DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Smith does not teach “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.” However, Smith teaches a learning or observation phase over observation period(s) relating to “specified time periods” to generate data such as cycles per day/week/month, draining frequency, cycle times, and types of wares washed during particular times and days of the week (para. 50). Smith clearly teaches at least observation periods relating to a washing day. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious for an observation period to be relating to “a washing shift” based on the teachings of Smith since Smith suggests that observations periods may be over various times and days, observed processes are related to operations performed by users, and the purpose of the observation phase is “to improve management of a ware washing” facility (para. 50).
Applicant further asserts that the reference to "types of wares washed during particular times of days of the week" is not the same as determining a "chronological profile" and identifying "a pattern or a regularity" as now stated in claim 1. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that determining types of ware washing during particular times of days of the week is a “chronological profile” since it is in regards to the chronological operation of the warewasher and the types of ware washing during particular days of a week is indicative of a pattern or regularity.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the objections to claims 1 and 10 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 2, 6-10, and 12 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 5-12 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20110017240 by Berner et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210076898 by Smith et al.
As to claim 1, Berner teaches a conveyor warewasher comprising washing zones 7, 8 (fig. 1); a rinsing zone 10; a conveyor apparatus 2; a camera system 35 above the conveyor to capture an image of a portion of the conveyor; an evaluation device 34 to evaluate and determine on the basis of an image whether reusable plasticware was present in the portion of the conveyor (paras. 14, 18, 47).
Berner teaches a control device 36, but does not teach that it is configured to determine a chronological profile of the loading of the conveyor with reusable plasticware. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the warewasher taught by Berner to determine a chronological profile of reusable plasticware loading and identify a pattern or a regularity as claimed.
Smith teaches a conveyor warewasher with a control device configured to determine a chronological profile over specific time periods of loading of a particular type of ware and identifying a pattern or regularity (para. 50). Smith teaches that historical data may include operations per day, week, or month and types of wares washed during particular times and days of the week (para. 50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such data represents a pattern of use or types of wares being washed and that “particular times and days of the week” may relate to a washing shift, washing day, or a portion thereof. Smith further teaches that the data allows for creation of reports to improve management of a ware washing facility (para. 50).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the warewasher taught by Berner to determine a chronological profile and identify a pattern or regularity of a type of ware being washed in order to achieve the benefits taught by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized as obvious that Smith’s teaching of determining a pattern of types of wares being washed would include reusable plasticware, in particular in view of Berner’s teachings of such category of ware being identified and washed in its conveyor warewasher.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Berner teaches that an image processing device is associated with the camera system and that the image processing device pre-processes the image to segment the image, extract features, and classify objects in the image, and the evaluation device further evaluates and determines based on the classification whether reusable plasticware was present in the portion of the conveyor (paras. 47-48, the claimed image processing necessarily must take place to “sense the size, shape and/or material of the wash ware” using a camera).
As to claim 3, Berner teaches that its control device 36 configured to select a predetermined treatment program automatically for reusable plasticware according to which program the washware is to be treated in a washing zone, rinsing zone, and/or drying zone and to set the process parameters associated with the program (paras. 71, 74, 78).
As to claim 4, Berner teaches that the control device is configured to automatically, for a reusable plasticware category, select a predetermined value of volumetric flow per unit time in a washing zone and set the volumetric flow (para. 26); or a nozzle pressure in a washing zone (para. 26); or a volumetric flow in a rinsing zone (para. 25); or an amount of rinse aid in a rinsing zone (para. 29); or amount of detergent in a washing zone (para. 88).
As to claim 6, Smith teaches that its control device is configured to divide an observation period into sub-periods (para. 50, types of wares are observed during particular times and day of the week). The average loading level of a particular type of ware, such as reusable plasticware, during a first sub-period corresponding to a first relative value or falling within a first relative value range would be representative of any average loading level since any average level would necessarily correspond to a value or fall within a range. Likewise, the average loading level during a second sub-period would necessarily correspond to a value or fall within a range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any difference in average loading level over any two sub-periods of time of indeterminate length would have been expected since Smith suggests that the types of wares being washed is not constant over an infinite period of time. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a first relative value or a first relative value range would be different than a second relative value or second relative value range.
As to claim 7, as discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any difference in average loading level over any two sub-periods of time of indeterminate length would have been expected since Smith suggests that the types of wares being washed is not constant over an infinite period of time. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a first relative value would be larger than a second relative value.
As to claim 8, Berner teaches measures influencing the treatment of reusable plasticware may include volumetric flow in a washing zone (para. 26), a nozzle pressure in a washing zone (para. 26), a volumetric flow in a rinsing zone (para. 25), an amount of rinse aid in a rinsing zone (para. 29), and/or amount of detergent in a washing zone (para. 88). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that after a learning or observation phase, which may be at any future time after a development over time is performed based on the teachings of Smith, a first measure (any of the aforementioned measures) may be initiated in a first sub-period, which would be any period corresponding to a particular time or day of the week (see Smith, para. 50); and a second measure (any other of the aforementioned measures) may be initiated in a second sub-period, which would be any period corresponding to another particular time or day of the week. Berner teaches that any one or more of the measures may be initiated for treatment of reusable plasticware, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that any one or more may be initiated for any period or periods of time in which the warewasher is used to wash reusable plasticware.
As to claim 9, Berner teaches that measures influencing the treatment of reusable plasticware may be adapted optimally to the type of ware, which includes measures such as the volumetric flow in a washing zone (para. 26), the pressure in a washing zone (para. 26), a volumetric flow in a rinsing zone (para. 25), and/or an amount of rinse aid in a rinsing zone (para. 29). Smith also teaches that process parameters may be dynamically adjusted based on a ware type material (para. 67). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious from the teachings and suggestions of Berner and Smith that treatment measures, such as temperatures, pressures, and volumetric flows in various zones may be increased or reduced as appropriate for a given ware type. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that pressures, volumetric flows, amount of drying air, and amount of rinse aid may be increased, from zero, when the warewasher is not in use to an appropriate level when reusable plasticware is washed during a period or sub-period of time. Likewise, a temperature may be increased from ambient from when the warewasher is not in use to an appropriate level when reusable plasticware is washed during a period of time.
As to claim 10, Berner teaches a control device, but it does not teach that it has the claimed configuration. However, Smith teaches that data regarding the types of wares washed during particular times and days of the week may be used to create reports to improve management of a ware washing facility (para. 50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that creating reports to improve management would constitute a notification to washing personnel associated to the warewasher or to an operator of the warewasher since improving management would involve personnel associated with the warewasher or an operator and reports serve to notify such personnel or operator of the data (see para. 49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have also understood that an average loading level of a particular type of ware, such as reusable plasticware, would necessarily be above or below a loading level that would necessarily be a value that is predetermined or determinable. As such, the notification would be output at any average loading level, since any level value is necessarily above or below a determinable level value.
As to claim 11, Berner teaches a control device 36, but does not teach that it has the claimed configuration. However, Smith teaches a control device configured to determine a development over time of loading of a particular type of ware and created statistics about the loading level (para. 50). Smith further teaches that the data allows for creation of reports to improve management of a ware washing facility (para. 50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure the control device of Berner as claimed so that a development over time and statistics can improve management of a ware washing facility, as suggested by Smith.
As to claim 12, Smith teaches that data regarding the types of wares washed depending on a determined development over time or statistics created may be used to create reports to improve management of a ware washing facility (para. 50) that may include recommendations for optimal operation with regard to cleaning efficiency (para. 73). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that creating reports to improve management would constitute a notification to an operator of the warewasher since improving management would involve an operator and reports serve to notify such personnel or operator of the data (see para. 49).
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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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 at 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711