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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 16-30), Species A (claim 20) in the reply filed on August 4, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21, 22 and 31-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 4, 2026.
Claims 16-20 and 23-30 will be examined on the merits, claims 1-15 having been cancelled and claims 21, 22 and 31-35 having been withdrawn.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-19, 23, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2007-301188A to Otsuka et al. (see machine translation).
As to claim 16, Otsuka discloses a method for operating a dishwasher, the method comprising: controlling a loosening phase by a control apparatus of the dishwasher for loosening soiling adhering to items to be washed in a dishwasher cavity by means of a washing liquor which is dispensed by a spray apparatus arranged in or on the dishwasher cavity (see Otsuka paragraphs [0018]-[0024] disclosing a dishwasher with cavity and spray apparatus to spray dishes as well as control device to control dishwashing operations, paragraphs [0035]-[0037] disclosing a pre-cleaning process (read as loosening phase)); during the loosening phase, operating a circulating pump, which is designed to deliver the washing liquor from a pump sump of the dishwasher cavity to the spray apparatus, for discontinuous dispensing of the washing liquor from the spray apparatus (see Otsuka Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0036]-[0037] disclosing that the cleaning pump 5 is intermittently driven (read as discontinuous dispensing) to deliver the washing liquor from the pump sump to the spray apparatus 4); and rinsing off the soiling in a rinsing-off phase with at least 75% of the washing liquor from the loosening phase being reused during the rinsing-off phase (see Otsuka paragraphs [0035], [0038]-[0039] where a main cleaning process is performed and then a drainage process and since the washing liquor is not drained between the pre-cleaning process and the main cleaning process, it is inherent that at least 75% of the washing liquor from the loosening phase is reused during the rinsing-off phase since the same washing liquor is being used for both phases).
As to claim 17, the dishwasher disclosed by Otsuka is considered a household dishwasher (see Otsuka Fig. 1, paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0045]).
As to claim 18, since the same washing liquor is used for both the pre-cleaning process (read as the loosening phase) and the main cleaning process (read as the rinsing-off phase), Otsuka discloses that the entire quantity of the washing liquor from the loosening phase is reused during the rinsing-off phase (see Otsuka paragraphs [0035], [0038]-[0039]).
As to claim 19, Otsuka discloses that the loosening phase is a pre-washing or a part of the pre-washing, and wherein the rinsing-off phase is a cleaning or a part of the cleaning (see Otsuka paragraphs [0035]-[0039]).
As to claim 23, Otsuka discloses operating the circulating pump for discontinuous dispensing of the washing liquor in an interval operation (see Otsuka paragraph [0053]).
As to claim 29, Otsuka further discloses heating the washing liquor by a heating facility during the loosening phase (see Otsuka paragraph [0037] disclosing heating by the cleaning heater during the pre-cleaning process).
As to claim 30, Otsuka discloses a computer program product comprising a computer program embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising commands which, when the computer program is loaded into a computer and executed by the computer, cause the computer to carry out the method set forth in claim 16 (see Otsuka paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and the rejection to claim 16 above).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007-301188A to Otsuka et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of DE102008020475A1 to Asmann et al. (see machine translation).
Otsuka is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 16.
As to claim 20, Otsuka does not explicitly disclose measuring a quantity of the washing liquor during the loosening phase such that the washing liquor is dispensed from the spray apparatus over a period of time during the discontinuous dispensing. Asmann discloses a similar method wherein the quantity of the washing liquor during the loosening phase is measured such that the washing liquor is dispensed from the spray apparatus over a period of time during the discontinuous dispensing (see Asmann paragraphs [0027]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include measuring quantity of the washing liquor during the loosening phase such that the washing liquor is dispensed from the spray apparatus over a period of time during the discontinuous dispensing as disclosed by Asmann in order to better control the cleaning and ensure adequate supply of water during cleaning.
As to claim 27, Otsuka does not explicitly disclose further supplying water to the washing liquor when the loosening phase transitions to the rinsing-off phase. Asmann discloses a similar dishwashing method wherein partial removal of liquor and further water is supplied to the washing liquor when the loosening phase transitions to the rinsing-off phase (see Asmann paragraphs [0027]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to include the partial removal of liquor and further supplying water to the washing liquor when the loosening phase transitions to the rinsing-off phase as disclosed by Asmann in order to allow partial replacement of the fluid in order to remove the heavy impurities from the pre-wash fluid (see Asmann paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007-301188A to Otsuka et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of JP2007-007282A to Saneda et al. (see machine translation) and KR2019-0092986A to Hwang et al. (see machine translation).
Otsuka is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 16.
As to claim 24, while Otsuka discloses that the switch-on time and/or the switch-off time can be less than one second (see Otsuka paragraph [0053]), Otsuka does not explicitly disclose that the switch-on time and/or the switch-off time can last from 1 second to 10 seconds. Saneda and Hwang disclose similar dishwashing methods wherein the switch-on time and/or the switch-off time are known results-effective variables and can be between 2 and 10 seconds depending on the soiling of the dishes (see Saneda paragraph [0093]) or 3-4 seconds to optimize the cleaning time while ensuring that the sump is adequately filled (see Hwang paragraphs [0059]-[0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the switch-on time and/or the switch-off time to be from 1-10 seconds in order to optimize the cleaning of the dishes (see also MPEP 2144.05(I) where a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are close).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007-301188A to Otsuka et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of JP2007-282649A to Nishi et al. (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0163626 to Klein.
Otsuka is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 16.
As to claim 25, Otsuka does not explicitly disclose detecting a current consumption of the circulating pump, wherein the circulating pump is operated for discontinuous dispensing of washing liquor as a function of the detected current consumption of the circulating pump. Nishi discloses a similar dishwashing method wherein the rotation speed of the pump is detected during intermittent operation of the pump to detect air in the pump (see Nishi paragraphs [0015] and [0024]). Klein discloses that that the rotational speed of the pump can be monitored by monitoring the current of the motor (see Klein paragraph [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to detect a current consumption of the circulating pump, wherein the circulating pump is operated for discontinuous dispensing of washing liquor as a function of the detected current consumption of the circulating pump as disclosed by Nishi and Klein in order to ensure that air is not entrapped in the pump (see Nishi paragraphs [0015] and [0024]).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007-301188A to Otsuka et al. (see machine translation) in view of JP2007-282649A to Nishi et al. (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0163626 to Klein as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0219262 to Peterson et al.
Otsuka, Nishi and Klein are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 25.
As to claim 26, the combination of Otsuka, Nishi and Klein does not explicitly disclose switching off the circulating pump when the current consumption changes, which indicates a transition from high-load operation to part-load operation. Peterson discloses a similar dishwashing method wherein the pump is turned off when the current consumption changes indicating cavitation (read as an indication of a transition from high-load to part-load operation) (see Peterson paragraphs [0024]-[0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to switch off the circulating pump when the current consumption changes as suggested by Peterson in order to avoid damage to the pump (see Peterson paragraph [0028]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007-301188A to Otsuka et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0192426 to Kreutzfeldt et al.
Otsuka is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 16.
As to claim 28, Otsuka does not explicitly disclose preparing the washing liquor containing water and detergent during a preparation phase before the loosening phase. Kreutzfeldt discloses adding detergent to the water for the pre-wash phase (see Kreutzfeldt paragraphs [0015], [0032]-[0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add detergent to the water for the pre-wash phase as disclosed by Kreutzfeldt in order to improve cleaning (see Kreutzfeldt paragraph [0015]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights