DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
On the IDS dated 8/5/2024, the reference U.S. 2011/1092426 by Kreutzfeldt has been marked as not considered by the examiner because no such document exists. It appears that applicant merely made a typographical mistake and intended to list U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt. This U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt has been considered by the examiner is listed on an attached Notice of References Cited.
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 14-36 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 14 recites “a dishwasher, in particular a household dishwasher” in line 1. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “dishwasher”, and the claim also recites “in particulate a household dishwasher” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 14 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sub-program step of pre-cleaning" in line 12 of claim 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant merely made a typographical mistake and intended to write "the sub-program step of cleaning" instead of "the sub-program step of pre-cleaning".
Claim 19 recites that “the predetermined temperature lies in an interval between 30°C-70°C, preferably between 40°C-60°C, further preferably between 50°C-60°C”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “the predetermined temperature lies in an interval between 30°C-70°C”, then claim 19 also recites “preferably between 40°C-60°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, and then claim 19 also recites “further preferably between 50°C-60°C” which is a still narrower statement. Claim 19 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the parameter values of the sub-program steps of pre-washing and cleaning”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Earlier, claim 22 mentions “assigned parameter values” for “one of the sub-program steps of pre-washing and cleaning”. Parameter values for “one of” the pre-washing and cleaning does not provide antecedent basis for "the parameter values of the sub-program steps of pre-washing and cleaning” (italics by examiner for emphasis).
The phrase “a standard for ascertaining an energy label” makes claim 22 indefinite. How is someone supposed to know what qualifies as a “standard” or not? Is this an industry-defined standard? A government-defined standard? An expert-defined standard? The scope of this phrase “a standard for ascertaining an energy label” is indefinite.
The phrase “a standard for a particular region” makes claim 22 indefinite. How is someone supposed to know what qualifies as a “standard” or not? Is this an industry-defined standard? A government-defined standard? An expert-defined standard? The scope of this phrase “a standard for a particular region” is indefinite. Furthermore, the phrase “particular region” is also indefinite. People could disagree and argue over what qualifies as a “particular region”. Does “particular region” refer to a political region such as a country? Or does “particular region” refer to a geographic region such as a peninsula?
Claim 26 recites “a dishwasher, in particular a household dishwasher” in line 1. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 26 recites the broad recitation “dishwasher”, and the claim also recites “in particulate a household dishwasher” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 26 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the sub-program step of pre-cleaning" in line 13 of claim 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant merely made a typographical mistake and intended to write "the sub-program step of cleaning" instead of "the sub-program step of pre-cleaning".
Claim 31 recites that “the predetermined temperature lies in an interval between 30°C-70°C, preferably between 40°C-60°C, further preferably between 50°C-60°C”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 31 recites the broad recitation “the predetermined temperature lies in an interval between 30°C-70°C”, then claim 31 also recites “preferably between 40°C-60°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, and then claim 31 also recites “further preferably between 50°C-60°C” which is a still narrower statement. Claim 31 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the parameter values of the sub-program steps of pre-washing and cleaning”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Earlier, claim 34 mentions “assigned parameter values” for “one of the sub-program steps of pre-washing and cleaning”. Parameter values for “one of” the pre-washing and cleaning does not provide antecedent basis for "the parameter values of the sub-program steps of pre-washing and cleaning” (italics by examiner for emphasis).
The phrase “a standard for ascertaining an energy label” makes claim 34 indefinite. How is someone supposed to know what qualifies as a “standard” or not? Is this an industry-defined standard? A government-defined standard? An expert-defined standard? The scope of this phrase “a standard for ascertaining an energy label” is indefinite.
The phrase “a standard for a particular region” makes claim 34 indefinite. How is someone supposed to know what qualifies as a “standard” or not? Is this an industry-defined standard? A government-defined standard? An expert-defined standard? The scope of this phrase “a standard for a particular region” is indefinite. Furthermore, the phrase “particular region” is also indefinite. People could disagree and argue over what qualifies as a “particular region”. Does “particular region” refer to a political region such as a country? Or does “particular region” refer to a geographic region such as a peninsula?
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.
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.
Claims 14, 19, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt.
