DETAILED ACTION
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “reusable wash device” in claims 3-5; and “reusable wash apparatus” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the recording of step (a)(iv)” should be “the recording of step (a)(iii)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the preamble, “A method used for validating” should be “A method for validating”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “provenance a washed textile” should be “provenance of a washed textile”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises one the one or more” should be “comprises the one or more”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: “learning” should be “learning”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites establishing a surrogate reference standard by acquiring data, determining a wash process was effective, and recording the data; and validating a subsequent instance of the wash process by acquiring data, recording the data, and comparing the data. Such process covers performance in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the process does not recite particulars of a wash process, does not apply the establishing and validation to the performance of a wash process, nor otherwise applies what may be performed in the mind in a meaningful way to a practical application of washing textiles. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the claim is required to be performed outside of the human mind. Dependent claims 2-5 further recite processes that cover performance in the human mind and do not recite a practical application or additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 6 recites validating a wash process by acquiring data, recording the data, and comparing the data. Such process covers performance in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the process does not recite particulars of a wash process, does not apply the validation to the performance of a wash process, nor otherwise applies what may be performed in the mind in a meaningful way to a practical application of washing textiles. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the claim is required to be performed outside of the human mind. Dependent claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, and 29-33 further recite processes that cover performance in the human mind and do not recite a practical application or additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. While claim 18 requires a movement sensor, it is not an inventive concept to use a generic sensor to record motions when the further acquisition of data may be performed in the mind. While claim 25 requires an RFID chip or thread, it is not an inventive concept to use a generic identifier to aid in acquiring data. While claims 29-33 require machine learning analysis, it does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea and its generic recitation does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, and 29-33 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 limitation “reusable wash device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim 3 states that the reusable wash device performs the function of acquiring data and claim 5 states that the device comprises a textile and performs the function of quantifying a reduction in the stain. In the specification paras. 31, 49, and 70 set forth structural characteristics of the device. However, paras. 70 and 78 state that the device comprises a recording device to take photographs, but fig. 2 depicts a recording device (camera) that is separate from and not a part of the reusable wash device and para. 81 suggests that photos may be taken even when the device is removed. Claim 5 and para. 12 state that the device itself quantifies a reduction in the stain, but para. 28 states that AI/machine learning model-based analysis and/or autoencoders and/or neural networks for quantifying a decrease in staining may be used, but there is nothing that suggests that the device may have such capability as it would have been understood that such methods require computing resources beyond what the device is suggested to have. Thus, the scope of the disclosed reusable wash device cannot be ascertained since it is unclear whether the device includes a photographic recording means and whether the device itself performs quantification of a reduction of the stain. Since the disclosure fails to adequately and clearly disclose the corresponding structure of the device and does not clearly link the corresponding structure to the claimed functions, the corresponding structure nor its equivalents can be ascertained. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “reusable wash apparatus” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure recites a reusable wash apparatus (para. 14), but does not recite any corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “a function of the acquired data” in (a)(iii). It is not clear what is meant by recording a function of data.
Claim 1 recites “comparison with data acquired in the same way” in (a)(iii). It is not clear what is meant by acquiring data in the “same way,” in particular since the claim does not recite any process (“way”) of acquiring data.
Claim 1 recites “acquiring data of the instance of the wash process in the same way” in (b)(i). It is not clear what is meant by acquiring data in the “same way,” in particular since the claim does not recite any process (“way”) of acquiring data.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the result of the function applied to the acquired data of the subsequent instance" in (b)(iii). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the function applied to the acquired data of the subsequent instance " in (b)(iii). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not recite application of a function to the data.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the result of the function applied to the acquired data of the candidate instance" in (b)(iii). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the function applied to the acquired data of the candidate instance " in (b)(iii). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not recite application of a function to the data.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the function applied to the acquired data of the candidate instance " in (b)(iii). Part (a)(iii) recites “a function of the acquired data,” but it is not required since recording the data alone is claimed as an alternate to a function of the data. The scope of the claim is thus unclear since the comparison requires a function to be applied to the data but the claim does not require applying a function.
