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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species A in the reply filed on July 21, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 2 and 10-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 21, 2025.
Claims 1 and 3-9 will be examined on the merits.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is more than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding the "means for adapting the flow rate of the water" language in claim 5, applicant appears to have met the limitations set forth in MPEP § 2181, and examiner has turned to the specification for clarification. In the specification, applicant discloses “means for adapting” as comprising control valves and the control unit configured to control the operation of the pumps (see Applicant’s Specification page 4, line 21 – page 5, line 2). Equivalent structures may include those that perform the function specified in the claim, structures that are not excluded by any specific definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, or is a structural equivalent of the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2183.
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 1 and 3-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, the phrase "or the like" in line 1 renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, the phrase "like…" (“like fresh water” in line 4 and “like dishes or laundry” in line 7) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention and also renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3-9 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, the phrase "like…" (“like plastic, stainless steel or aluminum” in line 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention and also renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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, 3-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016109186A1 to Ennen et al. (see machine translation) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0244255 to Haegermarck et al.
As to claim 1, Ennen discloses a home appliance such as a dishwasher (see Ennen paragraph [0001]) comprising: a water supply unit including a water supply port configured to be connected to a water supply for supplying water to the home appliance (see Ennen Fig. 1, ref.#4; paragraph [0024]); a water reservoir capable of storing water to be supplied to the home appliance by the water supply unit (see Ennen Fig. 1, ref.#6; paragraph [0025]); a treatment space for treating objects in the home appliance like dishes or laundry (see Ennen Fig. 1, ref.#2; paragraphs [0002], [0024]); at least one pump capable of circulating water inside the treatment space and capable of discharging water from the treatment space (see Ennen paragraphs [0006], [0007]-[0009]); a heat exchanger arranged between the water supply unit and the water reservoir for exchanging heat between the water supplied to the reservoir and the water discharged from the treatment space by the at least one pump unit (see Ennen Fig. 1, ref.#3). Ennen further discloses that the dishwasher is controlled (see Ennen paragraphs [0008] and [0013]) and so a control unit for controlling the operation of the home appliance is implicitly disclosed. Finally, Ennen discloses controlling the pump for adapting the operation time of the pump unit to the fresh water supply (see Ennen paragraph [0008]).
Ennen does not explicitly disclose a flow meter capable of determining the flow rate of the water supplied by a water tap to the reservoir and wherein the control unit controls the pump unit for adapting the operation time of the pump unit to the flow rate for filing the water reservoir. Haegermarck discloses a similar home appliance with a heat exchanger wherein a flow meter is used to determine the flow rate of the water supplied by a water inlet and the control unit controls the pump unit for adapting the operation time of the pump unit to the flow rate for filing the water reservoir (see Haegermarck paragraphs [0037]-[0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the flow meter and control unit configured to control the pump unit for adapting the operation time of the pump unit to the flow rate for filing the water reservoir as disclosed by Haegermarck in order to optimize the heat transfer as well as operation of the pump (see Haegermarck paragraphs [0037]-[0038]). To the extent that it could be argued that Ennen does not disclose a control unit or a pump unit for circulating water inside the treatment space, Haegermarck discloses that control units and circulation pumps are known in the art and do not provide patentable significance (see Haegermarck paragraphs [0002], [0032], [0043]-[0046]).
As to claim 3, the combination of Ennen and Haegermarck discloses that the heat exchanger can be a counter flow heat exchanger (see Ennen paragraph [0008]).
As to claim 4, the combination of Ennen and Haegermarck discloses that the pump unit can include at least one of a drainage pump or a circulation pump for supplying water from the treatment space to the heat exchanger (see Ennen paragraphs [0006]-[0009]; Haegermarck Fig. 1, ref.#11).
As to claim 5, the combination of Ennen and Haegermarck discloses including a means for adapting the flow rate of the water to be supplied to the reservoir and the water supplied from the treatment space to the heat exchanger (see Ennen paragraphs [0008]-[0009]; Haegermarck paragraphs [0037]-[0039]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Ennen and Haegermarck discloses the heat exchanger includes at least one first flow channel for the water to be supplied to the reservoir and at least one second flow channel for the water supplied by the pump unit (see Ennen Figs. 1-3 and Haegermarck Fig. 1, ref.#11).
As to claim 7, the combination of Ennen and Haegermarck discloses that the first and second flow channels can be arranged side by side (see Ennen Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 9, the combination of Ennen and Haegermarck discloses that the first and second flow channels of the heat exchanger can be made of a heat conducting material (see Ennen paragraph [0016] and Haegermarck paragraph [0039]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016109186A1 to Ennen et al. (see machine translation) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0244255 to Haegermarck et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,660,193 to Archer et al.
Ennen and Haegermarck are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 8, the combination of Ennen and Haegermarck does not explicitly disclose that the second flow channel is arranged inside the first flow channel. Archer discloses a similar home appliance with a heat exchanger wherein the heat exchanger is a coaxial type heat exchanger with an outer pipe for the cold fresh water and an inner pipe for the heated liquids (see Archer col. 3, lines 41-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a coaxial type heat exchanger and the results would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another is prima facie obvious).
Conclusion
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