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 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.
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: transport apparatus (claim 1), closure element (claim 1), insertion control system (claim 1), and scanner device (claim 2).
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. Conveyor device is discussed as being a conveyor belt at para 86 of the specification, closure element is discussed as being a door at para 21 of the specification, and the insertion control system is described as being a scanner at para 23 of the specification, and the scanner device is exemplified at para 23 of the specification.
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 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 1-19 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.
At claim 1, use of the term “optionally” does not make clear whether any of the features after this term are required by the claimed invention.
At claims 6 and 10-13 the claimed use of a “poka-yoke principle” is vague and unclear as to the metes and bounds of the application of this principle in the claims. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sperry (USPPN 20210259509).
As to claim 1, Sperry discloses wherein the dishwasher (Fig. 14: washing system for dishware) is associated with an input region (Fig. 14: input region with door 106), and wherein the dishwasher comprises a transport apparatus (para 53: conveyor belt) for transporting the washware item from the input region to a treatment region (para 77: pre-rinse, wash, and dry chambers) of the dishwasher and from there to an output or removal region (Fig. 14: opposing side to input region at 106) of the dishwasher, wherein the treatment region of the dishwasher comprises a washing and rinsing system for washing and rinsing the washware item and optionally, a drying system for drying the rinsed washware item, said drying system being located downstream when viewed in the transport direction of the washware, wherein the input region of the dishwasher comprises at least one receptacle opening (Fig. 14, there is a space prior to door 106, in which an article is placed on before entering the apparatus; at para 71 Sperry contemplates a variety of ways in which a user inserts the article being washed and then the apparatus unlocks and opens a door to allow the article being cleaned to enter the cleaning machine), which is configured such that a washware item to be cleaned is manually insertable into a loading region of the dishwasher, wherein the receptacle opening is associated with a closure element (Sperry discloses using a lock; para 52: in some embodiments, the door 106 can be unlocked, or otherwise activated upon the sensing a container in proximity to the receptacle by a reader 128), which is movable relative to a machine frame of the dishwasher and between an open position in which it is possible to insert the washware item to be cleaned into the loading region and a closed position in which the receptacle opening is closed and an insertion of the washware item to be cleaned into the loading region is prevented (para 71: discussion of door being locked, then unlocked once item to be cleaned is sensed, then it closes until another item is sensed), wherein the input region of the dishwasher comprises an insertion control system (para 58: The identification device 126 is incorporated in the reusable container 108 and/or lid 110, such as an RFID tag, on or embedded within the reusable container 108 and/or lid 110, and is read by devices of the system, such as a reader 128 disposed at the washing system 112 or at a receptacle 104 thereof, such as shown in FIG. 2, to track when the reusable container 108 and/or lid 110 is used and subsequently returned. Various different types of identification systems and technologies, including but not limited to optical protocols such as bar code, quick response (QR) code, or transmission protocols such as a near-field communication (NFC) chip, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, or the like, are also feasible and can be implemented as the identification device 126 and corresponding reader 128, as would be appreciated by those of skill in the art), which cooperates with the closure element and is configured such that the closure element is only moved into its open position when it is recognized and/or verified with the aid of the insertion control system that the operator of the dishwasher is authorized to clean the washware item to be cleaned.
See also Sperry at Figs. 7-8 for disclosure of computing device and related hardware.
As to claim 2, Sperry discloses wherein the insertion control system comprises a scanner device, which is provided in or near the input region of the dishwasher in such a way that, with the aid of the scanner device, a type of a washware item to be inserted into the loading region of the dishwasher can be detected, wherein the insertion control system is configured so as to verify, based on the type of washware item detected with the scanner device, that the operator of the dishwasher is authorized to clean the washware item, wherein the insertion control system is further configured such that, upon verification that the operator of the dishwasher is authorized to clean the washware item, it causes the closure element of the dishwasher to be transferred into its open position, such that the washware item can be inserted into the loading region (Fig. 7, steps 152-154 in particular, in combination with Sperry’s use of a locking mechanism used to close and open the door).
As to claim 3, Sperry discloses wherein the insertion control system comprises a reader device, which is configured so as to detect, with the aid of electromagnetic waves (para 69: infrared sensor), a type of a washware item to be inserted into the loading region of the dishwasher, wherein the insertion control system is configured so as to verify, based on the type of washware item detected with the reader device (Sperry at paras 74-75 discuss optimizing the wash based on how dirty the container is (reads on type of washware, e.g. minimally dirty, moderately dirty, very dirty), multiple checkpoints may occur through the cleaning process, detection of foreign contents, and even damage to the cup may be ascertained; at para 70 there is disclosure that the same methodology can be used for more than cups, but also plates, bowls, to-go food containers, and the like), that the operator of the dishwasher is authorized to clean the washware item, wherein the insertion control system is further configured such that, upon verification that the operator of the dishwasher is authorized to clean the washware item, it causes the closure element of the dishwasher to be transferred into its open position, such that the washware item can be inserted into the loading region (Impliedly, without proper verification of the item, the door will not open, and will not accept the device. For example, if a cup sleeve is found on a cup, then it would be best to stop intake of the cup and remove the sleeve before insertion of the cup, as the sleeve would prevent the cup exterior from being cleaned appropriately.).
