DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11, 14-16, and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirr et al. (US2014/0216503A1) in view of Choi (EP4026475A1), Noren et al. (US3246938), Bewick et al. (US2022/0151456A1), Ishino et al. (JPH09131294A; machine translation), Woodhead et al. (WO2019/081910A1) and further in view Souter (US2022/0039629A1).
It appears applicant has amended claims 1 and 16 to include the limitations of claim 13.
Dirr et al. teach a method of washing dishware using a dishwashing program (paragraph 6) comprising dosing at least about 100 mg of an active enzyme into the washing chamber. Specifically, Dirr et al. teach in paragraph 4, at least about 0.2 to about 10 mg of active enzyme per gram of composition. Paragraph 10 teaches the weight of the composition is from 10 to about 25 grams, and therefore, the upper limit is 250mg of active enzyme per 25 grams of the composition which reads on applicant’s claim of at least about 100mg of active enzyme.
Dirr et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of automatically locking the door and keeping it locked for the whole duration of the dishwashing program. Choi teach a dishwashing machine and allowing the automatic opening and electrically controlled locking of the door, to ensure the door is kept in the closed position during the washing cycle, wherein the washing cycle comprises a washing process and a drying process (paragraphs 81, 118, 127, 146) in order to reduce the risk of contamination on the dishware.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Dirr et al. to include automatically locking the door during the washing and drying process, as taught by Choi, for purposes ensuring the door is kept in a closed position during the washing and drying cycle.
Dirr et al. in view of Choi, teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of locking the door during the rinsing cycle. Noren et al. teach a mechanism for holding the dishwasher door closed during the washing and rinsing cycles (col. 1, lines 15-25, col. 3, lines 50-55, col. 5, lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Dirr et al. to include automatically locking the dishwasher door, as taught by Noren et al. in order to perform the entire washing and rinsing cycles without any aid being necessary from an operator. Furthermore, it is well known and conventional in the art, as further evidenced by Walker (US2657697) to lock the dishwasher door during the wash, rinse and dry cycles (col. 1, lines 5-15, and col. 19, lines 5-10).
Dirr et al. in view of Choi and Noren et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the time of and temperature of the dishwashing program, as recited in claims 1 and 24. Bewick et al. teach a method of cleaning ware in a domestic dishwasher using a program having a main wash and a rinse cycle (Abstract). Paragraph 24 teaches the duration of at least 15 minutes, preferably from 20-90 min and at temperatures of about 45C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Dirr et al. to include the cleaning times and temperature, as taught by Bewick et al., for purposes of performing the same function of providing a main wash for effectively washing tableware. In reference to low temperatures, paragraph 30 of Dirr et al. teach preferred amylases for use include low temperature amylases at temperatures of less than 45C (paragraphs 34-35).
Re claims 1, 16 and 20, Dirr et al. in view of Choi, Noren et al. and Bewick et al., teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the power capacity of less than about 1KW, preferably 0.1KW. Ishino et al. teach to improve the performance of washing and hot water rinsing, the heater is adjusted to a power capacity of 1KW. Applicant’s limitation of “less than about 1KW” permits some tolerance. At least about 10% was held to be anticipated by a teaching of a content not to exceed about 8%, see In re Ayers, 154 F 2d 182,69 USPQ 109 (CCPA 1946). A pressure limitation of 2-15 pounds per square inch was held to be readable on a reference which taught a pressure of the order of about 15 pounds per square inch, see In re Erickson, 343 F 2d 778, 145 USPQ 207 (CCPA 1965). In view of the teachings of Ishino et al. and in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decrease the power consumption of the dishwashing program for the economic advantages of saving energy/cost.
Re claims 1 and 16, Dirr et al. in view of Choi, Noren et al., Bewick et al. and Ishino et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the cleaning composition, prior to being metered into the washing chamber, remaining in a storage reservoir that is located outside of the dishwasher for at least two separate dishwashing programs.
Applicant is directed to applicant’s own specification (page 4, lines 19-21), which teaches the limitations are taught by the prior art of Woodhead et al. ( WO2019/81910A1). Woodhead et al. teach the cleaning composition (detergent, rinse aid) remains in a storage reservoir 24, 25, which is located outside of the dishwasher 2. Page 21 teaches the dosing unit 18 delivers an appropriate quantity of detergent proportional to the volume of water measured via a detergent inlet prior to each wash cycle, and further teaches delivering the detergent dose for the next wash cycle, which reads on applicant’s limitation of storing the cleaning composition in the storage reservoir for at least two separate dishwashing programs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Dirr et al. to include a storage reservoir outside of the dishwasher, as taught by Woodhead et al., for delivering the detergent dosage for each wash cycle.
Dirr et al. in view of Choi, Noren et al., Bewick et al., Ishino et al. and Woodhead et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of pH, as measured in about 1 percent weight/volume aqueous solution in distilled at about 20C. Souter teaches an automatic dishwashing method comprising delivering a dose of a cleaning composition between a main wash and a rinse, wherein the composition comprises enzymes and has a pH as measured in 1 percent weight/volume aqueous solution in distilled water at 20C of from about 9-12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Dirr et al. to include 1 percent weight/volume aqueous solution in distilled water at 20C, as taught by Souter, for purposes of measuring the pH of the cleaning composition.
Re claim 2, the limitations are met as Dirr et al. teach 250mg of enzyme. Re claims 8-10, refer to paragraphs 4, 6 and 17 of Dirr et al. Re claim 11, refer to paragraph 10 of Dirr et al. Re claims 14-15, refer to paragraphs 4 and 126 of Dirr et al.
Re claim 16, Dirr et al. teach a composition comprising at least 20 percent of MGDA (paragraphs 128-129), at least 24 percent carbonate (paragraph 172), 0.1 to 20 percent of a sulfonated polymer (paragraph 118), non-ionic surfactants (paragraph 111), amylase and protease (paragraphs 24 and 75). Dirr et al. in view Choi and Noren et al. fail to teach HEDP. Bewick et al. teach 0-20 percent HEDP (paragraph 110) as crystal growth inhibitor (paragraph 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the composition of Dirr et al. to include HEDP, as taught by Bewick, for purposes of inhibiting crystal growth on glassware. Furthermore, it appears the ingredients recited in claim 16 are commonly known in dishwashing compositions.
Re claim 19, refer to paragraph 118 of Dirr et al. Re claim 21, refer to paragraph 29 of Bewick et al. Re claim 22, refer to paragraph 144 of Dirr for example. Re claim 23, refer to paragraph 10 of Dirr et al.
Claims 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirr et al. (US2014/0216503A1) in view of Choi (EP4026475A1), Noren et al. (US3246938), Bewick et al. (US2022/0151456A1), Ishino et al. (JPH09131294A; machine translation), Woodhead et al. (WO2019/081910A1), Souter (US2022/0039629A1) and further in view of Holderbaum et al. (US2008/0248989A1).
Dirr et al. in view of Choi, Noren et al., Bewick et al., Ishino et al., Woodhead et al., and Souter teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the main wash using about 5L or less of water. Holderbaum et al. teach a cleaning agent for use in an automatic dishwasher comprising enzymes (paragraph 36), wherein the main washing phase uses water in a quantity of 5L. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Dirr et al. to include water in a quantity of 5L, as taught by Holderbaum et al. for purposes of providing water to the main washing phase.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirr et al. (US2014/0216503A1) in view of Choi (EP4026475A1), Noren et al. (US3246938), Bewick et al. (US2022/0151456A1), Ishino et al. (JPH09131294A; machine translation), Woodhead et al. (WO2019/081910A1), Souter (US2022/0039629A1) and further in view of JP2004506748A (Machine Translation).
Dirr et al. in view of Choi, Noren et al., Bewick et al, Ishino et al., Woodhead et al., and Souter teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the limitations directed to the perfume and the claimed properties. JP 2004506748A teaches a detergent composition for use in an automatic dishwasher. The composition has excellent removal performance. Paragraph 34 teaches it is well known to add perfume substances to suppress or mask malodor and further teaches in paragraph 37 that the perfume composition is based on components having a boiling point of less than 240C and a Clog P value of at least 3. Paragraph 36 teaches the ingredients are based on an octanol/water coefficient determined by Hansch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Dirr et al. to include the detergent composition comprising perfume, as taught by JP2004506748A, for purposes of suppressing or masking malodor.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirr et al. (US2014/0216503A1) in view of Choi (EP4026475A1), Noren et al. (US3246938), Bewick et al. (US2022/0151456A1), Ishino et al. (JPH09131294A; machine translation), Woodhead et al. (WO2019/081910A1),Souter (US2022/0039629A1) and further in view Lant et al. (US2020/0299620A1).
Dirr et al. in view of Choi, Noren et al., Bewick et al., Ishino et al., Woodhead et al. and Souter teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the concentration of amylase. Lant et al. teach cleaning compositions for use in treating surfaces, including for use as a dishwashing composition (paragraph 2). Paragraph 32 teaches the cleaning composition comprising one or more enzymes, selected from amylase and protease (paragraph 33), wherein the amount added is within the range of 0.001-100mg (paragraph 162). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Dirr et al. to include the claimed concentrations of enzymes, as taught by Lant et al., for purposes of performing the same function of cleaning dishware to achieve the desired level of cleanliness.
Response to Arguments
8. The rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Dirr et al. in view of the secondary references are maintained. Applicant argues that the secondary reference of Damian teaches opening the door during the drying process and therefore teaches away from the claimed invention. In view of the newly amended claims, the prior art of Damian has been withdrawn. However, the prior art of Choi and Noren et al., as cited above, are directed to automatically locking the dishwasher door during the washing, rinsing and drying cycles. The concept of keeping the door closed during the dishwashing program and/or automatically locking the door during a dishwashing program is not patentable subject matter in view of the prior art presented.
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
bsc
Prosecution Insights