Claim 1 recites “whereby the subsequent instance is deemed effective upon a successful comparison” in (b)(iii). However, this limitation is unclear because if a comparison is performed it necessarily is successful regardless of an outcome, result, or determination of the comparison.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the washing equipment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the dosing system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the chemical containers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the drying equipment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the sterilization equipment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the operating protocols". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “acquiring data of the current instance being performed in the same way” in (c). It is not clear what is meant by acquiring data in the “same way,” in particular since the claim does not recite any process (“way”) of acquiring data.
Claim 18 recites recording “motions” of the washing process. It is unclear how a washing process itself can have a motion.
Claim 19 recites matching “motions” of the washing process. It is unclear how a washing process itself can have a motion.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the time series data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the appliances". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the standards". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 30 it is unclear what is meant by a match crossing a threshold, and the specification does not provide guidance on the meaning of the term “crosses.”
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the signals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the . . . time domain analysis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the . . . frequency domain analysis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites “refining” the method of claim 30. It is unclear what is meant by “refining,” what subject matter of claim 30 is refined, and how “refining” the method is directed to further limiting the method of validating a wash process using the steps as recited in the claims. A step of “refining” the claimed invention is not directed to performing validation of a wash process and is essentially directed to requiring the creation of a separate method invention.
Claim 32 states that said comparing step utilizes machine learning, autoencoders, and/or neural networks for quantifying a decrease in staining. However, the comparing step does not utilize a quantified decrease in staining in the comparison and it is unclear how the quantified decrease would be used in the comparison.
Claim 33 recites “refining” the method of claim 32. It is unclear what is meant by “refining,” what subject matter of claim 32 is refined, and how “refining” the method is directed to further limiting the method of validating a wash process using the steps as recited in the claims. A step of “refining” the claimed invention is not directed to performing validation of a wash process and is essentially directed to requiring the creation of a separate method invention.
Remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210161355 by Rahn et al.
As to claim 1, Rahn teaches a method for validating a wash process of textiles (para. 48, wash process may be textile washing), the method comprising (a) establishing a surrogate reference standard using a candidate instance by acquiring data of the instance including a standard cleaning marker (para. 30), determining through laboratory testing that the candidate process was effective (paras. 30-33), and recording in computer memory the acquired data (para. 76) for later comparison with data in a subsequent instance (paras. 33-38) whereby the effectiveness in a subsequent instance can be validated without using a standard marker (para. 33); and (b) validating a subsequent instance of the wash process by acquiring data of the instance (para. 76), recording the data in computer memory (para. 76), and comparing the instance with the surrogate reference standard by comparing the data (para. 106).
While Rahn does not explicitly teach using a standard decontamination marker when establishing a surrogate reference standard, Rach does teach that its cleaning process verification procedure may be used to ensure proper disinfection and/or sterilization of articles (para. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use a standard decontamination marker since it would be necessary to validate disinfection or sterilization of articles, as opposed to the standard cleaning marker explicitly taught by Rahn used for a cleaning process.
Rahn does not explicitly teach acquiring data in associate with unique identifiers of textiles in a subsequent instance of a wash process. However, Rach teaches using unique identifiers for articles in a dishwashing embodiment to enable tracking of the articles and adjustment of the wash process (paras. 62-67). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to record acquired data of the instance in association with unique identifiers of textiles in a textile washing embodiment in order to realize the benefits of tracking articles and adjusting a wash process that Rahn teaches are beneficial in other embodiments.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Rahn teaches that validating of the subsequent instance of the wash process may be performed without including a standard marker (paras. 34-36, verification coupon may be used in a real-world process but is not required).
As to claim 3, Rahn teaches that acquiring data is performed at least in part using a reusable wash device included with the textiles in both the candidate and subsequent instances (para. 14).
As to claim 4, Rahn teaches that acquired data may include identification of washing equipment, dosing system, chemical containers, drying equipment, sterilization equipment, operating protocols, and a reusable wash device (paras. 51, 75)
As to claim 5, Rahn teaches that the reusable wash device may comprise a textile representative of the textiles of an instance of the wash process that is stained at the beginning of the process and is configured to quantify a reduction in the stain (paras. 30, 45-48).
As to claim 6, Rahn teaches a method for validating a wash process of textiles (para. 48, wash process may be textile washing), the method comprising acquiring data of the current instance (para. 76), recording the data in computer memory (para. 76), and comparing the instance with a previous instance by comparing the result of a function applied to the data (para. 106).
Rahn does not explicitly teach acquiring data in associate with unique identifiers of textiles in a current instance of a wash process. However, Rach teaches using unique identifiers for articles in a dishwashing embodiment to enable tracking of the articles and adjustment of the wash process (paras. 62-67). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to record acquired data of the instance in association with unique identifiers of textiles in a textile washing embodiment in order to realize the benefits of tracking articles and adjusting a wash process that Rahn teaches are beneficial in other embodiments.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 7, Rahn teaches that acquiring data is performed at least in part using a reusable wash apparatus included with the textiles in the wash process (para. 14).
As to claim 9, Rahn teaches creating a digital certificate regarding the validation of the current instance and storing the certificate in a computer readable medium (paras. 11-12).
As to claim 10, Rahn teaches that the digital certificate comprises the acquired data and a result of the comparison (paras. 11-12) and storing the certificate for online access (para. 128). While Rahn does not teaches unique identifiers of textiles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to include identifiers, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to include the identifiers in the data and certificate to verify provenance of a washed textile since Rahn teaches identifiers to verify provenances of washed dishware (para. 62) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that identifiers for textiles would have been benefit of also allowing for tracking and verifying provenances, as suggested by Rahn.
As to claim 12, Rahn teaches that acquiring data may comprise quantifying a reduction in the stain (paras. 30, 45-48).
As to claim 22, Rahn teaches acquiring data in a first manner for determining the occurrence of an event and acquiring data in a second, different manner for also determining the occurrence of the same event whereby the occurrence of the event is crosschecked (paras. 101, 106; a satisfactory cleaning may be determined by a verification coupon and/or comparing process parameter data).
As to claim 23, Rahn teaches that acquiring data comprises determining a facility at which the wash process was performed (para. 116).
As to claim 25, Rahn teaches that an RFID chip may be used as a unique identifier of articles (para. 62).
Claims 18, 19, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210161355 by Rahn et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210040667 by Kessler et al.
As to claim 18, Rahn does not teach recording motions during a washing process using a sensor apparatus that accompanies the textiles, the sensor comprising a movement sensor. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to record motions using such sensor. Kessler teaches recording motions of a sensor apparatus having a movement sensor that accompanies textiles during a wash process (para. 80). Kessler teaches that recording motions allows for determination of a load size and recommendations for dispensing a treatment agent (para. 97). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by Kahn to record motions during a wash process in order to realize the benefits taught by Kessler. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 19, Kessler teaches pattern matching motions based on frequency, amplitude, and path of movement (paras. 80, 93, 94).
As to claim 29, Kahn does not teach utilizing AI/machine learning model-based analysis and/or autoencoders and/or neural networks when performing the comparison. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use such resources. Kessler teaches that AI/machine learning, including autoencoders and neural networks, increase the reliability of determination of evaluation data on the basis of which removal of soiling may take place (paras. 117-119). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize AI/machine learning model-based analysis and/or autoencoders and/or neural networks when performing the comparison in order to increase the reliability of data and the comparison, as suggested by Kessler. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 30, Kahn teaches time series data compared to standards to determine if a textile can be processed as passed (paras. 51, 66, 117), which demonstrates that AI/machine learning and/or autoencoders may be bypassed.
As to claim 31, Kahn teaches adjusting a method of performing a washing process (paras. 7, 106); one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to utilize linear and machine learning analysis to increase the reliability of data, as suggested by Kessler (paras. 117-119).
As to claim 32, Kahn does not teach utilizing AI/machine learning model-based analysis and/or autoencoders and/or neural networks when quantifying a decrease in staining. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use such resources. Kessler teaches that AI/machine learning, including autoencoders and neural networks, increase the reliability of determination of evaluation data on the basis of which removal of soiling may take place (paras. 117-119). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize AI/machine learning model-based analysis and/or autoencoders and/or neural networks when quantifying a decrease in staining in order to increase the reliability of data and the comparison, as suggested by Kessler.
As to claim 33, Kahn teaches adjusting a method of performing a washing process (paras. 7, 106); one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to utilize linear and machine learning analysis to increase the reliability of data, as suggested by Kessler (paras. 117-119).
Conclusion
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