As to claim 4, Sperry discloses wherein the insertion control system comprises a further sensory system, in particular in the form of a scanner device or in the form of a reader device, which is configured so as to detect a type of a washware item inserted into the loading region of the dishwasher, wherein the insertion control system is configured so as to verify, based on the type of washware item detected with the further sensory system, that the operator of the dishwasher is authorized to clean the washware item, wherein the insertion control system is further configured such that, upon verification that the operator of the dishwasher is authorized to clean the washware item, it causes the closure element of the dishwasher to be transferred into its closed position (See analysis above, including claim 3, with regard to Sperry discussion identifying differing dishware, and Sperry at claim 10 regarding differing types of identification devices, including at multiple checkpoints. As noted above, once the system of Sperry identifies the article to be cleaned, the door will unlock and open, the item is taken into the apparatus, and then the door is closed and locked.).
As to claim 6, Sperry discloses at Fig. 13, for example, use of a diaphragm carousel for specifically loading the cups in a specific way based on the shape of the holder for the cups.
As to claim 7, Sperry discloses wherein the insertion control system is further configured so as to check the washware item to be received or having been received in the loading region for marking, damage, level of soiling, and/or sealing quality, wherein the insertion control system is further configured so as to issue an alert and/or to prohibit or prevent transport of the washware item into the treatment region when it is detected by the insertion control system that the washware item to be received or having been received in the loading region has a marking, damage, or a level of soiling exceeding a threshold value and/or does not have at least a sufficient sealing quality (para 75: machine vision subsystem 244 may be employed at multiple checkpoints including at the entry, it may check for such things as foreign contents, level or degree of soiling, unwanted items such as cup sleeves, and chips, cracks, or other damage to the reusable container. The machine vision subsystem 244 can be coupled with or in communication with the communication network 162, or otherwise capable of providing data and information to the reusable food or beverage container washing system 100 (this reads on an alert)).
As to claim 8, Sperry discloses wherein the loading region of the dishwasher comprises at least one insertion region dedicated to a washware item to be cleaned, which is configured so as to receive a washware item to be cleaned in a predetermined orientation of the washware item, in particular in an upside-down position in relation to the intended use of the washware item (Figs. 10A-10B the container is inserted upside down), wherein the insertion control system is configured so as to detect whether a washware item is received in the insertion region in the predetermined orientation, wherein the insertion control system is further configured so as to issue an alert and/or to prohibit or prevent a transport of the washware item to the treatment region of the dishwasher when it is detected by the insertion control system that a washware item is not received in the predetermined orientation in the insertion region (as noted above, in Sperry there is use of a machine vision subsystem to examine and collect data about the article being cleaned and additionally a communication network 162 to provide such information to a user).
As to claim 17, Sperry discloses use of a tray 208, and also at Figure 14 there is shown the cups loaded in an upside down position, in which the loading area allows for drippage to the base and is prevented from spilling out of the machine.
As to claim 18, Sperry discloses use of a vacuum (para 76) which may remove water and vapors.
As to claim 19, Sperry contemplates both washing individual container wash cycles, as well as optimization for washing a batch of containers. This would allow for users to drop off cups after use, at varying times, and when the batch is large enough, a wash cycle is performed, thus saving resources, energy, water, etc.
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.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sperry as applied to claims above.
As to claims 10-13, in Sperry it is not clear all the way in Sperry in which the user is advised to properly orient the cup and/or lid for washing. However, based on Figure 4 of Sperry, the orientation of the lid is apparent in a specific direction. Whereas orientation of the cup in an upside down orientation is illustrated in Figs. 10A-10B. Given the limited configurations in which the cup can be loaded based on the opening at the loading zone in Sperry, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to either insert the cup upright or upside down. In other embodiments of Sperry, various diaphragms are utilized as holders for the cup, such as at Fig. 15. Using a cup holder would be an obvious selection in orientating the cup in a specific direction, to ensure the interior of the cup is washed effectively by the sprayers.
As to claims 14-16, Sperry discloses use of a diaphragm to hold the cup in a specific orientation at Figure 15, which is a cage-like structure include various linear rod and pin shapes, which aids user in the insertion orientation.
Claim Objections - Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As to claim 5, Sperry discloses wherein the insertion control system comprises a contactless sensory system (Fig. 9 shows a contactless sensory system), which is configured so as to detect whether a plurality of washware items in the form of a washware stack, is received in the loading region. However, Sperry is silent regarding the sensory system is configured so as to carry out a height control when, or as soon as, the loading region is occupied with at least one washware item as claimed in combination with the other features of the claims.
As to claim 9, Sperry fails to disclose whether a plurality of washware items, in particular a plurality of washware items in the form of a washware stack, are received in the insertion region, wherein the insertion control system is further configured so as to issue an alert and/or to prohibit or prevent a transport of the washware items to the treatment region of the dishwasher when it is detected by the insertion control system that a plurality of washware items is received in the insertion region.
As to claim 15, Sperry fails to disclose wherein the dishwasher further comprises a mechanism configured so as to initiate an extension of the pin-shaped or rod-shaped element upon a movement of the closure element into its open position and to initiate a retraction of the pin-shaped or rod-shaped element upon a movement of the closure element into its closed position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5pm EST.
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.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711