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 .
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.
Claims 16, 19 – 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102012201244 to Fritz et al. (hereinafter Fritz) in view of JP-WO2008023852 to Yukigawa et al. (hereinafter Yukigawa). For the purpose of examination, citations for Yukigawa are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office in February 2026. Citations for Fritz are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from Clarivate Analytics in February 2026.
Regarding Claims 16 and 19. Fritz teaches a composite component comprising an insulation layer for the door of a dishwasher ([0005] and [0048]; Figure 4), i.e. an insulation device for a receiving area of a water-guiding household appliance comprising a washing chamber.
The composite component/insulation device comprises an insulation layer which is acoustically insulating and which in particular corresponds to a polyurethane foam layer [0014] – [0015]. The composite component/insulation device of Fritz also further comprises a sound deadening element which is stiffer than the insulation layer [0013]. The insulation layer/element is fixed to the sound deadening/stiffening element ([0030] and Fig. 2), by expanding and hardening, i.e. foaming, the polyurethane onto the base film of the sound deadening/stiffening element [0016]. The preformed composite component/insulation device may then be inserted into the gap space between inner and outer door walls ([0048] and Figure 4), wherein the inner door wall faces the rinsing tank/washing chamber [0037], corresponding to an insulation device which is separate from and attachable to the water-guiding household appliance and in which the insulation device is installed on the water-guiding household appliance such that the insulation element and stiffening element are outside the washing chamber.
Fritz does not expressly teach the polyurethane foam of the insulation layer corresponds to a viscoelastic polyurethane foam and is silent with respect to its density. However, Yukigawa also teaches a polyurethane foam having a density of 0.01 to 0.3 g/cm3 (10 to 300 kg/m3) (see last paragraph of Page 5 of the machine translation). Fritz and Yukigawa are analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, namely improving acoustic insulation of devices and appliances. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the polyurethane foam of Yukigawa in the insulation device of Fritz. The motivation would have been that Yukigawa teaches its polyurethane foam has excellent damping properties and also achieves a larger loss factor and high mechanical strength while being lighter weight (see two paragraphs before “Mode-For-Invention” on Page 6 of the reference).
Regarding Claim 20. Fritz teaches the insulation device of Claim 16 wherein the insulation layer/element has a thickness of between 10 and 30 mm [0019].
Regarding Claim 21. Fritz teaches the insulation device of Claim 16 wherein the sound deadening/stiffening element has a thickness of between 0.05 and 1 mm [0019].
Regarding Claim 22. Fritz teaches the insulation device of Claim 16 wherein the sound deadening/stiffening element is part of the appliance wall/receiving layer [0005] and is made of a metal foil [0013].
Regarding Claim 24. Fritz teaches the insulation device of Claim 16 wherein the insulation layer/element expands and hardens on top of the base film of the sound deadening/stiffening element [0016], i.e. the polyurethane foam layer is directly foamed onto the stiffening element.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102012201244 to Fritz et al. (hereinafter Fritz) in view of JP-WO2008023852 to Yukigawa et al. (hereinafter Yukigawa) – as applied to Claim 1 above – and further in view of US 2020/0298531 to Bertucelli et al. (hereinafter Bertucelli).
Regarding Claim 23. Fritz teaches the household appliance of Claim 16 but does not expressly the particles are embedded in the polyurethane foam layer. However, Bertucelli teaches the concept of providing expandable graphite having a particle size of from 200 to 300 micron in polyurethane insulation [0025]. Expandable graphite corresponds to an intumescent material which has a known true density of roughly 2200 kg/m3. Fritz and Bertucelli are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely insulation devices based upon polyurethanes. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide expandable graphite as a particulate filler in the polyurethane foam layer of Fritz. The motivation would have been that expandable graphite functions as a flame retardant in polyurethane compositions and thus would impart flame retardancy of the insulation layer of Fritz.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102012201244 to Fritz et al. (hereinafter Fritz) in view of JP-WO2008023852 to Yukigawa et al. (hereinafter Yukigawa). For the purpose of examination, citations for Yukigawa are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office in February 2026. Citations for Fritz are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from Clarivate Analytics in February 2026.
Regarding Claims 25 and 26. Fritz teaches a dishwasher comprising washing container walls (6), i.e. a receiving area defining a washing chamber; and a sandwich component/insulation device fixed to said walls [0038], an insulation device attached to the receiving area such that the insulation device bears against the receiving area.
The sandwich component/insulation device comprises an insulation layer which is acoustically insulating and which in particular corresponds to a polyurethane foam layer [0014] – [0015]. The composite component/insulation device of Fritz also further comprises a sound deadening element which is stiffer than the insulation layer [0013].
The insulation layer/element is fixed to the sound deadening/stiffening element ([0030] and Fig. 2), by expanding and hardening, i.e. foaming, the polyurethane onto the base film of the sound deadening/stiffening element [0016]. The preformed composite component/insulation device is formed prior to its assembly on the rinsing container walls [0038], corresponding to an insulation device which is separate from and attachable to the water-guiding household appliance and in which the insulation device is installed on the water-guiding household appliance such that the insulation element and stiffening element are outside the washing chamber.
Fritz does not expressly teach the polyurethane foam of the insulation layer corresponds to a viscoelastic polyurethane foam and is silent with its density. However, Yukigawa also teaches a polyurethane foam which may have a density of 0.01 to 0.3 g/cm3 (10 to 300 kg/m3) (see last paragraph of Page 5 of the machine translation). Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the polyurethane foam of Yukigawa in the insulation device of Fritz. The motivation would have been that Yukigawa teaches its polyurethane foam has excellent damping properties and also achieves a larger loss factor and high mechanical strength while being lighter weight (see two paragraphs before “Mode-For-Invention” on Page 6 of the reference).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered. The Office responds as follows:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
The Office agrees that the amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome all outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). Accordingly, all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that the new limitations presented in the claims are not taught by the applied references. However, it is the Office’s position that these limitations are met by primary reference Fritz for the reasons detailed in the modified grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 above.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights