DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/31/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2019/0246870 A1) in view of Takayuki (JP-H0115335-A) (machine translation attached) and Ibori (JP-2012165643-A) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 1¸ Yoon discloses a dishwasher (abstract, ref. 10), comprising:
a tub (ref. 24 ,see figs. 1 and 4) that defines a wash space configured to accommodate one or more objects to be washed;
a base (see figs. 1 and 4 bottom of cabinet 20) that is disposed below the tub;
a door (ref. 22) configured to open and close the wash space;
a sump (ref. 26) disposed under the tub and configured to store wash water; and
an air supply device (ref. 140) disposed at the base and configured to supply air to the tub,
wherein the air supply device comprises:
a housing (see fig. 6 refs. 226 a, 226 b), and
an air blowing fan (ref. 142) configured to draw external air into the housing, the air blowing fan defining an air inlet configured to receive the external air from an outside of the housing.
Regarding “an air supply control module is disposed at the base and electrically connected to the air supply device”, the use of control modules for controlling components of a dishwasher is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art (It being inherent or expected that an electrical fan needs some form of electronic control for operation) and the arrangement of the control circuitry in the base is prima facie obvious for purposes of storage and protection and proximity to the air supply device which is located in the base of Yoon. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Yoon does not explicitly disclose wherein the air supply control module defines a vent hole, and wherein the air inlet and the vent hole are disposed along an airflow direction of the air inlet such that at least portions of the air inlet and the vent hole overlap with each other along the airflow direction.
Regarding “a vent hole”, Takayuki discloses it is known in the dish drying art (Abstract) to provide an air supply control module (see fig. 2 ref. 29 containing ref. 34 control board) with a vent hole (ref. 36), wherein an air inlet (see fig. 2 opening below ref. 33) and the vent hole are disposed along an airflow direction (see fig. 2 arrows) such that at least portions of the air inlet and the vent hole are adjacent along the airflow direction.
Regarding the air inlet and the vent hole overlap, Ibori discloses it is known in the speed control devices for electric motors in home appliances (Description) to provide an air inlet (see figs. 2-3 opening of ref. 5 to ref. 2) to an air supply device (ref. 6) overlapping with a vent hole (see figs. 2-3 end opening of ref. 2) of an air supply control module (ref. 1, 2, 3) in the airflow direction (see fig. 2, portion of air supply control module 2 directly adjacent to air supply device 6).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air supply module of Yoon to be in the air flow direction of the air supply device with a vent hole, as suggested by Takayuki, in order to cool the control module/boards; and to further overlap the vent hole and the air inlet, as suggested by Ibori, in order to provide sufficient heat exchange to air cool the control device/board.
Re claim 2, Yoon further discloses wherein the air supply device extends parallel to a lateral direction of the base (see fig. 4).
Re claims 3-4, Yoon discloses as shown above and further discloses motors are controllable (¶ [0059]) and it being expected the air supply control module is thus configured to control operation of the air suppl device. Re claim 4, regarding “wherein the air supply control module is disposed on a wall above a bottom plate of the base such that the air supply control module is be spaced apart from the bottom plate”, Yoon teaches a variety of bottom plates and structures (see fig. 4) and the arrangement of the air supply control module is prima facie obvious for purposes of protection and electronic/vibration isolation. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Re claims 8-9¸ Yoon further discloses wherein the housing (see fig. 6 ref. 226 a, 226 b) further defines an air outlet (ref. 82) and a flow path (ref. 112) configured to guide the external air from the air inlet to the air outlet (¶ [0092]); wherein air blowing fan (ref. 142) is disposed at the housing; and wherein the air supply device further comprises: a heater (ref. 152) configured to heat the air blown by the air blowing fan, at least a portion of the heater being disposed in the housing (see figs. 4-6); and an air discharge guide (ref. 114) that is disposed at the housing and in fluid communication with the air outlet of the housing, the air discharge guide being configured to guide the air toward the tub. wherein the air inlet and the air supply control module are arranged in the airflow direction such that at least a portion of the air inlet overlaps with the air supply control module along the airflow direction (see fig. 6).
Claims 5-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2019/0246870 A1) in view of Takayuki (JP-H0115335-A) (machine translation attached) and Ibori (JP-2012165643-A) (machine translation attached), and further in view of Wen (CN 110353602 A).
Re claims 5-7, Yoon/Takayuki/Ibori discloses as shown above, but does not disclose wherein the wall comprises: a first wall that extends from the bottom plate in an up-down direction; a second wall that extends from the first wall in the airflow direction, at least a portion of the second wall being disposed at the air supply control module; and a rear wall that extends from the second wall in the up-down direction. Wen discloses it is known in the dishwasher control module art to provide a wall with first wall, second wall, and a rear wall, i.e. the form of a surrounding box (see fig. 1 and 5 ref. 200 mounted in position at ref. 1 with ref. 11). Here, regarding the front-rear direction, the rearrangement on the module 200, the rearrangement onto a lateral side wall is prima facie obvious, depending on available space. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Regarding “wherein the second wall comprises: a flat wall part defining an upper surface that is parallel to the front-rear direction and a left-right direction of the base and that supports a lower surface of the air supply control module, the flat wall part defining a first fastening hole configured to receive a coupling tool for coupling the air supply control module to the second wall; a first connection part that connects the first wall to the flat wall part; and a second connection part that connects the rear wall to the flat wall part” and “wherein the rear wall comprises a coupling protrusion that protrudes forward from the rear wall toward the door, the coupling protrusion contacting the air supply control module and defining a second fastening hole configured to receive a coupling tool for coupling the air supply control module to the rear wall”, Wen teaches a number of connection components to the walls (see figs. 3-8 ref. 21 inserted into hole of ref. 1 or gap 20, also consider ref. 11 for sliding in edge of module 200; also consider refs. 432, 46 and 52, 53 , 510, 4310 demonstrating a breadth of connection components; Here, the change in shape or rearrangement of the connection components such to satisfy the limitations as claimed is an obvious engineering expedient, there being no patentable feature in positioning known connectors on various walls. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and (VI)(C).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the walls of Yoon/Takayuki/Ibori to further include walls for mounting a control board module, as suggested by Wen, in order to securely mount the control boards.
Re claim 10-11, Wen further discloses wherein the air supply control module defines a vent hole at a front surface thereof (see fig. 5, and it being further an obvious modification in view of “increase the space of air circulation flow, improve heat dissipation effect). Yoon discloses wherein the air blowing fan is configured to blow the external air in the airflow direction and to cause the external air to be suctioned into the air inlet (see figs. 5-6). Regarding “wherein the vent hole of the air supply control module is configured to receive a portion of the air blown by the air blowing fan in the airflow direction”, Ibori teaches the vent hole of the air supply control is configured to receive a portion of the air blown by the air blowing fan (see figs. 2-3, ref. 6 blows/draws air from vent hole on end of 2, passing from ref. A2 through refs. 3, 2).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2019/0246870 A1) in view of Takayuki (JP-H0115335-A) (machine translation attached) and Ibori (JP-2012165643-A) (machine translation attached), and further in view of Durazzani et al. (EP 0561201 B1).
Re claims 12-13, Yoon/Takayuki/Ibori discloses as shown above, but does not disclose a balance weight. Durazzani discloses it is known in the dishwasher art (claim 1) further comprising a balance weight disposed at the base and disposed rearward relative to the sump, the balance weight being configured to maintain the dishwasher to be balanced by suppressing an overturning of the dishwasher (col. 3 lines 19-25 ballast means…rear wall…weight to counterbalance). Re claim 13, Regarding “wherein the balance weight is spaced apart from the air supply device in a lateral direction of the base”, the rearrangement of parts to distribute weight and free space is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dishwasher of Yoon/Takayuki/Ibori to further include a balance weight, as suggested by Durazzani, in order to prevent imbalance and tilting.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2019/0246870 A1) in view of Takayuki (JP-H0115335-A) (machine translation attached) and Ibori (JP-2012165643-A) (machine translation attached), and further in view of Durazzani et al. (EP 0561201 B1) and/or Wen (CN 110353602 A).
Re claims 14-20, Independent claim 14 reads as a combination of limitations rejected above. Re claims 15-20, Claims 15-20 substantively recite limitations read on by limitations rejected above, except as to a case and the left-right direction/positioning of the balance weight, housing and air blowing fan. Wen further discloses a case (ref. 200). Regarding the orientation and arrangement of the housing and the air blowing fan, the mere rearrangement of known components, i.e. the balance weight, the module housing, and the air blowing fan is prima facie obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art, for purposes of space utilization. Here, there being no criticality or unexpected results in the arrangement as claimed. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown in the rejection above, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JPS63209623A note cooling of circuit board in path along dish appliance base.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights