DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/16/2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending, Claims 12-15 are withdrawn, and Claims 1-11 have been examined.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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/16/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 recites “zone (10)”. Applicant appears to have amended to claims to remove reference numbers but “(10)” appears accidentally omitted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engesser et al. (US 2017/0172371 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, characterized in that
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, washware items are present in the portion of the conveyor apparatus that:
i) are transported incorrectly oriented by the conveyor apparatus (¶ [0126], [0130], [0137] detect…incorrect occupancy…incorrectly arranged); and/or
ii) are transported misaligned by the conveyor apparatus.
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).
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 2-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engesser et al. (US 2017/0172371 A1) in view of Scheringer et al. (US 2023/0012018 A1).
Re claims 2-3, Engesser 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 a predetermined or predeterminable orientation; and/orb)a second class comprising washware items whose orientation corresponds to a predetermined or predeterminable orientation; and/or c) a third class comprising washware items whose alignment does not correspond to a predetermined or predeterminable alignment; and/or d) a fourth class comprising washware items whose alignment corresponds to a predetermined or predeterminable 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.
Re claim 11, Regarding " wherein the orientation of a washware item corresponds to the predetermined orientation when the washware item is transported upside-down by the conveyor apparatus; and/or wherein the orientation of a washware item corresponds to the predetermined alignment when the washware item is aligned upside down with respect to the conveyor apparatus”, this limitation appears to be an intended use of the claimed conveyor warewasher, so long as the warewasher of Engesser/Scheringer is capable of transporting washware items upside-down, the limitation is met. See MPEP 2114. See also Engesser fig. 1, glasses 114 appear to be transported upside-down.
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 Smith et al. (US 2023/0375991 A1).
Re claims 7-8, Engesser 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 3505039 A1 note detection for upside down/correct orientation.
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