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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, 116-18 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “the support layer” should be changed to “the rigid support layer” for consistency throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 7, 12-15, 19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slabbekoorn et al. (US Pub. 2014/0060579) in view of Bentley (US Pat. 3,694,622).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Slabbekoorn et al. discloses a dishwasher configured to implement an automatic cycle of operation for treating an article, the household appliance (10) comprising: a treating chamber (16) configured to receive the article for treatment according to automatic cycle operation (Par. 19, 23 and 26); a sump (30) fluidly coupled to the treating chamber (16); a liquid circuit fluidly (Fig. 1) coupled to at least one of the treating chamber (16) or the sump (30); and an immersible heater (38) located within the sump (30), wherein the immersible heater (38) comprising: a heater base (left end of the heater 38, Fig. 1) having a non-immersible portion positioned outside of the sump (30) (Fig. 1; Par. 30). Slabbekoorn does not disclose the heater is a laminate heater comprising: a rigid support layer coupled to and extending from the heater base; a laminate structure provided on the rigid support layer; and a pair of electrodes operably coupling the rigid support layer and the laminate structure with the heater base. Bentley discloses the heater (10, Fig. 1 or 70, Fig. 3) is a laminate heater comprising: a rigid support layer (24) coupled to and extending from the heater base (via electrical line/cable 16 connecting to the pad bus bar 14); a laminate structure (Fig. 3-5) provided on the rigid support layer (24); and a pair of electrodes (14) operably coupling the rigid support layer (24) and the laminate structure with the heater base (Fig. 1-5; Col. 2, Line 43 to Col. 3, Lines 27; Col. 5, Lines 37-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Slabbekoorn et al., the heater is a laminate heater comprising: a rigid support layer coupled to and extending from the heater base; a laminate structure provided on the rigid support layer; and a pair of electrodes operably coupling the rigid support layer and the laminate structure with the heater base, as taught by Bentley, for the purpose of providing a rigid support layer so that the heating structure does not bend.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Bentley discloses the laminate structure comprising: a thermoresistive nano-coating heater layer (26) electrically connected to the pair of electrodes (14); a liquid-impermeable and electrically non-conductive barrier (28) abutting the thermoresistive nano-coating heater layer (26); and a superhydrophobic nano-coating protective layer (30) abutting the liquid-impermeable and electrically non-conductive barrier layer (28) (Fig. 3-5).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Bentley discloses the laminate structure (70, Fig. 3) further comprises a second liquid-impermeable and electrically non-conductive barrier layer (22) provided between the rigid support layer (24) and the thermoresistive nano-coating heater layer (26) (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 7, Slabbekoorn et al. discloses the heater base (left end of the heater 38, Fig. 1) protrudes through a wall of the sump (30) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Slabbekoorn and Bentley disclose the immersible heating element (Slabbekoorn, 38) is a non-tubular heating element (Bentley, 10, Fig. 3-5).
Regarding claim 19, Bentley discloses the pair of electrodes (14) are insulated by the laminate structure (Fig. 3-5).
Regarding claim 21, Bentley discloses the rigid support layer (24) structurally supports the laminate structure (Fig. 3-5).
Regarding claim 22, Slabbekoorn et al. discloses the immersible heater (38) is cantilevered relative to the sump (30) (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slabbekoorn et al. (US Pub. 2014/0060579) in view of Bentley (US Pat. 3,694,622) and further view of Krzossa (DE 3708440).
Regarding claim 4, Slabbekoorn/Bentley disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above except a mechanical vibrator coupled to the immersible heater and configured to mechanically vibrate the immersible heater. Krzossa discloses a mechanical vibrator physically coupled to the immersible heater (Par. 5-6 and 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Slabbekoorn/Bentley, a mechanical vibrator coupled to the immersible heater and configured to mechanically vibrate the immersible heater, as taught by Krzossa, for the purpose of decalcification such as lime or minerals.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slabbekoorn et al. (US Pub. 2014/0060579) in view of Bentley (US Pat. 3,694,622) and further view of Katsuda (US Pat. 3,431,292).
Regarding claim 5 and 16, Slabbekoorn/Bentley disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Bentley, the rigid support layer (24) (Fig. 3-5) except the rigid support layer is a metal plate. Katsuda discloses the rigid support layer (31) is a metal plate (Fig. 15) (Col. 4, Lines 25-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Slabbekoorn/Bentley, the rigid support layer is a metal plate, as taught by Katsuda, for the purpose suitable to the user application to select the metal plate as the support layer.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slabbekoorn et al. (US Pub. 2014/0060579) in view of Bentley (US Pat. 3,694,622) and further view of Barker et al. (US Pat. 4,900,957).
Regarding claims 8-9, Slabbekoorn/Bentley disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Slabbekoorn, the immersible heater (38) where the heater base (left end of the heater 38, Fig. 1) protrudes through the wall of the sump (30) and having a non-immersible portion of the heater base that is positioned outside the sump (Fig. 1) except a seal provides where the heater protrudes through the wall of the sump, the seal configured to prevent the liquid from reaching the non-immersible portion of the heater base; and wherein the seal comprises a gasket formed of a thermoplastic elastomer material. Barker et al. discloses the use of the a seal (42) provided where the rotor shaft (6) protrudes through the wall (17) of the drip pan/sump (13), the seal (42) configured to prevent liquid from reaching the non-immersible portion of the motor that is positioned outside of the drip pan/sump (13); and wherein the seal comprises a gasket formed of a thermoplastic elastomer material (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lines 54-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Slabbekoorn/Bentley, a seal provides where the heater protrudes through the wall of the sump, the seal configured to prevent the liquid from reaching the non-immersible portion of the heater base; and wherein the seal comprises a gasket formed of a thermoplastic elastomer material, as taught by Barker et al., for the purpose of preventing leakage of the fluid.
Regarding claim 10, Slabbekoorn/Bentley/Barker disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Slabbekoorn, the electrodes (wires couple to the controller 40; Fig. 1) extended to pass through the heater base (left of the heater 38, Fig. 1); Bentley, the pairs of electrodes (14) (Fig. 1-4); and from Barker, the gasket (42) (Fig. 1) surrounding the rotor shaft (6) (Fig. 1) except the pair of electrodes extend through the gasket to pass through the heater base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Slabbekoorn/Bentley/Barker, the pair of electrodes extend through the gasket to pass through the heater base, for the purpose of sealing the heater to prevent any leakage.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slabbekoorn et al. (US Pub. 2014/0060579) in view of Bentley (US Pat. 3,694,622), Barker et al. (US Pat. 4,900,957) and further view of McArn (US Pat. 3,663,799).
. Regarding claim 11, Slabbekoorn/Bentley/Barker disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Slabbekoorn, the immersible heater (30), the pair of electrodes (wires couple to the controller 40; Fig. 1); and from Barker, the gasket (42) (Fig. 1) surrounding the rotor shaft (6) (Fig. 1) except an epoxy applied to the pair of electrodes and the gasket where the pair of electrodes extend through the gasket to form a liquid seal. McArn discloses the use of epoxy (23) applied to the pair of electrodes (26, 27) to form a liquid seal (Fig. 1-2; Col. 2, Lines 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Slabbekoorn/Bentley/Barker, an epoxy applied to the pair of electrodes and the gasket where the pair of electrodes extend through the gasket to form a liquid seal, as taught by McArn, for the purpose of liquid seal the heater.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slabbekoorn et al. (US Pub. 2014/0060579) in view of Bentley (US Pat. 3,694,622) and further view of Fowler et al. (US Pub. 2014/0231412).
Regarding claim 17-18, Slabbekoorn/Bentley disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Bentley, the rigid support layer (24) except the rigid support layer is welded to the heater base; the rigid support layer is clamped to the heater base. Fowler et al. discloses the use of the support (30) is welded to the heater base (20); the support (10) is clamped to the heater base (20) (Fig. 1-2; Par. 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Slabbekoorn/Bentley, the rigid support layer is welded to the heater base; the support layer is clamped to the heater base, as taught by Fowler et al., for the purpose of securing the support to the base.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights