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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 are pending, claims 8, 13 and 16 having been cancelled and claims 2-5, 10-12 and 18-20 having been withdrawn. Applicant's response filed September 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 17 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0262594 to Chan in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0093154 to Boyer et al.
As to claim 1, Chan discloses a dishwasher appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, the dishwasher appliance comprising: a wash tub positioned within a cabinet and defining a wash chamber for receipt of a load of articles for washing (see, e.g., Chan paragraph [0021]-[0022] disclosing a dishwasher with a door where it is known in the art that dishwashers are three-dimensional with a cabinet and wash chamber to receive and wash dishes); a door pivotally mounted to the cabinet to provide selective access to the wash chamber (see, e.g., Chan paragraphs [0021]-[0022] disclosing a door to access the cabinet and where it is known in the art that the doors to dishwashers are pivotally mounted); and a load status indicator for indicating a load status of the load of articles (see Chan Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0035)). Boyer discloses that dishwashers with a cabinet defining a wash chamber and a hinged door are known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see, e.g., Boyer Fig. 6).
While Chan discloses that the user notification can be through a wireless link (see Chan paragraph [0044]) and that the user input can be a touch sensor (see Chan paragraph [0054]), Chan does not explicitly disclose that the controller is in operative communication with a remote device over an external network. Use of remote devices to receive user inputs and to display user notification outputs are known in the art (see Boyer paragraphs [0085] and [0199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a remote device for input/output as is known in the art and as disclosed by Boyer for user convenience.
The combination of Chan and Boyer discloses that the controller is configured to determine that a cleaning cycle has been completed and determine that the door has been opened (see Chan paragraph [0011]). Chan further discloses a provision for user input regarding the load status (see Chan paragraph [0011]). As discussed above, Boyer discloses that remote devices to receive user inputs is known in the art (see Boyer paragraphs [0085] and [0199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the provision for user input regarding the load status of Chan to the remote device as disclosed by Boyer in order to improve user convenience.
As to claims 6 and 9, Chan discloses that the load status indicator is configured to receive the load status of the load of articles from a user (see Chan paragraph [0028], [0038] and [0042]-[0044]) and to provide a user notification including the load status of the load of articles (see Chan paragraphs [0021]-[0027], [0044]).
While Chan discloses that the user notification can be through a wireless link (see Chan paragraph [0044]) and that the user input can be a touch sensor (see Chan paragraph [0054]), Chan does not explicitly disclose that the controller is in operative communication with a remote device over an external network to receive the input and provide the user notification output to the remote device. Use of remote devices to receive user inputs and to display user notification outputs are known in the art (see Boyer paragraphs [0085] and [0199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a remote device for input/output as is known in the art and as disclosed by Boyer for user convenience.
As to claim 7, Chan discloses a user interface panel comprising a load status indicator wherein providing the user notification comprises illuminating a load status indicator (see Chan Fig. 2 and paragraph [0021]). To the extent that it could be argued that Chan does not disclose a user interface panel, Boyer discloses that user interface panels are known in the dishwasher art and does not provide patentable significance (see Boyer paragraph [0081]).
As to claims 14 and 17, Chan discloses a dishwasher appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, the dishwasher appliance comprising: a wash tub positioned within a cabinet and defining a wash chamber for receipt of a load of articles for washing (see, e.g., Chan paragraph [0021]-[0022] disclosing a dishwasher with a door where it is known in the art that dishwashers are three-dimensional with a cabinet and wash chamber to receive and wash dishes); a door pivotally mounted to the cabinet to provide selective access to the wash chamber (see, e.g., Chan paragraphs [0021]-[0022] disclosing a door to access the cabinet and where it is known in the art that the doors to dishwashers are pivotally mounted); and a load status indicator for indicating a load status of the load of articles (see Chan Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0035)). Boyer discloses that dishwashers with a cabinet defining a wash chamber and a hinged door are known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see, e.g., Boyer Fig. 6).
Chan further discloses that the load status indicator is configured to receive the load status of the load of articles from a user (see Chan paragraph [0028], [0038] and [0042]-[0044]) and to provide a user notification including the load status of the load of articles (see Chan paragraphs [0021]-[0027], [0044]). While Chan discloses that the user notification can be through a wireless link (see Chan paragraph [0044]) and that the user input can be a touch sensor (see Chan paragraph [0054]), Chan does not explicitly disclose that the controller is in operative communication with a remote device over an external network to receive the input and provide the user notification output to the remote device. Use of remote devices to receive user inputs and to display user notification outputs are known in the art (see Boyer paragraphs [0085] and [0199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a remote device for input/output as is known in the art and as disclosed by Boyer for user convenience.
The combination of Chan and Boyer discloses that the controller is configured to determine that a cleaning cycle has been completed and determine that the door has been opened (see Chan paragraph [0011]). Chan further discloses a provision for user input regarding the load status (see Chan paragraph [0011]). As discussed above, Boyer discloses that remote devices to receive user inputs is known in the art (see Boyer paragraphs [0085] and [0199]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the provision for user input regarding the load status of Chan to the remote device as disclosed by Boyer in order to improve user convenience.
As to claim 15, Chan discloses a user interface panel comprising a load status indicator wherein providing the user notification comprises illuminating a load status indicator (see Chan Fig. 2 and paragraph [0021]). To the extent that it could be argued that Chan does not disclose a user interface panel, Boyer discloses that user interface panels are known in the dishwasher art and does not provide patentable significance (see Boyer paragraph [0081]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the cited prior art discloses teaching away from prompting a user through a remote device because Chan states that the dishwasher clean/dirty indicator eliminates the need to manually set whether the dishes are clean or dirty (citing to Chan paragraph [0011]), said arguments are not persuasive because Chan explicitly discloses receiving user input by manually setting whether the dishes are clean or dirty (see Chan paragraphs [0028], [0038] and [0042]-[0044] disclosing that the user may want to manually set whether the dishes are clean or dirty because the user may, for example have accidently dripped dirty liquids over clean dishes and contaminating the contents of the dishwasher (see paragraph [0038]) and further discloses that a prompt regarding the status may be sent via a wireless link (see paragraph [0044])).
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 DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights