DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong [US 2012/0181242]. Jeong teaches of a washing device (100) for cleaning cosmetology equipment and accessories {the device is entitled to all its potential uses} , the washing device comprising a washer body (110), a washer door (120), an upper wash rack (150) and a lower wash rack (either (140) or (130)) wherein the upper wash rack and lower wash rack have a grid structure (note figs. 1 & 2 for instance) which is configured to hold various cosmetology equipment and accessories and wherein the upper wash rack includes a vertical rack attachment (151) for holding clips and includes short pegs ((151a) or (151c)) and long pegs ((151c) or (152a)) configured to hold accessories having a hollow portion. As to Claim 4, the short pegs and long pegs have a detachable configuration (i.e., they are capable of being removed from the grid structure (153) for instance). As to Claim 5, the device further includes a basket (such as the “additional basket” as described in [0063] for instance) configured to hold oddly shaped accessories. As to Claim 6, the washer body includes inner sidewall mounts (112) for allowing repositioning of the upper wash rack (i.e., the upper wash rack (150) may be repositioned to a lower part of the wash tub as described in [0059]).
Claims 1, 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., [US 2014/0217868]. Kim teaches of a washing device (10) for cleaning cosmetology equipment and accessories {the device is entitled to all its potential uses} , the washing device comprising a washer body (15), a washer door (12), an upper wash rack (100) and a lower wash rack (either (60) or (50)) wherein the upper wash rack and lower wash rack have a grid structure (note fig. 3A for instance) which is configured to hold various cosmetology equipment and accessories and wherein the upper wash rack includes a vertical rack attachment (110, 120) for holding clips and includes short pegs (short (165)) and long pegs (long (165)) configured to hold accessories having a hollow portion – the pegs can vary in height as dependent upon the items being held within the pegs [note col. 11]. As to Claim 4, the short pegs and long pegs have a detachable configuration (i.e., the pegs are on blocks which are capable of being removed from the grid structure). As to Claim 6, the washer body includes inner sidewall mounts (viewed as the fixed rail assemblies) for allowing repositioning of the upper wash rack (i.e., the upper wash rack may be repositioned to a lower part of the wash tub such as when rack (100) is moved lower to the rack (60) position – fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel in view of Kim et al. McDaniel teaches of a washing device (10) for cleaning cosmetology equipment and accessories {the device is entitled to all its potential uses} , the washing device comprising a washer body (12/14), a washer door (20), an upper wash rack (36) and a lower wash rack (46) wherein the upper wash rack and lower wash rack have a grid structure (note figs. 1-2 & 4 for instance) which is configured to hold various cosmetology equipment and accessories wherein the upper wash rack includes a vertical rack attachment (118) for holding clips. McDaniel teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed washing device, but does not show the upper rack as having short and long pegs in a detachable configuration. As to this feature, Kim is cited as an evidence reference for the known teaching of a dishwasher (10) having an upper rack (100) containing removable short and long pegs (various peg sizes along removable blocks (150)) in an analogous art. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include various sized pegs within the upper rack of McDaniel in view of Kim’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device since the incorporation of a pegs within the dishwasher’s rack would help to support items in different positions relative to the rack in order to improve the washing process [note col. 8 of Kim]. As modified, Kim teaches that the heights of the pegs may be different depending upon the articles being held for washing [note col. 11 of Kim]. Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the short and long pegs would have a detachable configuration (i.e., the pegs can be on blocks which are capable of being removed from the grid structure). Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the washer body includes inner sidewall mounts (26 / 30) for allowing repositioning of the upper wash rack (i.e., a height of the upper rack is adjustable [0036]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel and Kim et al., and further in view of Bhajak et al., [US 2014/0217868]. McDaniel as modified teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed washing device, but does not show the addition of a basket. As to this feature, Bhajak is cited as an evidence reference for the known teaching of a basket (18) being incorporated within a rack (15) of a washing device (2) in an analogous art. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a basket to the device of McDaniel in view of Bhajak’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device since the incorporation of a basket within the dishwasher’s rack would help to compartmentalize the storage capacity within the dishwasher thereby affording a user the ability to securely place smaller objects within the basket in order to safeguard them during the cleaning process.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bhajak et al., [US 2014/0217868]. Kim teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed washing device, but does not show the addition of a basket. As to this feature, Bhajak is cited as an evidence reference for the known teaching of a basket (18) being incorporated within a rack (15) of a washing device (2) in an analogous art. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a basket to the device of Kim in view of Bhajak’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device since the incorporation of a basket within the dishwasher’s rack would help to compartmentalize the storage capacity within the dishwasher thereby affording a user the ability to securely place smaller objects within the basket in order to safeguard them during the cleaning process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 07, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the references to Jeong & Kim, note the following: A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. The Office determines the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Once a prima facie case of anticipation has been established, the burden shifts to applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) ("Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product."). See also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,708-09, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Office may find in the prior art a feature, which is capable of performing a function recited in the claims. "The Board's finding that the scaled-up version of figure 5 of Harz would be capable of performing all of the functions recited in Schreiber's claim 1 is a factual finding, which ... [otherwise] ...must be shown to be clearly erroneous..." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1479, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1973). As such, the position is maintained that both Jeong & Kim teach all the claimed elements as set forth, both structurally and functionally (i.e., the prior art teaches structure that has the capacity to perform the intended function(s)).
Regarding the reference to McDaniel, note the following: applicant’s arguments with respect to McDaniel have been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection; additionally, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The position is taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d at 1396.
Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) / new mapping of the rejection(s) 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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JOH
November 21, 2025
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637