the restaurant’s dishwasher is particularly busy such that the “customizable” (Par. 0050 of McGinness) pattern of McGinness can be created by the learning module – thus resulting in a customized pattern for a particular dishwashing at a particular restaurant. In the pattern, a first period of time during a restaurant’s day is when a relatively small number of dishes is cleaned with “default” cycle mode per unit time, and a second period of time in the day is what a relatively larger number of dishes is cleaned with “short” cycle mode per unit time. In the combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann, parameters are adjusted for the performance of the “default” and “short” cycle modes (Par. 0058-0060 of McGinness).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0369076 by McGinness in view of U.S. 2023/0240508 by Miller in view of U.S. 2021/0076898 by Smith in view of U.S. 2021/0330171 by Lehmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2024/0393756 by Liu in view of CN114190851 by Sun.
With regard to claim 4, in the developed combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann, a temporal pattern (of when to use “short” cycle washing or “default” cycle washing) is created by a controller module that uses machine learning. The combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann teaches that washing parameter(s) can also be optimized based on the type(s) of to-be-removed soiling (such as baked-on starch, sugar, protein, lipstick, coffee, and so on) to be removed from a given batch of dishes (Par. 0051 of McGinness).
The combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann does not recite that the machine learning controller module also determines a development over time of an average type of soiling of the washware to be treated in the dishwasher.
Liu teaches that a dishwasher’s machine-learning controller can successfully be used to make predictions about a dishwasher operator’s behavior based on data collected over a learning period such as four weeks (Par. 0157-0163).
Sun teaches that when training a machine-learning algorithm of a dishwasher, data concerning different food types on dishes can be successfully fed by a user into the machine-learning algorithm (page 7 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dishwasher of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann by having the creation of the temporal pattern include information about when (that is, at what points in a restaurant day) various type(s) of to-be-removed soiling (such as baked-on starch, sugar, protein, lipstick, coffee, and so on) are on the dishes, wherein this soil-type data is provided to the machine-learning module by a user during a learning phase over a plurality of weeks, each week (of said plurality of weeks) can be considered an observation period. Liu teaches that a dishwasher’s machine-learning controller can successfully be used to make predictions about a dishwasher operator’s behavior based on data collected over a learning period such as four weeks, and motivation for performing the modification would be to allow the dishwasher to predict what types of soil will be encountered at a given time of day, as McGinness teaches that different soils require different parameter(s). The motivation for having a user train the machine-learning module with user-provided soiling data was provided by Sun, who teaches that when training a machine-learning algorithm of a dishwasher, data concerning different food types on dishes can be successfully fed by a user into the machine-learning algorithm.
In this combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun, a development over time of the types of soiling to be removed is determined by the machine-learning module, but the combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun does not talk about this concept using the terminology of an average type of soiling. However, having the machine-learning module “think” about the changing of soiling type over the course of a restaurant’s workday in terms of a changing average type of soiling is just a programming choice for achieving the technique of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun, and such a programming choice is considered to be simply an obvious variant of the machine-learning technique of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun, as tracking a changing average soiling type is simply an mathematical method for tracking how soiling-type change occurs over the course of a day.
The combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun does not recite whether or not the learning phase is initiated manually or not. However, in the combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun, the learning phase involves the dishwasher user (as the user has to input the soiling data), and in the art of computer-control systems, it is well known for a computer-control system to allow a user to manually initiate a computer program, as such manual control allows a human user to choose when a computer program is run. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun such that the dishwasher controller allows the user to manually initiate the learning phase, as such manual control would advantageously empower the human user to decide when to perform the learning phase.
With regard to claim 5, in the developed combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun, the controller’s image-analysis is configured to categorize such article types as pots, pans, cups, and drinking glasses. The combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun does not teach that the machine-learning module of the computer controller is what does the computing-work of this image analysis. However, it is well known that a computer module can successfully perform more than one type of task. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dishwasher of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun such that the machine-learning module of the computer controller is what does the computing-work of the image analysis, as a computer module can successfully be made to perform more than one type of task.
Remaining Claims
The examiner doesn’t have a prior art rejection for claim 6. However, as discussed above, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112. Since the examiner can’t predict how applicant might choose to respond to such rejections of claim 6, the examiner is not yet ready to say that claim 6 contains allowable subject matter.
With regard to claim 6, the most relevant prior art is the combination of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun used above to reject claim 4. The combination of claim McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun fails to teach that the evaluation device is configured to determine, during the learning or observation phase over the at least one observation period, a development over time of an average degree of soiling of the washware existing in the image capture region of the camera system at the time of the corresponding image capture and/or a development over time of an average type of soiling of the washware existing in the image capture region of the camera system at the time of the corresponding image capture, wherein the dishwasher comprises a control device, which is configured tin order to, proactively and predictively, automatically as a function of the determined development over time of the average degree of soiling of the washware and/or as a function of the determined development over time of the average type of soiling of the washware, initiate at least one measure influencing the quality of a washing liquid to be sprayed by the washing system and/or proactively and predictively at least one measure influencing the cleaning power of the dishwasher. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the dishwasher of McGinness in view of Miller in view of Smith in view of Lehmann in view of Liu in view of Sun to arrive at the invention of claim 6 without the use of an impermissible level of hindsight reasoning.
Claims 7-13 depend variously from claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714