With regard to claim 14, Kreutzfeldt teaches a method for operating a dishwasher, wherein the method comprises a user selecting a washing program from among a plurality of selectable washing programs, and wherein the dishwasher then executes the selected washing program (Abstract; Par. 0031 and 0042). The selected washing program of Kreutzfeldt comprises a pre-washing step and a cleaning step (called the “main wash” in Figure 2 of Kreutzfeldt) that follows the pre-washing step (Par. 0031-0035). The pre-washing step of Kreutzfeldt comprises supplying water into a washing compartment of the dishwasher to provide a washing liquor (Par. 0032). The pre-washing step of Kreutzfeldt comprises dispensing an amount of detergent (corresponds to applicant’s cleaning agent) into the washing liquor (Par. 0033). The pre-washing step of Kreutzfeldt comprises circulating the washing liquor and applying the washing liquor to items to be washed arranged in the washing compartment (Par. 0032 and 0033). Kreutzfeldt teaches executing the pre-washing without heating the water supplied into the washing compartment for performing the pre-washing (Par. 0032). In the method of Kreutzfeldt, the cleaning step comprises supplying fresh water into the washing compartment, heating the water to a predetermined temperature, and circulating the heated washing water such that the heated washing water is supplied to the to-be-washed items in the washing compartment (Par. 0034 and 0042).
Kreutzfeldt does not explicitly teach that heating washing liquor in the cleaning step comprises heating washing liquor formed during the pre-washing step. However, between the pre-washing step and the cleaning step, washing liquor of the pre-washing step is removed merely by activating the drain pump for a period of time (Par. 0033). It is reasonably expected that not all washing liquor will be removed from the dishwasher interior by such a drain pump activation – some residue of washing liquor is reasonably expected to remain inside the dishwasher after that drain pump activation. In fact, in the art of dishwashing, it is well-known that a heated drying step is sometimes needed if one wants to remove water residue from a dishwasher’s interior; without an actual drying step, water residue may remain on dishes, for example. Thus, in the method of Kreutzfeldt, it is reasonably expected that water added into the dishwasher for performing the cleaning step will mix with washing liquor residue from the pre-washing step.
As discussed, the pre-washing step of Kreutzfeldt comprises dispensing an amount of detergent (corresponds to applicant’s cleaning agent) into the washing liquor (Par. 0033). Kreutzfeldt does not explicitly teach that the dispensed amount of detergent is a predetermined amount. However, in the art of dishwashing, it is well known to have a dispensed amount of detergent be a predetermined amount, as having the amount be predetermined allows an optimum amount of detergent to be dispensed – an amount sufficient to achieve the desired cleaning without being wasteful of detergent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt by having the amount of detergent dispensed in the pre-washing step be a predetermined amount – the motivation being that a predetermined amount can be an optimum amount.
As discussed, Kreutzfeldt teaches that the circulated washing liquor used to performing the cleaning step is heated (Par. 0034). However, Kreutzfeldt does not explicitly teach that this heating of the washing liquor is performed by a heater. However, in the art of dishwashing, it is well known that a dishwasher’s interior can comprise a heater that is able to successfully perform heating of washing liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt such that the heating of the washing liquor of the cleaning step is performed by a heater in the dishwasher, as it is well known in the dishwashing art that such a heater can successfully be used to perform heating of washing liquid.
With regard to claim 19, Kreutzfeldt teaches having the cleaning temperature be, for example, 40°C, 50°C, 65°C, or 70°C (Par. 0042).
With regard to claim 22, in the method of Kreutzfeldt, the dishwasher is an automated dishwasher, and thus the pre-washing and cleaning steps can be defined in terms of parameter such as temperature and duration (Par. 0042). Kreutzfeldt does not teach that these parameters correspond to “a standard for ascertaining an energy label determined according to a standard for a particular region”. However, it is well known for a region (such as a country) to have energy standards for consumer equipment, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt by labeling the collection of parameters for the washing program according to an energy-use standard of a region. Such labeling would advantageously allow an energy-conscious consumer to know the energy usage of a washing program.
With regard to claim 25, the modified method of Kreutzfeldt is discussed in the rejection of claim 14. Kreutzfeldt does not explicitly recite that the method is in the form of commands on a non-transitory computer readable medium. However, in the art of dishwashing, it is well known to have operations of a dishwasher programmed to be executed by a computer controller of the dishwasher so that a dishwasher operating method can advantageously be executed in an automated manner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kreutzfeldt by having the method programed into a computer controller of the dishwasher such that the method can be executed in an automated manner. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of dishwashing, it is well known to have operations of a dishwasher programmed to be executed by a computer controller of the dishwasher so that a dishwasher operating method can advantageously be executed in an automated manner.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of EP0553803 by Premoli.
With regard to claim 15, Kreutzfeldt does not teach performing a pre-treating step before the pre-washing step, wherein the pre-treating step comprises heating and circulating washing liquor.
Kreutzfeldt teaches that the plurality of selectable washing programs comprises an “intensive” washing program option (Par. 0012, 0039, and 0042). Kreutzfeldt also teaches that a program’s pre-washing can involve a sequence of pre-washing with cold and hot water (Par. 0032).
Premoli teaches that, when a dishwasher has a plurality of selectable washing programs, an “intensive” program for cleaning very soiled dishes can advantageously begin with a hot pre-wash step in which heated water is sprayed in the dishwasher (Col. 1, lines 11-56). Premoli teaches that a hot pre-wash step can advantageously contribute to dish cleaning via mechanical and thermic action (Col 1, lines 6-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt such that a user can select an “intensive” washing program for cleaning very soiled dishes, wherein the step of pre-washing with non-heated, detergent-containing water is preceded by a initial pre-washing step of supplying water into the dishwasher, heating said water, and circulating the heated water such that the heated water is sprayed onto the dishes. This “initial pre-washing step” is what corresponds to applicant’s pre-treating step. Kreutzfeldt teaches that a program’s pre-washing can involve pre-washing steps of pre-washing with cold water and pre-washing with hot water, and motivation for starting an “intensive” program with a hot water initial pre-washing step was provided by Premoli, who teaches that, when a dishwasher has a plurality of selectable washing programs, an “intensive” program for cleaning very soiled dishes can advantageously begin with a hot pre-wash step in which heated water is sprayed in the dishwasher, wherein the hot pre-wash step contributes to dish cleaning via mechanical and thermic action.
With regard to claim 16, in the method of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli, the per-washing with unheated, detergent-comprising water occurs after the hot initial prewashing step.
With regard to claim 17, the method of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli, as developed thus far, does not teach performing at least a partial pumping out of the washing water between the hot initial prewashing step and the unheated, detergent-comprising prewashing step. However, Kreutzfeldt teaches that between washing steps, used washing water can be drain pumped away such that entrained contaminants are also removed from the dishwasher (Par. 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli by performing at least a partial drain pumping of the used water between the hot initial prewashing step and the unheated, detergent-comprising prewashing step. Kreutzfeldt teaches that between washing steps, used washing water can be drain pumped away such that entrained contaminants are also removed from the dishwasher, and motivation for performing the modification would be to remove the contaminants entrained in the hot prewashing water prior to beginning the next prewashing step.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt in view of EP0553803 by Premoli as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of JP2007007282 by Saneda.
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli does not detecting an amount of dirt in the water used to perform the hot initial prewashing step at the end of that hot prewashing step and ascertaining a volume of water to be pumped out of the dishwasher as a function of that detected amount of dirt.
Saneda teaches that, when at least partially discharging prewashing water after a prewashing step, a sensor can detect an amount of dirt in the used prewashing water such that the duration of running the drainage pump is adjusted based on the detected amount of dirt in the used prewashing water, wherein the dump is driven for a shorter amount of time when there is less dirt detected, as water used in the prewashing step can be reused for later washing when that water isn’t very dirty, thus conserving water (pages 20-21 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli by having a sensor arranged to detect an amount of dirt dissolves in the prewashing water at the end of the step of performing the hot initial prewashing, wherein duration of running the drain pump (between the hot prewashing and the later nonheated prewashing) is based on the detected amount of dirt dissolved in the prewashing water, with the drain pump driven for a shorter period of time when there is less dirt detected. Motivation for using the dirt level to adjust how much draining occurs was provided by Saneda, who teaches that, when at least partially discharging prewashing water after a prewashing step, a sensor can detect an amount of dirt in the used prewashing water such that the duration of running the drainage pump is adjusted based on the detected amount of dirt in the used prewashing water, wherein the dump is driven for a shorter amount of time when there is less dirt detected, as water used in the prewashing step can be reused for later washing when that water isn’t very dirty, thus conserving water. Motivation for having the sensing of dirt take place at the end of the hot prewashing step is that the end is the time that would indicate how much dirt has been accumulated by the water during the hot prewashing, thus indicating if that used water is so dirty that its future reuse should be limited.
