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 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 6–7 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 6 recites the limitation "the pre-rinse unit" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inlet of the pre-rinse unit" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 1, 3 and 6–7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berner et al. (USPN 7892359 B2) in view of Reutemann (DE 102017107656 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Berner discloses an auxiliary gray water supply system for use in a commercial food service facility (Col. 9, Lines 21–23, which discusses a commercial dishwasher), the auxiliary gray water supply device comprising: a tank (212) configured to receive a volume of gray water from a warewashing machine (200), a pump (66) having an inlet (72) in fluid communication with the tank (212) but does not explicitly disclose the tank comprising an opening in a top surface and an outlet in a side surface.
Reutemann teaches the tank (9) comprising an opening in a top surface and an outlet in a side surface (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the opening in the top surface and the outlet in the side surface, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). The location of the opening and the outlet does not change the how the invention functions. Therefore, it is a matter of design choice to rearrange the opening and the outlet such that they are located in the top surface and the side surface, respectively.
Regarding Claim 3, the Berner–Reutemann combination teaches the tank (Reutemann 9) further comprises a bottom surface that is continuous (Reutemann Figs. 1–2).
Regarding Claim 6, the Berner–Reutemann combination teaches the pre-rinse unit (Berner 48).
Regarding Claim 7, the Berner–Reutemann combination teaches the inlet (Berner 54) of the pre-rinse unit (Berner 48) further comprises a flow-control valve (Berner V1) configured to open and close to allow and disallow fluid flow via the inlet (Berner 54).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berner et al. (USPN 7892359 B2) in view of Reutemann (DE 102017107656 A1), in further view of Kong et al. (US PGPub 20160338567 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the Berner–Reutemann combination teaches a pump but does not teach the pump as being a dry pump.
Kong teaches a dry pump (Para. 75).
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 pump with a dry/vacuum pump since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). There are suction and vacuum and positive displacement pumps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a dry/vacuum pump.
Claim(s) 4–5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berner et al. (USPN 7892359 B2) in view of Reutemann (DE 102017107656 A1), in further view of Maanum et al. (USPN 9289801 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, the Berner–Reutemann combination does not teach the opening in the top surface of the tank is configured to receive a screen, the opening sized larger than the screen to allow the screen to be moved from a first position to a second position within the opening.
Maanum teaches the opening in the top surface (Fig. 4) of the tank (12) is configured to receive a screen (47), the opening sized larger than the screen (47) to allow the screen (47) to be moved from a first position to a second position within the opening (Col. 5m Lines 12–17, where the filter settles into a flanged portion that is located below the opening) in order to filter out materials so that the water may be reused (Col. 1, Lines 65–67).
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 inlet of the Berner–Reutemann combination with a screen as taught by Maanum in order to prevent waste from entering the reclaimed water.
Regarding Claim 5, the Berner–Reutemann–Maanum combination teaches a first screen (Maanum 47) and a second screen (Maanum 38), wherein the second screen (Maanum 38) partially overlaps the first screen (Maanum 47 and Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berner et al. (USPN 7892359 B2) in view of Reutemann (DE 102017107656 A1), in further view of Laera (US PGPub 20130019974 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the Berner–Reutemann combination does not teach the flow-control valve is actuated by a foot pedal.
Laera teaches the flow-control valve is actuated by a foot pedal (Para. 23, where there must be a valve in the spray head assembly to supply and cut off the fluid source) in order to provide water for pre–rinse.
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 actuation method of the sprayer with a foot pedal since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, there are limited possibilities to actuate the valve, handheld, button and pedal. Therefore, it would be predictable to choose the foot pedal in order to actuate the valve.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berner et al. (USPN 7892359 B2) in view of Reutemann (DE 102017107656 A1), in further view of Oakes (US PGPub 20050199267 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the Berner–Reutemann combination does not teach the treatment agent comprises bleach.
Oakes teaches the treatment agent comprises bleach in order to decontaminate the water within the treatment agent (Para. 19).
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 treatment agent of the Berner–Reutemann combination with a bleach as taught by Oakes in order to decontaminate the water within the treatment agent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Federighi et al. (USPN 4218264) and Arnold (USPN 7882591 B2) disclose prewash systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights