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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 17, in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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 2, 6 and 8 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 2 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as a process-related result of an automatically recommended manner". What is a process related result? What is an automatically recommended manner? Claims 6 and 8 are indefinite because of "an input device" as there is a first input device recited in claim 1. The examiner suggests possibly amending "an input device on an external apparatus" to "a second input device".
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherer et al. (DE1010218201587A1, machine translation in IDS of 4/16/2025) in view of Berends et al. (DE102007052332A1, machine translation in IDS of 4/16/2025).
Re claims 1 and 17, Scherer et al. teach a method of automatically controlling a dishwasher comprising automatically starting a cleaning program (paragraphs 8, 54, claim 1) stored in a memory of a control device 100 by a start signal triggered by an input means 110 (claim 1), which is associated to the cleaning program (paragraphs 8, 13), automatically detecting a current value of at least one state variable (amount and/or soiling of the treatment object, current operating state, paragraph 64) by at least one sensor (paragraph 36 teaches sensors to determine the soiling of rinsing goods), automatically comparing the detected actual value to a reference value (paragraph 37 and 64 teaches that the control device checks whether the selected treatment program is optimally suited, based on the current operating state and the amount/or soiling of the treatment object, an optimization measurement is determined). Paragraph 19 teaches that the optimization includes a default value (i.e. reference value). Scherer et al. further teaches automatically outputting an output signal on an output device associated with at least one parameter (paragraphs 20 and 64) and automatically continuing to run the cleaning program with a modified configuration. Specifically, paragraph 64 teaches detecting the current state, optimizing a parameter value, measuring the optimized parameter value and executing an optimized treatment program.
Scherer et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of automatically detecting by the control device, an adjustment signal associated w/ the output signal, the adjustment signal being generated in response to an input on the input device of the dishwasher, the adjustment signal being associated with at least one of the parameters. Berends et al. teach a dishwasher comprising an operating display device with input elements (abstract) and further comprising a correction display (paragraph 17), in response to a deviation associated with a parameter (i.e. rinsing program). Paragraphs 7-8 teach if there is a deviation between the actual degree of soiling and the set degree of soiling set by the user, a correction display can be output, which guides the user such that at least one program section can be automatically changed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Scherer et al. to include an adjustment signal (i.e. correction display) associated with the parameter, as taught by Berends et al., for purposes of providing a response to the user concerning the parameter, such that the corrections to the cleaning program can be made. Re claim 2, refer to paragraphs 5 and 11 of Scherer et al. Re claims 3-4, refer to paragraphs 20-21 of Scherer et al. Re claim 5, refer to paragraph 17 of Berends et al. Re claim 6, applicant is directed to paragraph 20 of Scherer et al. teach an input device on an external apparatus comprising a smart phone of the user, which is in communication (i.e. network adapter or modem) with the output device of the household appliance. Re claim 7, Scherer et al. in view of Berends et al. fail to teach the adjustment signal stored in a memory of the control device to be read out at a later point in time. However, in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the examiner argues that a later point in time can be any time (i.e. such as a min) after the cleaning program has begun and it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan to read the adjustment signal at any time during the cleaning process in order to further determine if additional adjustments are needed. Claim 8 appears to be a combination of claims 6-7, and therefore, the limitations have been previously addressed. Re claim 9, refer to paragraphs 11 and 64 of Scherer et al.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gerstner et al. tach a dishwasher and adjusting the running time. Haidacher et al. teach optimization of the cleaning cycle based on the user preferences. Rosenbauer et al. teach controlling a domestic appliance. Hu et al. teach limiting the user involvement when operating a dishwasher. Nam et al. teach a dishwasher with a user interface device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights