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 8/4/2025 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Comment
Examiner notes that claim 7 in particular is replete with issues (see 112s below).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: in Figure 1, “36” is not identified in the specification. Examiner has identified camera system 34 and image processing device 35. Would this be the control device in view of [0063]?. Additionally, the originally-filed claims appear to assign “36” to the control device. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner has applied 112(f) interpretation to the following:
device for sensing (claim 1): a camera system (see Applicant’s Figure 1, camera system 34. [0030]. refer to claim 8)
control device (claim 1): a controller, processor, microcomputer, etc. as understood in the art that would be capable of logic (see Applicant’s [0063]-[0066])
evaluation device (claim 8): image processor (see Applicant’s Figure 1, image processing device 35. [0059])
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9-10 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite instances of “characterized in that”. This should be followed by a colon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite instances of “configured in order to”, which should be “configured to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 6, “which device” should be “said device for sensing”. This should be followed by a colon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: on 2, “average loading level” should be “determined average loading level” to be correspond with claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 3-4, the terms “remaining load capacity” and “remaining loading capacity” are used. The “load/loading” usage should be consistent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, “the end” should be “an end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 6, “the treatment” should be “treatment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 7, “at least one measure influencing the quality of a washing liquid” should be “at least one first measure influencing quality of a washing liquid”. Examiner notes that dependent claims 5-7 would need to account for this. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the various measures should be introduced with “a” or “an”, rather than “the”. For example, on line 4, “the temperature” should be “a temperature”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, remove the numbering “(1)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 6-7, “wash nozzle” should be “washing nozzle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 9, “which screen” should be rephrased (e.g. “said tank cover screen”, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 8, “the image capture” should be “the capture” or “the capture of the at least one image”. This should be followed by a colon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 6-7, “the washing personnel” and “the operator” should be “washing personnel” and “an operator”, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 is/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 treatment zones" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduces at least one washing zone and at least one rinsing zone.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the observation period" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduces “at least one observation period” and “a plurality of observation periods” in the second clause.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the determined average loading level" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the remaining loading capacity of the conveyor apparatus corresponding to the second relative value" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 introduces “a remaining load capacity of the conveyor apparatus” on line 3, which appears to be distinct due to the absence of mentioning any relative value.
Claim 4 recites “a washing liquid” on line 11, but this term had already been introduced on line 7. Depending on Applicant’s intentions, Applicant must amend to account for this, either referring back to the previously introduced washing liquid, or introducing a distinct second washing liquid.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the measure influencing the treatment of the washware” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 introduces at least one first measure and at least one second measure influencing the treatment of the washware.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the rinsing liquid" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 introduces a washing liquid.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the measure influencing the quality of the washing liquid” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 introduces at least one measure and at least one second measure influencing the quality of the washing liquid.
Claim 7 is narrative in form and requires additional spacing/indentations.
Claim 7 appears to introduce two soil discharge systems. Applicant must not reuse the same term.
Claim 7 recites “which system” on line 14, but antecedent basis has been established for multiple systems, including a washing system, a nozzle system, two soil discharge systems, etc.
Claim 7 recites phrasings “in particular as needed” and “if necessary at delay”. The language must be removed, as it appears to be exemplary and/or ambiguous.
Claim 9 recites “a control device” on line 4, but this structural element had already been introduced in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “it on line 7. This must be clarified/replaced.
Claim 10 recites “a control device” on line 4, but this structural element had already been introduced in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the loading level" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “it” on line 3. This must be clarified/replaced.
Claim 11 recites “a recommendation for optimized operation of the conveyor warewasher with regard to the cleaning efficiency”. This appears to be relying on relative terminology, particularly the use of the terms “optimized” and “cleaning efficiency”. Applicant must further clarify via argument and/or amendment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 appears to be encompassed by the last clause of claim 1 (e.g. the “create statistics” aspect is optional). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaus (US 20210267431) in view of McGinness et al. (US 20210369076, “McGinness”).
Gaus teaches a cleaning system comprising:
For Claim 1:
A conveyor warewasher for cleaning washware, wherein the conveyor warewasher comprises at least one washing zone and at least one rinsing zone and a conveyor apparatus for conveying washware through the at least one washing zone and the at least one rinsing zone, wherein the conveyor warewasher comprises a device for sensing a loading of the conveyor apparatus, which device is configured in order to determine a loading of the conveyor apparatus with the washware to be conveyed through the treatment zones of the conveyor warewasher (see Figure 1, washing zone 124, main cleaning nozzle system 126, rinsing zone 130, rinsing nozzle system 130, second conveying apparatus 148, sensor 160. [0005], [0042], [0044], [0056]-[0060], [0118]),
characterized in that
the conveyor warewasher comprises a control device, which is configured in order to, during a learning or observation phase over at least one observation period or over a plurality of observation periods each relating to a washing shift or a washing day of the conveyor warewasher or a portion thereof, determine a chronological profile of the loading of the conveyor apparatus with washware to be conveyed through the treatment zones of the conveyor warewasher, wherein the control device is further configured in order to deduce a pattern or a regularity based on the determined chronological profile of the loading of the conveyor apparatus with washware ([0005], [0042], [0044], [0056]-[0060], [0068], [0118]). Gaus teaches using a controller and sensor to characterize utilization/peak loads, and to factor in times of the day or days of the week.
If challenged regarding particulars of the control device regarding the observation periods and profile, Examiner further refers to McGinness who teaches using default cleaning cycles and short cleaning cycles, and to monitor average number of racks cleaning cycles per day by hour of day (see McGinness’ Figures 5-8, [0042]-[0043], [0074]-[0089]). McGinness teaches using the short cleaning cycle in response to peak times to condense timeframe while also ensuring adequate cleaning/sanitizing.
