DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. The IDS filed on 07/29/2024 does not include the reference US 2011/0291830 disclosed in page 19 of applicant’s specification.
In addition, the references listed on the IDS filed on 07/29/2024 are considered with the exception of “Catalog “Cleaning indicators” Infection Control Division, TERRAGENE, 7 pages”, “BIOTAK The Ideal Test, The Ability to Manage | Monitor | Optimise”, and “Dr. J. Mark SUTTON, “The science behind the use of thermostable adenylate kinase indicator technology for measuring cleaning efficacy”, Public Health England, 26 pages”, because no dates have been provided for these references; and “Chinese Search Report issued in Appln. No. 202080023269.5 dated October 31, 2023”, because the document has not been provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 should recite “the at least one query image” in line 1, instead of “the query image”.
Claim 7 should recite “the at least one query image” in line 1, instead of “the query image”.
Claim 10 should recite “the imaging apparatus” in line 8, instead of “an imaging apparatus”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016107040 to Pechmann et al. (hereinafter “Pechmann”, see attached English translation) in view of WO 2020/086293 to Kraus et al. (hereinafter “Kraus”).
Regarding claim 1, Pechmann teaches a method for monitoring the cleaning of an article comprising the steps of arranging in a washing machine system the article and a cleaning indicator (English translation [0067]) comprising a substrate including an image side bearing at least one query image (see figures 4a and 4b) and an active layer (see figure 4a, 125a-125m) covering at least a portion of the at least one query image (print mark, see figure 4b, #124a-124m) (English translation [0098-0100]), commencing a washing cycle to wash the article using the washing machine system to remove at least a portion of the active layer (figure 4a, 125a-125m) to expose at least an exposed portion of the at least one query image (print mark, see figure 4b, #124a-124m) (English translation [0030, 0067, and 0099-0102]), scanning the cleaning indicator using an imaging apparatus to detect the exposed portion of the at least one query image (print mark, see figure 4b, #124a-124m) (English translation [0014-0019, and 0068-0070]), determining, with a processor, the exposed portion of the at least one query image matches the at least one query image (English translation [0059-0065]), and stopping washing of the article (English translation [0110-0112]).
Pechmann does not explicitly teach that the active layer (figure 4a, 125a-125m) is a test soil.
However, Kraus teaches a method comprising the step of running a cleaning process in an automated cleaning machine with a verification coupon present in a wash chamber of the automated cleaning machine, the verification coupon including a verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) having an electronically readable verification code (figure 1A, #104) printed within the verification area and a soil (figure 1B, #116) overlay covering the verification code (see figures 1A and 1B) [0010, and 0037-0038], wherein at least a portion of the verification code is revealed by removal of all or part of the soil during the cleaning process [0010].
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 disclosed by Pechmann wherein the active layer (figure 4a, 125a-125m) is a test soil, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kraus teaches that it was known in the art to use a soil for covering a verification area on a cleaning verification coupon (cleaning indicator) (see figures 1A and 1B, and [0010, and 0037-0038].
Regarding claim 2, Pechmann does not teach that the image side further comprises a blank image printed from an ink also used to print the at least one query image.
Kraus teaches that the cleaning verification coupon (cleaning indicator) comprises a verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) having an electronically readable verification code (figure 1A, #104) printed within the verification area and a soil (figure 1B, #116) overlay covering the verification code (see figures 1A and 1B) [0010, and 0037-0038], and a reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106) (reads on “blank image”) including a reference code (figures 1A and 1B, #108) not covered by a soil (see figures 1A and 1B), wherein the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106) are compared to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil overlay by the cleaning process [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Pechmann wherein the image side further comprises a blank image, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kraus teaches that it was known in the art to include in a cleaning verification coupon a verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) covered by a soil, and a reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106) (reads on “blank image”) not covered by a soil (see figures 1A and 1B) for comparison to determine the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil on the verification area by the cleaning process ([0038] of Kraus).
Pechmann/Kraus does not teach that the blank image printed from an ink also used to print the at least one query image.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print the blank image and the at least one query image using the same ink with a reasonable expectation of success, to avoid confusion since the blank image represents a cleaning standard of the query image comprising the soil test.
Regarding claim 4, Pechmann/Kraus further teaches that the cleaning indicator can be evaluated using optical characteristic such as reflectance (English translation [0016-0018] of Pechmann). In addition, Kraus teaches that the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) comprising the verification code and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, reads on “blank image”) comprising the reference code (the verification code and reference code are identical) are compared to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil by the cleaning process [0038]. Moreover, Kraus teaches that a comparison of the data obtained from reading the verification code after completion of the cleaning process with the data obtained from reading the reference code may be correlated to an amount or percentage of soil removed or remaining [0030].
Pechmann/Kraus does not teach the step of measuring a starting reflectance or fluorescence of the blank image prior to the step of commencing the washing cycle to wash the article using the washing machine system to remove at least a portion of the at least one test soil to expose at least an exposed portion of the at least one query image, wherein the determining step includes determining that the exposed portion of the at least one query image provides a reflectance or fluorescence within 95% of the starting reflectance.
However, 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 disclosed by Pechmann/Kraus with the step of measuring a starting reflectance or fluorescence of the blank image prior to the step of commencing the washing cycle to wash the article using the washing machine system to remove at least a portion of the at least one test soil to expose at least an exposed portion of the at least one query image, wherein the determining step includes determining that the exposed portion of the at least one query image provides a reflectance or fluorescence within 95% of the starting reflectance, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that the items have been efficiently washed, since Kraus teaches that it is effective to compare the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102, comprising soil overlay) and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, reads on “blank image”) (cleaning standard) to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil by the cleaning process ([0038] of Kraus), wherein a comparison of the data obtained may be correlated to an amount or percentage of soil removed or remaining ([0030] of Kraus).
Regarding claim 6, Pechmann/Kraus does not teach that the at least one query image is scanned periodically or continuously during the washing cycle.
However, since Pechmann teaches that the optical properties of the active surface can be evaluated during the cleaning process (English translation [0016]), and that a preliminary assessment can be performed (English translation [0108]), 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 disclosed by Pechmann/Kraus wherein the at least one query image is scanned periodically or continuously during the washing cycle, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of monitoring the washing of the items during the wash cycle.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Pechmann/Kraus further teaches that the actual value of the assessment paraments are compared with a target value of the assessment parament using a cleaning assessment device, which includes a data storage device (English translation [0071 and 0092] of Pechmann), and that the blank image corresponds to a cleaning standard (see reference area, figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard of Kraus).
However, Pechmann/Kraus does not teach that if determined that the blank image does not correspond to a stored blank image, prevent the commencing step.
However, 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 disclosed by Pechmann/Kraus wherein if determined that the blank image (cleaning standard) does not correspond to a stored blank image, prevent the commencing step, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that the stored cleaning standard corresponds to the cleaning standard used for evaluating the results of the cleaning indicator to be used during the wash cycle for the purpose of efficiently evaluating/comparing the cleaning indicator results with the stored cleaning standard (blank image stored).
Claims 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016107040 to Pechmann et al. (hereinafter “Pechmann”, see attached English translation) in view of WO 2020/086293 to Kraus et al. (hereinafter “Kraus”), and in further view of “CWD Cleaning indicator-Rev.12” to Terragene (hereinafter “Terragene”).
Regarding claim 3, Pechmann/Kraus does not teach that an uncovered portion of the at least one query image is not covered by any test soil.
Terragene teaches a cleaning indicator comprising at least one substrate (see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators) including an image side bearing at least one query image (circular images, see table of result reference guide), at least one test soil (colored test soil, see indicators classification table) covering at least a portion of the at least one query image (see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators, and table of result reference guide), and a blank image (circular image representing “OK” cleaning standard, see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators).
However, 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 disclosed by Pechmann/Kraus wherein the at least one query image comprises an uncovered portion, wherein the uncovered portion is not covered by any test soil, with a reasonable expectation of success, to represent a cleaning standard as disclosed by Terragene (see figures CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators).
Regarding claim 5, Pechmann/Kraus/Terragene further teaches that the cleaning indicator can be evaluated using optical characteristic such as reflectance (English translation [0016-0018] of Pechmann). In addition, Kraus teaches that the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) comprising the verification code and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard) comprising a reference code (the verification code and reference code are identical) are compared to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil present on the verification area by the cleaning process [0038]. Moreover, Kraus teaches that a comparison of the data obtained from reading the verification code after completion of the cleaning process with the data obtained from reading the reference code may be correlated to an amount or percentage of soil removed or remaining [0030].
Pechmann/Kraus/Terragene does not teach the step of measuring a starting reflectance or fluorescence of the uncovered portion before the step of commencing the washing cycle to wash the article using the washing machine system to remove at least a portion of the at least one test soil to expose at least an exposed portion of the at least one query image, wherein the determining step includes determining that the exposed portion of the at least one query image provides a reflectance or fluorescence within 95% of the starting reflectance.
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 disclosed by Pechmann/Kraus with the step of measuring a starting reflectance or fluorescence of the uncovered portion before the step of commencing the washing cycle to wash the article using the washing machine system to remove at least a portion of the at least one test soil to expose at least an exposed portion of the at least one query image, wherein the determining step includes determining that the exposed portion of the at least one query image provides a reflectance or fluorescence within 95% of the starting reflectance, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that the items have been efficiently washed, since Kraus teaches that it is effective to compare the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102, comprising soil overlay) and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard) to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil by the cleaning process ([0038] of Kraus), wherein a comparison of the data obtained may be correlated to an amount or percentage of soil removed or remaining ([0030] of Kraus).
Regarding claim 7, Pechmann/Kraus/Terragene does not teach that the at least one query image is scanned periodically or continuously during the washing cycle.
However, since Pechmann teaches that the optical properties of the active surface can be evaluated during the cleaning process (English translation [0016]), and that a preliminary assessment can be performed (English translation [0108]), 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 disclosed by Pechmann/Kraus/Terragene wherein the at least one query image is scanned periodically or continuously during the washing cycle, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of monitoring the washing of the items during the wash cycle.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016107040 to Pechmann et al. (hereinafter “Pechmann”, see attached English translation) in view of “CWD Cleaning indicator-Rev.12” to Terragene (hereinafter “Terragene”), and in further view of WO 2020/086293 to Kraus et al. (hereinafter “Kraus”).
Regarding claim 10, Pechmann teaches a method for monitoring the cleaning of an article comprising the steps of arranging in a washing machine system the article and a cleaning indicator (English translation [0067]) comprising a substrate bearing on an image side at least one query image (see figures 4a and 4b) formed comprising an active layer (see figure 4a, 125a-125m) (English translation [0098-0100]) wherein the cleaning indicator can be evaluated by an imaging apparatus (cleaning evaluation device comprising an optical sensor) (English translation [0092]), commencing a washing cycle to wash the article using the washing machine system to remove at least a portion of the active layer (figure 4a, 125a-125m) (English translation [0030, 0067, and 0099-0102]), scanning the cleaning indicator using the imaging apparatus to image the area of the at least one query image by reflectance from the substrate (English translation [0014-0021 and 0068-0070]), determining, with a processor, the reflectance from the portion of the cleaning indicator that was covered by the active layer (English translation [0014-0021]), and stopping washing of the article (English translation [0110-0112]).
Pechmann does not teach that the active layer (figure 4a, 125a-125m) is a test soil, and that the at least one query image has a blank area of uncovered substrate.
However, Terragene teaches the use of a cleaning indicator, wherein the cleaning indicator comprises at least one substrate (see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators) including an image side bearing at least one query image (circular images, see table of result reference guide), at least one test soil (colored test soil, see indicators classification table) covering at least a portion of the at least one query image (see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators, and table of result reference guide), and a blank image (circular image representing “OK” cleaning standard, see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators).
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 disclosed by Pechmann wherein the active layer (figure 4a, 125a-125m) is a test soil, and the at least one query image has a blank area of uncovered substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Terragene teaches that it was known in the art to use a test soil (colored test soil, see indicators classification table) covering at least a portion of the at least one query image (see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators, and table of result reference guide of Terragene) on a cleaning indicator, and a blank area of uncovered substrate to represent a cleaning standard as disclosed by Terragene (see figures CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators of Terragene).
Pechmann/Terragene does not teach the steps of scanning the cleaning indicator using an imaging apparatus to image the blank area by reflectance from the substrate, and comparing, with the processor, the reflectance from the portion of the cleaning indicator that was covered by the test soil to the amount of reflectance from the blank area of the substrate, wherein if the reflectance from the area of the substrate initially covered by the test soil is within a clean criterion of the reflectance from the blank area, stopping the washing of the article.
Kraus teaches a method comprising the step of running a cleaning process in an automated cleaning machine with a verification coupon present in a wash chamber of the automated cleaning machine, the verification coupon including a verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) having an electronically readable verification code (figure 1A, #104) printed within a verification area and a soil (figure 1B, #116) overlay covering the verification code (see figures 1A and 1B) [0010, and 0037-0038], and a reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard) including a reference code (figures 1A and 1B, #108) not covered by a soil (see figures 1A and 1B). In addition, Kraus teaches that the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) comprising the verification code and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard) comprising the reference code (the verification code and reference code are identical) are compared with a processor to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil by the cleaning process ([0038, and 0061] and figure 5). Moreover, Kraus teaches that a comparison of the data obtained from reading the verification code after completion of the cleaning process with the data obtained from reading the reference code may be correlated to an amount or percentage of soil removed or remaining [0030]. Furthermore, Kraus teaches that if the cleaning results are verified (e.g., the cleaning cycle will receive a “Pass”) after the comparison, the washing process is completed (see figure 5, and [0073]).
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 disclosed by Pechmann/Terragene with the steps of scanning the cleaning indicator using an imaging apparatus to image the blank area by reflectance from the substrate, and comparing, with the processor, the reflectance from the portion of the cleaning indicator that was covered by the test soil to the amount of reflectance from the blank area of the substrate, wherein if the reflectance from the area of the substrate initially covered by the test soil is within a clean criterion of the reflectance from the blank area, stopping the washing of the article, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Pechmann teaches that the cleaning indicator can be evaluated using optical characteristic such as reflectance (English translation [0016-0018] of Pechmann), and Kraus teaches that it is effective to compare with a processor the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102, comprising soil overlay) and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard) to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil by the cleaning process ([0038] of Kraus), wherein if the cleaning results are verified (e.g., the cleaning cycle will receive a “Pass”) after the comparison, the washing process is completed (see figure 5, and [0052, and 0073]).
Regarding claim 11, 12 and 15, Pechmann teaches a method for monitoring the cleaning of an article comprising the steps of arranging in a washing machine system the article and a cleaning indicator (English translation [0067]) comprising a substrate bearing a query image (see figures 4a and 4b) having a first portion covered by an active layer (see figure 4a, 125a-125m) (English translation [0098-0100]), commencing a washing cycle to wash the article using the washing machine system to remove at least a portion of the active layer (figure 4a, 125a-125m) from the first portion of the query image (English translation [0030, 0067, and 0099-0102]), measuring the first portion of the query image (English translation [0014-0021 and 0068-0070]), determining whether a clean criterion has been met (English translation [0059-0065]), and stopping washing cycle if the clean criterion has been met (English translation [0110-0112]).
Pechmann does not teach does not teach that the active layer (figure 4a, #125a-125m) is a test soil, and that the query image comprises a second portion, wherein the second portion is a blank image not covered by the test soil.
However, Terragene teaches the use of a cleaning indicator, wherein the cleaning indicator comprises at least one substrate (see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators) including an image side bearing at least one query image (circular images, see table of result reference guide), at least one test soil (colored test soil, see indicators classification table) covering at least a portion of the at least one query image (see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators, and table of result reference guide), and a blank image (circular image representing “OK” cleaning standard, see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators).
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 disclosed by Pechmann wherein the active layer (figure 4a, #125a-125m) is a test soil, and the query image comprises a second portion, wherein the second portion is not covered by the test soil, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Terragene teaches that it was known in the art to use a test soil (colored test soil, see indicators classification table) covering at least a portion of the at least one query image (see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators, and table of result reference guide of Terragene) in a cleaning indicator, and a blank area of uncovered substrate to represent a cleaning standard as disclosed by Terragene (see figures CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators of Terragene).
Pechmann/Terragene does not teach the steps of measuring the second portion of the query image, wherein the second portion is not covered by the test soil, determining whether a clean criterion has been met based upon the measurements of the first portion and second portion of the query image, and stopping the wash cycle if the clean criterion has been met.
However, Kraus teaches a method comprising the step of running a cleaning process in an automated cleaning machine with a verification coupon present in a wash chamber of the automated cleaning machine, the verification coupon including a verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) having an electronically readable verification code (figure 1A, #104) printed within a verification area and a soil (figure 1B, #116) overlay covering the verification code (see figures 1A and 1B) [0010, and 0037-0038], and a reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard, reads on “blank image”) including a reference code (figures 1A and 1B, #108) not covered by a soil (see figures 1A and 1B). In addition, Kraus teaches that the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102) comprising the verification code and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard, reads on “blank image”) comprising the reference code (the verification code and reference code are identical) are compared with a processor to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil by the cleaning process ([0038, and 0061] and figure 5). Moreover, Kraus teaches that a comparison of the data obtained from reading the verification code after completion of the cleaning process with the data obtained from reading the reference code may be correlated to an amount or percentage of soil removed or remaining [0030]. Furthermore, Kraus teaches that if the cleaning results are verified (e.g., the cleaning cycle will receive a “Pass”) after the comparison, the washing process is completed (see figure 5, and [0073]).
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 disclosed by Pechmann/Terragene with the steps of measuring the second portion of the query image, wherein the second portion is not covered by the test soil, determining whether a clean criterion has been met based upon the measurements of the first portion and second portion of the query image, and stopping the wash cycle if the clean criterion has been met, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kraus teaches that it is effective to compare the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102, comprising soil overlay) and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard, reads on “blank image”) to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil by the cleaning process ([0038] of Kraus), wherein if the cleaning results are verified (e.g., the cleaning cycle will receive a “Pass”) after the comparison, the washing process is completed (see figure 5, and [0052, and 0073]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus further teaches that the cleaning indicator can be evaluated using optical characteristic such as reflectance (English translation [0016-0018] of Pechmann).
Regarding claim 14, Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus does not teach that the step of determining includes the measurement of the first portion being at least 90% of the measurement of the second portion to meet the clean criterion.
However, 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 disclosed by Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus wherein the step of determining includes the measurement of the first portion being at least 90% of the measurement of the second portion to meet the clean criterion, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kraus teaches that it is effective to compare the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102, comprising soil overlay) and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard, reads on “blank image”) to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil by the cleaning process ([0038] of Kraus), wherein if the cleaning results are verified (e.g., the cleaning cycle will receive a “Pass”) after the comparison, the washing process is completed (see figure 5, and [0052, and 0073]), and that a comparison of the data obtained may be correlated to an amount or percentage of soil removed or remaining ([0030] of Kraus).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus further teaches that the measuring step includes scanning the cleaning indicator with an image apparatus (cleaning evaluation device comprising an optical sensor) (English translation [0014-0019, 0068-0070 and 0092] of Pechmann, and [0061] of Kraus).
Regarding claim 17, Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus does not teach that measuring includes continuously scanning the first and second portion of the query image.
However, since Pechmann teaches that the optical properties of the active surface can be evaluated during the cleaning process (English translation [0016]), and that a preliminary assessment can be performed (English translation [0108]), 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 disclosed by Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus wherein the measuring step includes continuously scanning the first and second portion of the query image, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of monitoring the washing of the items during the wash cycle.
Regarding claim 18, Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus further teaches that the measuring includes a visual inspection by the operator (English translation [0058]).
Regarding claim 19, Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus does not teach the step of, prior to commencing the wash cycle, scanning the blank image of the query image.
However, 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 disclosed by Pechmann/Kraus with the step of, prior to commencing the wash cycle, scanning the blank image of the query image, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that the items have been efficiently washed, since Kraus teaches that it is effective to compare the verification area (figures 1A and 1B, #102, comprising soil overlay) and the reference area (figures 1A and 1B, #106, reads on “blank image”) (cleaning standard) to determine the amount and content of data accurately obtained and thus the completeness (or incompleteness) of removal of the soil by the cleaning process ([0038] of Kraus).
Moreover, it is noted that there are only three possibilities: a) the blank query image is scanned prior to the step of commencing the wash cycle, b) the blank query image is scanned after the step of commencing the wash cycle, and c) the blank query image is scanned during the step of commencing the wash cycle, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus method wherein the blank query image is scanned prior to the step of commencing the wash cycle, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus further teaches that the actual value of the assessment paraments are compared with a target value of the assessment parament using the cleaning assessment device, which includes a data storage device (English translation [0071 and 0092] of Pechmann), and that the blank image corresponds to a cleaning standard (see circular image representing “OK” cleaning standard, see figures of the CDWA3 and CDWA4 cleaning indicators of Terrrange, and (reference area, figures 1A and 1B, #106, cleaning standard of Kraus).
However, Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus does not teach that the step of commencing the wash cycle occurs if determined that the blank image corresponds to a stored blank image.
However, 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 disclosed by Pechmann/Terragene/Kraus wherein the step of commencing the wash cycle occurs if determined that the blank image (cleaning standard) corresponds to a stored blank image, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that the stored cleaning standard corresponds to the cleaning standard used for evaluating the results of the cleaning indicator to be used during the wash cycle for the purpose of efficiently evaluating/comparing the cleaning indicator results with the stored cleaning standard (blank image stored).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714