The combination of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli in view of Saneda controls the drain pump (based on the sensed dirt level) in terms of duration of pump operation, not explicitly in terms of “volume of washing liquor to be pumped” as recited by applicant. However, since a pump’s duration of operation can be translated into a volume of water pumped by that pump, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli in view of Saneda by having the dishwasher’s controller execute the controlled draining (based on the sensed dirt level) in terms of volume of water pumped instead of duration of pump operation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of U.S. 2019/0000298 by Detko.
With regard to claim 20, Kreutzfeldt does not specify whether the dispensed detergent is a solid or non-solid detergent.
Detko teaches that a solid dishwashing detergent can successfully be dispensed by a detergent dispenser of a dishwasher (Par. 0016-0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt such that the detergent is a solid detergent. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Detko, who teaches that a solid dishwashing detergent can successfully be dispensed by a detergent dispenser of a dishwasher.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of CN108774615 by Liang.
With regard to claim 1, Kreutzfeldt doesn’t teach that no further cleaning agent is dispensed after the detergent dispensed in the pre-washing step.
Liang teaches that, when attempting to supply detergent during a pre-washing phase and to supply detergent during a subsequent washing phase, such supply steps can be achieved with a layered detergent, wherein a first layer of detergent is configured to dissolve during the pre-washing phase and a second layer of detergent is configured to dissolve during the later washing phase (Abstract; page 39 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt by having the detergent dispensed during the pre-washing be a layered detergent, wherein the dissolving of a first layer releases detergent into the pre-washing step, and wherein a layer dissolving of a second layer releases detergent into the later cleaning step. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Liang, who teaches that, when attempting to supply detergent during a pre-washing phase and to supply detergent during a subsequent washing phase, such supply steps can be achieved with a layered detergent, wherein a first layer of detergent is configured to dissolve during the pre-washing phase and a second layer of detergent is configured to dissolve during the later washing phase. In this combination of Kreutzfeldt in view of Liang, there is no need to further dispense cleaning agent into the dishwasher’s interior after the layered detergent is dispensed.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of EP0553803 by Premoli.
With regard to claim 23, Kreutzfeldt teaches having the washing program executed in a “silent mode” wherein a pump rotation speed is lower in order to reduce the level of irritating noise for a consumer (Par. 0042). Kreutzfeldt teaches that this “silent mode” washing program is thus quieter than a “standard” program” (Par. 0042). Kreutzfeldt does not specify that such a “standard” program is one wherein detergent is not dispensed for use in a prewashing phase.
Premoli teaches that a “standard” dishwashing program for cleaning dishes that have a normal amount of contamination can successfully be performed with a pre-washing step that doesn’t comprise detergent added for the pre-washing step (Col. 1, lines 6-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt such that at least one of the “standard” washing program options of the dishwasher is one in which the pre-washing step doesn’t use detergent. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Premoli, who teaches that a “standard” dishwashing program for cleaning dishes that have a normal amount of contamination can successfully be performed with a pre-washing step that doesn’t comprise detergent added for the pre-washing step.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of EP0553803 by Premoli.
With regard to claim 24, Kreutzfeldt teaches having a washing program executed in a “quick” mode having a shortened duration (Par. 0042). Kreutzfeldt does not teach that one of the prewashing step and the cleaning step is shortened. However, since the prewashing step and the cleaning step are both component steps of a washing program, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt by making that washing program a “quick” program by having the duration of the prewashing step and/or the cleaning step be shorter than the corresponding steps of an alternate selectable washing program, as shorting the prewashing step and/or the cleaning step would contribute to making the washing program quicker. Motivation for having the washing program be a “quick” program would be to perform the cleaning faster so that the consumer’s dishes are ready for reuse sooner. Kreutzfeldt does not specify that the alternate selectable program is one wherein detergent is not dispensed for use in a prewashing phase.
Premoli teaches that a “standard” dishwashing program for cleaning dishes that have a normal amount of contamination can successfully be performed with a pre-washing step that doesn’t comprise detergent added for the pre-washing step (Col. 1, lines 6-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt such that at least one of the “standard” washing program options of the dishwasher is one in which the pre-washing step doesn’t use detergent. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Premoli, who teaches that a “standard” dishwashing program for cleaning dishes that have a normal amount of contamination can successfully be performed with a pre-washing step that doesn’t comprise detergent added for the pre-washing step.
Claims 26, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt.
With regard to claim 26, Kreutzfeldt teaches a dishwasher, wherein a method for operating said dishwasher comprises a user selecting a washing program from among a plurality of selectable washing programs, and wherein the dishwasher then executes the selected washing program (Abstract; Par. 0031 and 0042). The selected washing program of Kreutzfeldt comprises a pre-washing step and a cleaning step (called the “main wash” in Figure 2 of Kreutzfeldt) that follows the pre-washing step (Par. 0031-0035). The pre-washing step of Kreutzfeldt comprises supplying water into a washing compartment of the dishwasher to provide a washing liquor (Par. 0032). The pre-washing step of Kreutzfeldt comprises dispensing an amount of detergent (corresponds to applicant’s cleaning agent) into the washing liquor (Par. 0033). The pre-washing step of Kreutzfeldt comprises circulating the washing liquor and applying the washing liquor to items to be washed arranged in the washing compartment (Par. 0032 and 0033). Kreutzfeldt teaches executing the pre-washing without heating the water supplied into the washing compartment for performing the pre-washing (Par. 0032). In the teachings of Kreutzfeldt, the cleaning step comprises supplying fresh water into the washing compartment, heating the water to a predetermined temperature, and circulating the heated washing water such that the heated washing water is supplied to the to-be-washed items in the washing compartment (Par. 0034 and 0042).
Kreutzfeldt does not explicitly recite that the dishwasher comprises a control apparatus. However, in the art of dishwashing, it is well known to have operations of a dishwasher programmed to be executed by a computer controller of the dishwasher so that a dishwasher operating method can advantageously be executed in an automated manner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt by having the dishwasher comprise a computer controller programmed to execute the method teachings of Kreutzfeldt. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of dishwashing, it is well known to have operations of a dishwasher programmed to be executed by a computer controller of the dishwasher so that a dishwasher operating method can advantageously be executed in an automated manner.
Kreutzfeldt does not explicitly teach that heating washing liquor in the cleaning step comprises heating washing liquor formed during the pre-washing step. However, between the pre-washing step and the cleaning step, washing liquor of the pre-washing step is removed merely by activating the drain pump for a period of time (Par. 0033). It is reasonably expected that not all washing liquor will be removed from the dishwasher interior by such a drain pump activation – some residue of washing liquor is reasonably expected to remain inside the dishwasher after that drain pump activation. In fact, in the art of dishwashing, it is well-known that a heated drying step is sometimes needed if one wants to remove water residue from a dishwasher’s interior; without an actual drying step, water residue may remain on dishes, for example. Thus, in the teachings of Kreutzfeldt, it is reasonably expected that water added into the dishwasher for performing the cleaning step will mix with washing liquor residue from the pre-washing step.
As discussed, the pre-washing step of Kreutzfeldt comprises dispensing an amount of detergent (corresponds to applicant’s cleaning agent) into the washing liquor (Par. 0033). Kreutzfeldt does not explicitly teach that the dispensed amount of detergent is a predetermined amount. However, in the art of dishwashing, it is well known to have a dispensed amount of detergent be a predetermined amount, as having the amount be predetermined allows an optimum amount of detergent to be dispensed – an amount sufficient to achieve the desired cleaning without being wasteful of detergent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt by having the amount of detergent dispensed in the pre-washing step be a predetermined amount – the motivation being that a predetermined amount can be an optimum amount.
As discussed, Kreutzfeldt teaches that the circulated washing liquor used to performing the cleaning step is heated (Par. 0034). However, Kreutzfeldt does not explicitly teach that this heating of the washing liquor is performed by a heater. However, in the art of dishwashing, it is well known that a dishwasher’s interior can comprise a heater that is able to successfully perform heating of washing liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt such that the heating of the washing liquor of the cleaning step is performed by a heater in the dishwasher, as it is well known in the dishwashing art that such a heater can successfully be used to perform heating of washing liquid.
With regard to claim 31, Kreutzfeldt teaches having the cleaning temperature be, for example, 40°C, 50°C, 65°C, or 70°C (Par. 0042).
With regard to claim 34, in the teachings of Kreutzfeldt, the dishwasher is an automated dishwasher, and thus the pre-washing and cleaning steps can be defined in terms of parameter such as temperature and duration (Par. 0042). Kreutzfeldt does not teach that these parameters correspond to “a standard for ascertaining an energy label determined according to a standard for a particular region”. However, it is well known for a region (such as a country) to have energy standards for consumer equipment, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt by labeling the collection of parameters for the washing program according to an energy-use standard of a region. Such labeling would advantageously allow an energy-conscious consumer to know the energy usage of a washing program.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of EP0553803 by Premoli.
With regard to claim 27, Kreutzfeldt does not teach performing a pre-treating step before the pre-washing step, wherein the pre-treating step comprises heating and circulating washing liquor.
Kreutzfeldt teaches that the plurality of selectable washing programs comprises an “intensive” washing program option (Par. 0012, 0039, and 0042). Kreutzfeldt also teaches that a program’s pre-washing can involve a sequence of pre-washing with cold and hot water (Par. 0032).
Premoli teaches that, when a dishwasher has a plurality of selectable washing programs, an “intensive” program for cleaning very soiled dishes can advantageously begin with a hot pre-wash step in which heated water is sprayed in the dishwasher (Col. 1, lines 11-56). Premoli teaches that a hot pre-wash step can advantageously contribute to dish cleaning via mechanical and thermic action (Col 1, lines 6-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt such that a user can select an “intensive” washing program for cleaning very soiled dishes, wherein the step of pre-washing with non-heated, detergent-containing water is preceded by a initial pre-washing step of supplying water into the dishwasher, heating said water, and circulating the heated water such that the heated water is sprayed onto the dishes. This “initial pre-washing step” is what corresponds to applicant’s pre-treating step. Kreutzfeldt teaches that a program’s pre-washing can involve pre-washing steps of pre-washing with cold water and pre-washing with hot water, and motivation for starting an “intensive” program with a hot water initial pre-washing step was provided by Premoli, who teaches that, when a dishwasher has a plurality of selectable washing programs, an “intensive” program for cleaning very soiled dishes can advantageously begin with a hot pre-wash step in which heated water is sprayed in the dishwasher, wherein the hot pre-wash step contributes to dish cleaning via mechanical and thermic action.
With regard to claim 28, in the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli, the per-washing with unheated, detergent-comprising water occurs after the hot initial prewashing step.
With regard to claim 29, the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli, as developed thus far, does not teach performing at least a partial pumping out of the washing water between the hot initial prewashing step and the unheated, detergent-comprising prewashing step. However, Kreutzfeldt teaches that between washing steps, used washing water can be drain pumped away such that entrained contaminants are also removed from the dishwasher (Par. 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparauts of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli by performing at least a partial drain pumping of the used water between the hot initial prewashing step and the unheated, detergent-comprising prewashing step. Kreutzfeldt teaches that between washing steps, used washing water can be drain pumped away such that entrained contaminants are also removed from the dishwasher, and motivation for performing the modification would be to remove the contaminants entrained in the hot prewashing water prior to beginning the next prewashing step.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt in view of EP0553803 by Premoli as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of JP2007007282 by Saneda.
With regard to claim 30, the combination of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli does not detecting an amount of dirt in the water used to perform the hot initial prewashing step at the end of that hot prewashing step and ascertaining a volume of water to be pumped out of the dishwasher as a function of that detected amount of dirt.
Saneda teaches that, when at least partially discharging prewashing water after a prewashing step, a sensor can detect an amount of dirt in the used prewashing water such that the duration of running the drainage pump is adjusted based on the detected amount of dirt in the used prewashing water, wherein the dump is driven for a shorter amount of time when there is less dirt detected, as water used in the prewashing step can be reused for later washing when that water isn’t very dirty, thus conserving water (pages 20-21 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli by having a sensor arranged to detect an amount of dirt dissolves in the prewashing water at the end of the step of performing the hot initial prewashing, wherein duration of running the drain pump (between the hot prewashing and the later nonheated prewashing) is based on the detected amount of dirt dissolved in the prewashing water, with the drain pump driven for a shorter period of time when there is less dirt detected. Motivation for using the dirt level to adjust how much draining occurs was provided by Saneda, who teaches that, when at least partially discharging prewashing water after a prewashing step, a sensor can detect an amount of dirt in the used prewashing water such that the duration of running the drainage pump is adjusted based on the detected amount of dirt in the used prewashing water, wherein the dump is driven for a shorter amount of time when there is less dirt detected, as water used in the prewashing step can be reused for later washing when that water isn’t very dirty, thus conserving water. Motivation for having the sensing of dirt take place at the end of the hot prewashing step is that the end is the time that would indicate how much dirt has been accumulated by the water during the hot prewashing, thus indicating if that used water is so dirty that its future reuse should be limited.