Both Gaus and McGinness effectively teach observing peak or high utilization times/rates, and then responding accordingly.
Modified Gaus also teaches the following:
For Claim 2:
The conveyor warewasher according to claim 1,
wherein the control device is further configured in order to divide the observation period relating to a washing shift or a washing day of the conveyor warewasher or a portion thereof into a first sub-period and into at least one further second sub-period, wherein, in the first sub-period of the observation period, the determined average loading level of the conveyor apparatus with the washware corresponds to a first relative value or falls within a first relative value range, and wherein, in the at least one second sub-period of the observation period, the determined average loading level of the conveyor apparatus with the washware corresponds to a second relative value or falls within a second relative value range (see Gaus’ [0042], [0056]. see McGinness’ Figures 5-8, [0042]-[0043], [0074]-[0089]). Both Gaus and McGinness are characterizing peak/high utilization rates and times, and rely on using threshold values (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
For Claim 3:
The conveyor warewasher according to claim 2,
wherein the first relative value of the average loading level of the conveyor apparatus corresponds to a remaining load capacity of the conveyor apparatus that is greater than the remaining loading capacity of the conveyor apparatus corresponding to the second relative value of the average loading level of the conveyor apparatus (refer to claim 2 rejection).
For Claim 4:
The conveyor warewasher according to claim 2,
wherein the control device is further configured in order to initiate, for the first sub-period, after the end of the learning or observation phase, at least one first measure influencing the treatment of the washware in the treatment zones of the conveyor warewasher and/or at least one measure influencing the quality of a washing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one washing zone of the conveyor warewasher and to initiate, for the at least one second sub-period, at least one second measure influencing the treatment of the washware in the treatment zones of the conveyor warewasher and/or at least a second measure influencing the quality of a washing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one washing zone of the conveyor warewasher (see Gaus’ [0069]. See McGinness’ [0043]).
For Claim 5:
The conveyor warewasher according to claim 4,
wherein the measure influencing the treatment of the washware in the treatment zones of the conveyor warewasher is at least one of the measures listed below (refer to claim 4 rejection. see Gaus’ [0069]. see McGinness’ [0043]). Examiner notes that claim 4 renders this optional:
increasing or decreasing the temperature of the rinsing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one rinsing zone; and/or
increasing or decreasing the pressure of the rinsing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one rinsing zone; and/or
increasing or decreasing the amount of rinsing liquid sprayed per unit of time in the at least one rinsing zone; and/or
increasing or decreasing the temperature of the washing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one washing zone; and/or
increasing or decreasing the pressure of the washing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one washing zone; and/or
increasing or decreasing the amount of washing liquid sprayed per unit time in the at least one washing zone; and/or
increasing or decreasing the pressure of drying air to be sprayed in an optional drying zone; and/or
increasing or decreasing the temperature of drying air to be sprayed in an optional drying zone; and/or
increasing or decreasing the amount of drying air sprayed per unit time in an optional drying zone; and/or
increasing or decreasing the conveying speed of the conveyor apparatus.
For Claim 6:
The conveyor warewasher (1) according to claim 4,
wherein the measure influencing the quality of the washing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one washing zone of the conveyor warewasher is at least one of the measures listed below (refer to claim 4 rejection). Examiner notes that claim 4 renders this optional:
increasing or decreasing a regeneration of the washing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one washing zone of the conveyor warewasher;
increasing or decreasing a dirt-carrying capacity of the washing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one washing zone; and/or
activating or deactivating a dirt discharge from the washing liquid to be sprayed in the at least one washing zone.
For Claim 8:
The conveyor warewasher according to claim 1,
wherein the device for sensing a loading of the conveyor apparatus comprises a camera system, which is arranged above or below or to the side of the conveyor apparatus and is configured in order to capture at least one image of a region of the conveyor apparatus continuously or at predetermined or determinable times and/or events, wherein an evaluation device is further provided, which is configured in order to evaluate and determine whether, at the time of the image capture, washware-free regions are present in the region of the conveyor apparatus, and/or what the loading level of the conveyor apparatus is (see Gaus’ Figure 1, sensor 160. [0059]). If argued that the controller performs the image processing rather than a distinct device/processor, Examiner considers using a separate device which still interacts with the controller to perform the same collective functionality as the obvious act of making separable (see MPEP 2144.04, “Making Separable”).
For Claim 9:
The conveyor warewasher according to claim 1,
characterized in that
the conveyor warewasher comprises a control device, which is configured in order to output a notification to the washing personnel assigned to the conveyor warewasher and/or to the operator of the conveyor warewasher, when it is determined by the device for sensing a loading of the conveyor apparatus that a current or average loading level of the conveyor apparatus is above or below a predetermined or determinable loading level of the conveyor apparatus (see McGinness’ [0055], [0065]-[0067]). McGinness teaches notifications for the short cleaning cycle.
For Claim 10:
The conveyor warewasher according to claim 1,
characterized in that
the conveyor warewasher comprises a control device, which is configured in order to determine a chronological profile of the loading of the conveyor apparatus with washware to be conveyed through the treatment zones of the conveyor warewasher and/or to create statistics about the loading level of the conveyor apparatus (refer to 112(d) rejection. refer to claim 1 rejection. see McGinness’ [0055], [0065]-[0067]).
For Claim 11:
The conveyor warewasher according to claim 10,
wherein the control device is further configured in order to generate a corresponding notification and/or output it to the operator of the conveyor warewasher depending on the determined chronological profile and/or the statistics created, wherein the notification contains a recommendation for optimized operation of the conveyor warewasher with regard to the cleaning efficiency (see McGinness’ [0055], [0065]-[0067]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC LORENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7586 and fax number is (571)270-8586. The examiner can normally be reached from 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gordon Baldwin at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC LORENZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights