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 22 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 22 if originally presented would have been restrictable under combination/subcombination. The combination (claim 1) does not require all the particulars of the subcombination (claim 22), such as the handle, capacitive zones, etc. The subcombination (claim 22) can be used in an appliance that isn’t a dishwasher, or a dishwasher that does not have the particulars of claim 1 (e.g. door and latched/unlatched position, and associated controller step of “determining”).
Claim 22 would pose additional search/examination burden by requiring different search strategies/queries to account for the nonoverlapping structural limitations 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 Accordingly, claim 22 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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 10/16/2025, with respect to the previous 112 rejections of the claims (see FP #7 of nonfinal action dated 9/19/2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has canceled claim 5. The previous 112 rejection of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 regarding the previous objections to the claims (see FP #4 of nonfinal action dated 9/19/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has not addressed the previous objection. The objection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 regarding the previous 103 rejection of claim 1 under modified Heidel have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amendment to claim 1 overcomes modified Heidel. In particular, Applicant argues the secondary teachings of Cabaleiro in that if a user were to maintain contact with the button after any amount of time, nothing would start.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner considers the amendment to reflect the limitations of previous dependent claims 4-5, and has similarly been rejected. Regarding the starting of a washing cycle, Examiner considers Cabaleiro teaches starting a program after a press & hold (see Calabeiro’s Figures 2a & 2b. refer to memory program 206. [0066]-[0067]). Examiner notes that the claim language does not prohibit further release of the button. The claim simply requires initiating the washing cycle in response to the maintained physical contact.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in the last clause, “initiating the washing cycle is performed” should be rephrased. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: the “wherein” clause should begin on a new line. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6-9, 19-21 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the washing cycle" in in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (WO 2019015960, “Heidel”) in view of Cabaleiro et al. (EP 3699349, “Cabaleiro”).
Heidel teaches a household appliance comprising the following of claim 1 except where underlined:
For Claim 1:
A dishwasher appliance comprising:
a tub defining a receiving chamber (see Figures 1-5, rinsing container 2);
a door movably coupled to the tub to provide selective access to the receiving chamber, the door being movable between a latched position and an unlatched position (see Figures 1-5, door 3);
an input module provided on the door, the input module configured to receive one or more input patterns (see Figures 1-5, control panel 8, downstream electronics 17. machine translation, [0035]. refer to “control electronics 17” as being a touchpad or control elements). Examiner considers one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the control electronics 17 to be located on the control panel 8, but if argued, Examiner takes Official Notice it is well-known to place the user interface and associated inputs such as buttons, dials, etc. on a control panel (see MPEP 2144.03, Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or "Well Known" Prior Art); and
a controller operably coupled with the input module, the controller configured to perform an operation, the operation comprising (see Figure 1, control electronics board 19):
determining that the door is moved from the unlatched position to the latched position (see Figure 3, transients P1 & P2. see machine translation, [0006], [0011], [0031]-[0037]);
receiving, via the input module, a first input pattern of the one or more input patterns after determining that the door is moved from the unlatched position to the latched position (see machine translation, [0031]-[0037]). Heidel teaches waking up control electronics 17;
retrieving a first set of cycle settings corresponding to the first input pattern in response to receiving the first input pattern; and
receiving, via the input module, a second input pattern of the one or more input patterns after retrieving the first set of cycle settings; and
initiating the washing cycle is performed in response to receiving the second input pattern comprising a touch input with maintained physical contact for at least a predetermined length of time (see machine translation, [0033]. Refer to “start a program”).
Regarding the controller itself, Heidel generally teaches a control electronics/circuit board 19 as well as certain interactions with control electronics 17 which reflects some of the claimed operation steps, but Heidel does not appear explicit as to the particular functionality of the control electronics board 19.
If challenged as to whether a controller is performing the particulars of the operation claimed above, Examiner considers associating a controller with the various inputs and programs as an obvious automation activity and refers to Cabaleiro, who has a controller in communication with the user interface and memory containing the washing programs (see Figure 1, memory 103, user interface 104, controller 105) (see MPEP 2144.04, “Automating a Manual Activity”. alternatively, see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Regarding the retrieving and initiating by the controller as well as the second input pattern and touch input, Heidel teaches control electronics as comprising touchpad or control elements, but Heidel does not appear explicit to the actual input particulars of control electronics 17 pertaining to cycle settings or a washing cycle.
Examiner however, considers selection of washing cycles/courses via user interface and the use of multiple buttons and press & hold as conventional in the washing arts and refers again to Cabaleiro, who teaches using (see Cabaleiro’s Figures 1, 2a-2c, memory 103. refer to memory programs P1, P2, etc. refer to “press and hold”. [0009]-[0012], [0018], [0035], [0066]-[0067]). Cabaleiro teaches pressing/releasing buttons to select and start programs (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Modified Heidel also teaches the following:
For Claim 2:
The dishwasher appliance of claim 1, further comprising:
a sensor configured to sense a closed position of the door, wherein determining that the door is in the latched position comprises sensing, via the sensor, a position of the door (see Heidel’s Figure 3, transients P1 & P2. machine translation, [0028]-[0037]).
For Claim 3:
The dishwasher appliance of claim 1, wherein the input module comprises a touch module configured to receive touch input patterns (see Heidel’s machine translation, [0035]).
For Claim 7:
The dishwasher appliance of claim 1, wherein the first input pattern corresponds to a predetermined wash cycle, the predetermined wash cycle comprising the first set of cycle settings (see Cabaleiro’s Figures 1, 2a-2c, memory 103. refer to memory programs P1, P2, etc. [0009]).
For Claim 8:
The dishwasher appliance of claim 1, wherein the operation further comprises:
activating the input module upon determining that the door is moved from the unlatched position to the latched position (see Heidel’s machine translation, [0006], [0011], [0035]-[0037]). Heidel teaches waking up downstream electronics 16 & 17. Examiner refers in particular to control electronics 17;
determining that the door has been in the latched position for greater than a predetermined threshold length of time after being moved to the latched position (see Heidel’s Figure 3, transients P1 & P2. Machine translation, [0031], [0033]). Heidel teaches transients P1 & P2 as reflecting a lock state. Heidel then uses a “timeout” period to put control electronics 17 back to sleep; and
deactivating the input module upon determining that the door has been in the latched position for greater than the predetermined threshold length of time (see Heidel’s machine translation, [0012], [0029], [0033]). Heidel teaches applying a switch-off or sleep state to the downstream electronics 16 & 17.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (WO 2019015960, “Heidel”) in view of Cabaleiro et al. (EP 3699349, “Cabaleiro”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilson (US 20190167064).
Modified Heidel teaches claim 1.
Modified Heidel appears to teach the following:
For Claim 6:
The dishwasher appliance of claim 1, wherein the input module comprises a microphone configured to receive voice input patterns (see Cabaleiro’s [0037]). If the voice interface is challenged, Examiner refers below to Wilson.
If challenged, Examiner however, considers it conventional in the washing arts to use a microphone as part of a user interface to receive input and refers to Wilson (see Wilson’s [0029]). Using a microphone as part of Heidel’s control panel 8 or user interface would yield a predictable variation thereof (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (WO 2019015960, “Heidel”) in view of Cabaleiro et al. (EP 3699349, “Cabaleiro”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baldwin et al. (US 20120111366, “Baldwin”).
Modified Heidel teaches claim 1.
Modified Heidel does not teach the following:
For Claim 9:
The dishwasher appliance of claim 1, wherein the input module is provided on a handle of the door.
Examiner however, considers it conventional in the washing arts to position a user interface or associated buttons/input on the door handle and refers to Baldwin (see Baldwin’s Figures 1-2, 5-6, 11-13, handle 62, user interface 70 & 170. [0019]) (see MPEP 2144.04, “Rearrangement of Parts”).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (WO 2019015960, “Heidel”) in view of Cabaleiro et al. (EP 3699349, “Cabaleiro”) and Baldwin et al. (US 20120111366, “Baldwin”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gross (US 20220151457).
Modified Heidel teaches claim 9.
Modified Heidel teaches input/buttons (refer to claim 1 rejection. see Cabaleiro’s [0018], [0035]) but does not appear to teach the following:
For Claim 19:
The dishwasher appliance of claim 9, wherein the input module is configured to detect touch based on a change in capacitance.
Examiner however, considers capacitive sensors/buttons as well-known in the art and refers to Gross (see Gross’ Figure 3, touch buttons 216. [0034]). Using capacitive sensors/buttons for Heidel’s control electronics 17 as a predictable variant/simple substitution of buttons, as Cabaleiro already teaches to use buttons (refer to claim 1 rejection. see Cabaleiro’s [0018], [0035]) (see MPEP 2143, "(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”).
For Claim 20:
The dishwasher appliance of claim 9, wherein the input module comprises at least one discrete capacitive touch zone (refer to claim 19 rejection). Examiner considers a touch zone can broadly construed to mean effectively any arrangement of buttons.
For Claim 21:
The dishwasher appliance of claim 20, wherein the at least one discrete capacitive touch zone is positioned at a first lateral side of the handle and at a second lateral side of the handle (refer to claim 9 rejection regarding applying the user interface and buttons to handle. see MPEP 2144.04, “Rearrangement of Parts”). Further shifting the position of the user interface and/or buttons to the sides of the handle would constitute an obvious rearrangement of parts.
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