The combination of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli in view of Saneda controls the drain pump (based on the sensed dirt level) in terms of duration of pump operation, not explicitly in terms of “volume of washing liquor to be pumped” as recited by applicant. However, since a pump’s duration of operation can be translated into a volume of water pumped by that pump, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt in view of Premoli in view of Saneda by having the dishwasher’s controller execute the controlled draining (based on the sensed dirt level) in terms of volume of water pumped instead of duration of pump operation.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of U.S. 2019/0000298 by Detko.
With regard to claim 32, Kreutzfeldt does not specify whether the dispensed detergent is a solid or non-solid detergent.
Detko teaches that a solid dishwashing detergent can successfully be dispensed by a detergent dispenser of a dishwasher (Par. 0016-0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt such that the detergent is a solid detergent. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Detko, who teaches that a solid dishwashing detergent can successfully be dispensed by a detergent dispenser of a dishwasher.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of CN108774615 by Liang.
With regard to claim 33, Kreutzfeldt doesn’t teach that no further cleaning agent is dispensed after the detergent dispensed in the pre-washing step.
Liang teaches that, when attempting to supply detergent during a pre-washing phase and to supply detergent during a subsequent washing phase, such supply steps can be achieved with a layered detergent, wherein a first layer of detergent is configured to dissolve during the pre-washing phase and a second layer of detergent is configured to dissolve during the later washing phase (Abstract; page 39 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt by having the detergent dispensed during the pre-washing be a layered detergent, wherein the dissolving of a first layer releases detergent into the pre-washing step, and wherein a layer dissolving of a second layer releases detergent into the later cleaning step. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Liang, who teaches that, when attempting to supply detergent during a pre-washing phase and to supply detergent during a subsequent washing phase, such supply steps can be achieved with a layered detergent, wherein a first layer of detergent is configured to dissolve during the pre-washing phase and a second layer of detergent is configured to dissolve during the later washing phase. In this combination of Kreutzfeldt in view of Liang, there is no need to further dispense cleaning agent into the dishwasher’s interior after the layered detergent is dispensed.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of EP0553803 by Premoli.
With regard to claim 23, Kreutzfeldt teaches having the washing program executed in a “silent mode” wherein a pump rotation speed is lower in order to reduce the level of irritating noise for a consumer (Par. 0042). Kreutzfeldt teaches that this “silent mode” washing program is thus quieter than a “standard” program” (Par. 0042). Kreutzfeldt does not specify that such a “standard” program is one wherein detergent is not dispensed for use in a prewashing phase.
Premoli teaches that a “standard” dishwashing program for cleaning dishes that have a normal amount of contamination can successfully be performed with a pre-washing step that doesn’t comprise detergent added for the pre-washing step (Col. 1, lines 6-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt such that at least one of the “standard” washing program options of the dishwasher is one in which the pre-washing step doesn’t use detergent. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Premoli, who teaches that a “standard” dishwashing program for cleaning dishes that have a normal amount of contamination can successfully be performed with a pre-washing step that doesn’t comprise detergent added for the pre-washing step.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0192426 by Kreutzfeldt as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of EP0553803 by Premoli.
With regard to claim 36, Kreutzfeldt teaches having a washing program executed in a “quick” mode having a shortened duration (Par. 0042). Kreutzfeldt does not teach that one of the prewashing step and the cleaning step is shortened. However, since the prewashing step and the cleaning step are both component steps of a washing program, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kreutzfeldt by making that washing program a “quick” program by having the duration of the prewashing step and/or the cleaning step be shorter than the corresponding steps of an alternate selectable washing program, as shorting the prewashing step and/or the cleaning step would contribute to making the washing program quicker. Motivation for having the washing program be a “quick” program would be to perform the cleaning faster so that the consumer’s dishes are ready for reuse sooner. Kreutzfeldt does not specify that the alternate selectable program is one wherein detergent is not dispensed for use in a prewashing phase.
Premoli teaches that a “standard” dishwashing program for cleaning dishes that have a normal amount of contamination can successfully be performed with a pre-washing step that doesn’t comprise detergent added for the pre-washing step (Col. 1, lines 6-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kreutzfeldt such that at least one of the “standard” washing program options of the dishwasher is one in which the pre-washing step doesn’t use detergent. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Premoli, who teaches that a “standard” dishwashing program for cleaning dishes that have a normal amount of contamination can successfully be performed with a pre-washing step that doesn’t comprise detergent added for the pre-washing step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714