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
Newly submitted claim 19 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Newly introduced independent claim 19 would have been restrictable from original and/or amended claim 1 under combination/subcombination. Claim 19 (combination) does not require the controller particulars of original/amended claim 1 (subcombination), such as the selection of the first fluid inlet channel. Original/amended claim 1 (subcombination) can be used in another combination, such as a dispenser assembly wherein the controller does not initiate the pump to urge air through the open-air channel.
New independent claim 19 would pose a serious search/examination burden by requiring different search strategies/queries due to the nonoverlapping structural configurations of the controllers as denoted above (see MPEP 808.02, Establishing Burden, (C) A different field of search).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 19 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to the previous 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under modified Schulze have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite a segmented-ring seal, which does not appear to be taught by Schulze. Schulze teaches a plurality of distinct sealing rings/o-rings (see Figures 1-4, seals 47-52. [0027]). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously modified Schulze, and further in view of Dyer et al. (US 20210053018).
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze (US 20110154864) in view of Dyer et al. (US 20210053018, “Dyer”) and Wilcox et al. (US 20090199881, “Wilcox”).
Schulze teaches a multi-action addition valve comprising the following of claim 1 except where underlined:
For Claim 1:
A dispenser assembly for an appliance, the dispenser assembly comprising:
a fluid diverter comprising a plurality of fluid inlet channels, a fluid outlet channel, and a diverter input shaft (see Figures 1-4, housing base 21, drive shaft 23, housing cover 26, central nozzle 27, nozzles 29-34, channels 41-46). Examiner interprets the distributor/valve depicted in Figures 1-4 as the fluid diverter;
a segmented-ring seal having a plurality of cross-connecting segments to define a plurality of seal openings fluidly separating the plurality of fluid inlet channels (see Figures 1-4, seals 47-52. [0027]);
a pump fluidly coupled to the fluid diverter for selectively urging a flow of fluid from the fluid diverter into the appliance (see Figures 1-4, pump 18);
at least one fluid storage vessel configured to store a fluid, the at least one fluid storage vessel fluidly connected with the fluid diverter via a first fluid inlet channel of the plurality of fluid inlet channels (see Figures 1-4, storage containers 4-7); and
a controller operably connected with the fluid diverter and the pump, the controller being configured to perform an operation, the operation comprising (see [0023]):
receiving a signal to dispense a predetermined volume of the fluid from the at least one fluid storage vessel via the fluid diverter (see [0023]]. The control device has information which sets forth the operation/cycle. Examiner considers this would require some form of signal to start the operation/cycle, but if challenged, Examiner refers below to Wilcox;
selecting the first fluid inlet channel in response to receiving the signal (see [0023]). The control device controls the drive motor based on the information;
initiating the pump to pump the predetermined volume of the fluid from the at least one fluid storage vessel after selecting the first fluid inlet channel (see [0022]-[0024]. refer to “dose”); and
selecting a second fluid inlet channel of the plurality of fluid inlet channels after pumping the predetermined volume of the fluid, wherein the second fluid inlet channel is an open-air inlet channel (see Figures 1-4, intake line 11. [0007], [0023]-[0024]). Schulze teaches rinsing the lines using water stored in container 7. Schulze’s container 7 is used for storing water, but Examiner considers the container 7 once emptied of its water content would result in intake line 11 functioning as an air inlet channel (e.g. intended use of container 7 or other containers would determine whether fluid or air supplied depending on fluid level).
Schulze does not teach the segment-ring seal or the “open-air” inlet channel. The signal may also be argued.
Regarding the segmented-ring seal, Schulze teaches a plurality of seals 47-52 (see Schulze’s Figure 2, seals 47-52. [0027]). Examiner however considers using a single/interconnected sealing element with multiple openings as opposed to multiple distinct sealing rings as the obvious act of making integral (see MPEP 2144.04, “Making Integral”). Examiner refers to Dyer, who teaches a chemical dispenser with a rotary diverter valve using a valve seat that has raised seals which are interconnected/integrated (see Dyer’s Figures 4-5, eductor ports 216, raised seals 218, stiffening ribs 226. [0056]). In addition to the act of making integral, Examiner further notes that Dyer teaches the interconnecting ribs offer strengthening/stiffening to the raised seals.
Regarding the signal, Examiner considers it well-known in the washing arts for a user to initiate a cycle for the appliance to automatically carry out and refers to Wilcox (see Wilcox’s [0001]-[0002]). Having the user initiate the operation/cycle via a start button for example would predictably satisfy the signal (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Examiner considers the “open-air” nature may be argued of container 7, but Examiner considers the containers may be “open-air” by conventional application of a removable cap or lid to the container(s) for refilling purposes and leaving said cap/lid removed. Examiner refers to Wilcox teaching such a conventional cap/lid (see Wilcox’s Figure 2, bulk supply reservoir 62, removable cap 64. [0016]) (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Applying a cap/lid to Schulze’s containers 4-7 for refilling would enable an “open-air” configuration when: 1) the container 7 is empty, and 2) the cap is removed.
Modified Schulze teaches claim 1.
Modified Schulze also teaches the following:
For Claim 2:
The dispenser assembly of claim 1, wherein the fluid diverter further comprises:
a housing, wherein each of the plurality of fluid inlet channels and the fluid outlet channel is formed through the housing (see Schulze’s Figures 1-4, housing base 21, housing cover 26, central nozzle 27, nozzles 29-34, channels 41-46);
a rotatable disk positioned within the housing, the rotatable disk comprising an aperture for being selectively aligned with one of the plurality of fluid inlet channels to provide a flow path between one of the plurality of fluid inlet channels and the fluid outlet channel (see Schulze’s Figures 1-4, rotator 22, drive shaft 23, opening 56); and
an actuator mechanically coupled to the rotatable disk for driving rotation of the rotatable disk about an axis to align the aperture of the rotatable disk with one of the plurality of fluid inlet channels (see Schulze’s Figures 1-4, motor 20).
For Claim 3:
The dispenser assembly of claim 2, wherein selecting the first fluid inlet channel comprises:
rotating, via the actuator, the rotatable disk to a first position at which the aperture is aligned with the first fluid inlet channel (refer to claim 2 rejection. see Schulze’s Figures 1-4, motor 20, rotator 22, drive shaft 23, nozzles 29-34, channels 41-46, opening 56). Motor 20 rotates rotator 22 until opening 56 aligns with the corresponding nozzle/channel of the desired washing aid.
For Claim 4:
The dispenser assembly of claim 3, wherein selecting the second fluid inlet channel comprises:
rotating, via the actuator, the rotatable disk to a second position at which the aperture is aligned with the open-air inlet channel (refer to claim 3 rejection).
For Claim 5:
The dispenser assembly of claim 1, further comprising:
a pump line fluidly coupled between the fluid outlet channel and the pump (see Schulze’s Figures 1-4, liquid line 17).
For Claim 6:
The dispenser assembly of claim 5, wherein the operation further comprises:
initiating the pump to purge the fluid from the pump line after selecting the second fluid inlet channel (see Schulze’s [0007], [0023]-[0024]).
For Claim 7:
The dispenser assembly of claim 1, wherein initiating the pump to pump the predetermined volume of fluid from the at least one fluid storage vessel comprises:
activating the pump according to a predetermined pattern (see Schulze’s [0023]. refer to “duration”).
For Claim 8:
The dispenser assembly of claim 7, wherein the predetermined pattern is based on the predetermined volume of the fluid (see Schulze’s [0023]. refer to “duration”). The duration of the pump activation would correspond with or reflect a desired dose/volume.
For Claim 9:
The dispenser assembly of claim 1, wherein the appliance is a dishwasher appliance comprising a tub and a door moveable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the dispenser assembly is provided within the door (see MPEP 2114, MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART). The appliance is an intended application of the dispenser assembly.
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 MARC LORENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7586 and fax number is (571)270-8586. The examiner can normally be reached from 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gordon Baldwin at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC LORENZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights