DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the teachings of the cited prior art “fail to address controlling the water temperature during the wash phase by varying the proportion of water from the reuse system” and that claim 1 is not obvious “since the prior art documents do not address adjusting or controlling water temperature.” However, the instant claims do not recite subject matter drawn to adjusting or controlling temperature. Since the claims do not require adjusting or controlling temperature, the cited prior art is not required to show such subject matter.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the objection to claim 1 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 112(d) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140283312 by Bocchino et al. in view of U.S. Patent 5501792 granted to Carroll, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210172156 by Maxant et al., and CN103556435A by Wang et al.
As to claim 1, Bocchino teaches a method for controlling a water reuse system in a wash machine comprising providing a wash machine with a wash tank 10 (fig. 1), a dispenser (para. 27), at least one fill valve (para. 27, a valve would be required to take fresh water from the tap), and an outlet valve 32; providing a water reuse system in fluid communication with the wash tank, wherein a reservoir tank fresh-water filling system comprises a hot and/or cold fresh water valve to add fresh water into the wash tank (para. 27) and a drain water pump 4 (para. 18); dispensing a cleaning composition from the dispenser into the wash tank (para. 27); running the wash machine for at least one cycle comprising at least wash and rinse phases (paras. 19-20); pumping water from the wash cycle into the reservoir tank 28 (para. 21); and transferring water into the wash tank from the reservoir tank and/or a fill valve (paras. 22, 27).
Maxant teaches that the monitoring device is a soil and/or color level sensor (para. 17), activating a dump valve when the water is not acceptable and activating a transfer pump when the water is acceptable (paras. 20, 50).
Bocchino teaches that water is supplied from a tap, but it does not teach individual hot and cold water fill valves. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that hot and cold water fill valves were well-known and common in the art of wash machines such as the wash machine of Bocchino and would have been obvious to use with Bocchino’s wash machine for their known and expected purposes (see Carroll, col. 9, Il. 51-60, teaching the use of hot and cold water fill valves in a wash machine).
Bocchino does not teach monitoring the quality of water in the reservoir tank. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to monitor the quality of water in the reservoir tank. Maxant teaches a water reuse system for a wash machine having a water quality sensor to determine if used water should be reused or discharged based on the measured water quality (para. 7). Maxant teaches that the monitoring device is a soil and/or color level sensor (para. 17), activating a dump valve when the water is not acceptable and activating a transfer pump when the water is acceptable (paras. 20, 50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by Bocchino to have the beneficial ability of determining if water should be reused or discharged.
Bocchino teaches that for a wash phase “only part of the water required is taken from the tap, because most of it has been taken from the storage tank 28” (para. 27). Bocchino does not teach a particular proportion of captured reuse water used for a wash phase, but one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to fill the wash tank with from about 70% to about 85% of reuse water for a cycle. It is known that wash water can constitute 75% of reused rinse water (Wang, para. 29), which is consistent with Bocchino’s teachings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to believe that filling the wash tank with about 70% to about 85% of reuse water, the remainder being fresh tap with from a hot water valve, would achieve the goals sought by Bocchino with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Bocchino teaches emptying the reservoir tank (para. 22).
As to claim 3, Maxant teaches monitoring water quality by a monitoring device in communication with a controller (para. 7).
As to claim 4, Maxant teaches that the monitoring device is a soil and/or color level sensor (para. 17), activating a dump valve when the water is not acceptable and activating a transfer pump when the water is acceptable (paras. 20, 50).
As to claim 8, Bocchino teaches a controller 40 for determining a time the wash machine is operated in at least one wash cycle (paras. 18, 25, 40; fig. 9).
As to claim 9, Bocchino teaches pumping with a transfer pump 22, reuse water from the reservoir tank to the wash tank (para. 18).
As to claim 10, Bocchino teaches filtering debris with a filter after an outlet and before a drain water pump (para. 18).
As to claims 11 and 12, Bocchino does not teach a level sensor in its reservoir tank, but Carroll teaches a float switch level sensor in its reservoir tank that functions to allow reuse water to be transferred to a wash tank if the water level is sufficient, but if the level is insufficient, water from hot and/or cold fill valves are activated to provide fresh water to the wash tank (col. 8, ll. 37-57; col. 9, ll. 51-60). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide a float switch level sensor to achieve this function taught by Carroll.
As to claim 16, Bocchino does not teach communicating the temperature of water in the reservoir tank to a controller with a temperature sensor in the reservoir tank. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to provide a temperature sensor and to communicate the temperature to a controller. Maxant teaches that a temperature sensor may be provided to monitor a temperature of water in a reservoir tank so that a pump and valves may be appropriated controlled (para. 17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by Bocchino to use a temperature sensor to sense a temperature of water in the reservoir tank to control the system based on a water quality, in particular a temperature, as taught by Maxant.
Claims 5-7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140283312 by Bocchino et al. in view of U.S. Patent 5501792 granted to Carroll, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210172156 by Maxant et al., and CN103556435A by Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20130092704 by Tincher et al.
As to claims 5-7, 18, and 19, Bocchino teaches a dispenser that necessarily would have a dispenser outlet, but does not teach particulars of its dispenser. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a product container, an unprimed product line connecting the container to the dispenser, and a diluter line. Tincher teaches a wash machine with a dispenser outlet (at the wash tank); product containers 30, 32, 34; respective product lines; and a diluent source with a diluent line connected to the product lines, the cleaning compositions being combined with the diluent proximate the dispenser outlet (fig. 1). Tincher teaches that such systems are typical in contemporary automatic chemical dispensing systems for the washing industry (para. 3), and that its system provides improvements in control of product dispensing (para. 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a dispenser system of the type taught by Tincher for its known purpose of dispensing cleaning compositions from bulk sources. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time it was filed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140283312 by Bocchino et al. in view of U.S. Patent 5501792 granted to Carroll, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210172156 by Maxant et al., and CN103556435A by Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP0578006A1 by Durazzani et al.
As to claim 14, while Bocchino does not contemplate using captured reuse water for a rinse phase, Durazzani teaches that in a rinse phase, in particular a final rinse phase, captured reuse water may be used, but a majority of the water for the rinse phase is fresh water (p. 7, ln. 35). It was well known in the art that rinse phases require progressively cleaner water since detergents and/or soil in the water is detrimental to rinsing (see Durazzani, p. 7, ll. 45-48). One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have recognized as obvious to use captured reuse water for a rinse phase since it can result in water savings, but that the rinse water should be substantially free of detergents and soils. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that using from about 15% to about 30% reuse water for a rinse phase would achieve the goals taught by both Bocchino and Durazzani to save water though reuse while allowing for the rinse water to be substantially free of detergents and soils with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140283312 by Bocchino et al. in view of U.S. Patent 5501792 granted to Carroll, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210172156 by Maxant et al., and CN103556435A by Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060021393 by Oda et al.
As to claim 20, Bocchino does not teach a water softening device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the wash machine taught by Bocchino to have a water softener. Oda teaches that softening water to remove metal ions such as calcium and magnesium, washing with a higher detergency can be realized, in particular when water is reused for washing (para. 50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to modify the wash machine to have a softening device in order to realize the benefit of washing with a higher detergency. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights