DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 7/1/2026.
Claims 1-11 and 16-18 are pending and have been examined.
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 Objections
Previous claim objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engesser et al. (US 2017/0172371 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2021/0127943 A1).
Re claim 1, Engesser discloses a conveyor warewasher for cleaning washware (abstract), wherein the conveyor warewasher comprises
at least one washing zone (see fig. 1 at refs. 166, 170) and at least one rinsing zone (see fig. 1 at refs. 174, 178) as well as a conveyor apparatus (ref. 118) for conveying the washware through the at least one washing zone and the at least one rinsing zone, wherein
the conveyor warewasher has a camera system (ref. 212, ¶ [0126]), which is arranged above or below or to the side of the conveyor apparatus and is adapted to capture at least one image of a portion of the conveyor apparatus, wherein an image processing device (ref. 194) is associated with the camera system that is adapted to determine a location, position, and/or orientation of washware items present in the at least one captured image (¶ [0025], [0126], [0130], [0137] detect…position of articles to be cleaner; detect…incorrect occupancy), wherein an evaluation device (ref. 194, ¶ [0137]) is further provided that is adapted to determine based on the determined location, position, and/or orientation of the washware items whether, at the time of the image capture,
i) washware items are present in the portion of the conveyor apparatus and are incorrectly oriented, relative to a predefined cleaning orientation (RE “Oriented”, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes “the state of being oriented [set or arranged in any determinate position especially in relation to the points of the compass]” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orientation; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orient#h1; ¶ [0126], [0130], [0137] detect…incorrect occupancy…incorrectly arranged at occupied positions of the conveying device that are not scheduled to be occupied, i.e. arranged in a determinate position relative to a predefined arrangement of the schedule), on the conveyor apparatus; and/or
ii) washware items are present in the portion of the conveyor apparatus and are misaligned, relative to a predefined cleaning alignment, on the conveyor apparatus.
To any extent Engesser is not clear as to “orientation” including relation to the points of the compass, Ha explicitly discloses it is known in the warewasher art (abstract) to provide determining whether washware items are incorrectly oriented, relative to a predefined cleaning orientation (¶ [0010] determining…a first orientation associated…in accordance with the preset constraints (e.g. …orientation or a prohibited location/orientation; see also ¶ [0086]-[0087] dish faces the same direction and/or dish or bowl should not be faced upward).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the evaluation device of Engesser to further including determining incorrectly oriented with respect to a direction of facing, as suggested by Ha, in order to optimized cleaning and/or prevent trapping of water during cleaning.
Re claim 11, wherein the predefined cleaning orientation is upside-down by the conveyor apparatus (¶ [0087], claim 5 dish or bowl should be faced upward); and/or wherein the predefined cleaning alignment is upside-down with respect to the conveyor apparatus.
Re claims 16-18, Independent claim 16 defines over claim 1 only in the recitation of “a predefined vertical or vertically inclined cleaning orientation”, Ha further discloses the predefined vertical or vertically inclined cleaning orientation…is an upside-down orientation and/or an inclined upright orientation (¶ [0086]-[0087] dish or bowl should be faced upward an dish faces the same direction; see also fig. 4 and 6D showing plates orientated vertically and/or slightly vertically inclined; also consider ¶ [0010] preset constraints (e.g. either an optimized location/orientation or a prohibited location/orientation), here, the arrangement of dishes upside-down and/or vertically with sufficient spacing an angle is conventionally known to those of ordinary skill in the art).
Re claims 4-6, Regarding “wherein the conveyor warewasher comprises a control device adapted to output an error or warning message to the washing personnel associated with the conveyor warewasher and/or to the operator of the conveyor warewasher, if it is determined by the evaluation device that at the time of image capture in the portion of the conveyor apparatus: -at least one incorrectly oriented washware item is transported by the conveyor apparatus; and/or -a predetermined or fixed (minimum) number of incorrectly oriented washware items are transported by the conveyor apparatus; and/or -at least one misaligned washware item is transported by the conveyor; and/or a pre-determined or fixed (minimum) number of misaligned washware items are transported by the conveyor apparatus”, Engesser further discloses an error or warning message (¶ [0137] output a warning to the user). Re claim 5, Engesser further discloses stopping (¶ [0137] stop…in the short-term in order to give the user the opportunity to correct the incorrect occupancy). Re claim 6, Engesser further discloses a control device (ref. 194) adapted to activate or deactivate an additional washing system in the at least one washing zone (¶ [0137] nozzle units can be activated).
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engesser et al. (US 2017/0172371 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2021/0127943 A1) and Scheringer et al. (US 2023/0012018 A1).
Re claims 2-3, Engesser/Ha disclose as shown above and further disclose wherein the evaluation device is adapted to determine whether washware item parts are present in the portion of the conveyor apparatus at the time of image capture that are transported incorrectly oriented by the conveyor apparatus (¶ [0126], [0130], [0137] detect…incorrect occupancy…incorrectly arranged)); and/or that are transported misaligned by the conveyor apparatus, but does not explicitly disclose based on training data.
However, Scheringer teaches it is very well-known in the image detection in cleaning art (abstract) to provide evaluation based on training data (¶ [0049], [0065] artificial intelligence may be trained for different washware situations….at least one artificial neural network). Re claim 3, Regarding “wherein the evaluation device is adapted to determine, based on a comparison of at least portions of the at least one captured image using training images captured during a learning phase, whether washware items are present in the portion of the conveyor apparatus at the time of image capture that are transported incorrectly oriented by the conveyor apparatus; and/or that are transported misaligned by the conveyor apparatus”, Scheringer teaches a learning phase (¶ [0049], [0065] neural network…self-learning system.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the evaluation device of Engesser to further be based on training data, as suggested by Scheringer, in order to increase accuracy and flexibility of the sensor/camera detection.
Re claims 9-10, Regarding “pre-process the at least one image capture by the camera system, to segment the pre-processed image, and to extract features of, and to classify, objects contained in the images contained in the image, wherein the image processing device is further adapted to extract a location, position, and/or orientation of the washware items in the portion of the as a feature of the washware items in the image, and wherein the image processing device is further adapted to classify the washware items based on the extracted location, position, and/or orientation of the washware items in the portion of the conveyor apparatus , namely into: a) a first class comprising washware items whose orientation does not correspond to the predefined cleaning orientation; and/orb)a second class comprising washware items whose orientation corresponds to the predefined cleaning orientation; and/or c) a third class comprising washware items whose alignment does not correspond to the predefined cleaning alignment; and/or d) a fourth class comprising washware items whose alignment corresponds to the predefined cleaning alignment conveyor apparatus”, Engesser and/or Scheringer further discloses extracting and classify the location, position and/or orientation (Engesser ¶ [0025], [0037] position of the articles…incorrectly occupied; Scheringer (¶ [0036] position and/or orientation). Examiner notes the creation of multiple classification of incorrect positions and/or orientation is prima facie obvious in neural network created identification profiles to enable identifying multiple incorrect operational states.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engesser et al. (US 2017/0172371 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2021/0127943 A1) and Smith et al. (US 2023/0375991 A1).
Re claims 7-8, Engesser/Ha discloses as shown above, but does not explicitly disclose a control device adapted to -during an observation phase over an observation period, relates to a washing shift or a washing day of the conveyor warewasher, to determine a development over time of the incorrectly oriented and/or misaligned washware items determined by the evaluation device, and to infer a pattern or a regularity based on the determined development over time; and/or -during an observation phase over an observation period, which relates to a washing shift or a washing day of the conveyor warewasher, to generate statistics on the type and/or timing of the incorrectly oriented and/or incorrectly aligned washware items. However, Smith discloses it is well-known in the warewasher monitoring art (abstract) to provide a control device (ref. 202 processor ¶ [0042]-[0043]) to perform statistical analysis of anomalous operations detected over time, in order to identify root causes or provide remedial actions and enhance predicted states (¶ [0035]-[0036]). Re claim 8, Smith further discloses notification (¶ [0047] Reporting module 216 may generate one or more notifications or reports).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify control device of Smith to further include statistical analysis of the incorrect/anomalous events, as suggested by Engesser, in order to determine root causes and remedial actions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to the difference of Engesser’s “occupancy” as compared to Applicant’s “orientation of washware items”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “orientation” is “the state of being oriented [set or arranged in any determinate position especially in relation to the points of the compass]” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orientation; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orient#h1). Here, Applicant appears to agree that Engesser teaches determining whether washware is incorrectly arranged at occupied positioned that are not scheduled to be occupied (¶ [0137]). As such, it is clear that Engesser is determining that the washware is in a state of being incorrectly arranged at a determinate position, relative to a predefined cleaning state of being arranged in the predefined determinate position of the schedule. Here, Applicant does not define what direction, axis or points of the compass from which the “orientation” is measured by, therefore Engresser’s determination of arrangement relative to a predefined arrangement fully satisfies the limitation as claimed.
Examiner also further notes that Applicant’s claims do not require determination of an orientation of the washware, but only the negative limitation in the past tense “incorrectly oriented”.
Nonetheless, Examiner has cited Ha (US 2021/0127943 A1) (cited by Applicant) in view of amendments to claim 11 and new claims 16-18 that defines a direction for the predefined cleaning orientation.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 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 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights