DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 4/22/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockwell U.S. Publication 2015/0097472 (henceforth referred to as Rockwell).
As for claim 1, Rockwell teaches a dishwasher appliance (Fig. 1: part 100) defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction (Figs. 1-4), the dishwasher appliance comprising: a structural base (Figs. 1-6; depicted as the structure below the tub 200 including the space for the inlet 300 and drain lines 302); a wash tub (Fig. 2: part 200) positioned on top of the structural base and defining a wash chamber for receipt of a load of articles (Figs. 1-6); a tub support positioned between the structural base and the wash tub (Figs. 3-6; the structure directly below tub 200 is supporting tub 200, with the structural base below), a blanket retention feature (Fig. 4: part 490); and an insulation blanket (Fig. 4: part 400) positioned over at least a portion of the wash tub, the insulation blanket configured to engage the blanket retention feature to retain the insulation blanket on the wash tub (paragraph [0049]; Figs. 4-6).
Rockwell differs from the instant claims in failing to teach that the tub support defines the blanket retention feature. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
As for claims 2-3 and 14, Rockwell further teaches that the tub support comprises: a mounting structure that is attached to the structural base and defines a tub support surface for supporting the wash tub (paragraphs [0039]-[0041] and [0049]; Figs. 4-6).
Rockwell differs from the instant claims in failing to teach that the blanket retention feature is integrally formed with the mounting structure as a single, integral piece. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as parts made integral. It would have been considered desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the reason of improved structural integrity, to integrally form the blanket retention feature and the mounting structure. See MPEP § 2144.04, V, B. Making Integral.
As for claims 4 and 15, Examiner takes official notice that it would have been well known for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tub support from an injection molded plastic.
As for claims 5 and 16, Rockwell differs from the instant claims in failing to teach that the blanket retention feature is a U-shaped clip oriented down along the vertical direction. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed shape is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a change in shape. It is old and well known to change shapes, with no change in their respective functions, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B. Changes in Shape.
As for claims 6-7 and 17, Rockwell further teaches that the tub support and the blanket retention feature are positioned proximate a rear of the wash tub along a transverse direction and a bottom of the wash tub along a vertical direction (Figs. 4-6).
As for claims 8 and 18, Rockwell further teaches that the tub support is a first tub support positioned on a first side of the wash tub (Fig. 5), the dishwasher appliance further comprising a second tub support positioned on a second side of the wash tub (Fig. 6).
As for claims 9-10 and 19, Rockwell further teaches that the insulation blanket defines an aperture for receiving the blanket retention feature, and wherein the insulation blanket is taught over the wash tub when the blanket retention feature engages the aperture of the insulation blanket (paragraphs [0039]-[0041] and [0049]; Figs. 4-6).
As for claims 11 and 20, Rockwell further teaches that the wash tub defines a front collar that protrudes outward from a tub sidewall, and wherein the blanket retention feature does not protrude further than the front collar (paragraphs [0039]-[0041] and [0049]; Figs. 4-6).
As for claim 12, Rockwell differs from the instant claims in failing to teach that the insulation blanket defines a back flap that is seated over a rear of the wash tub. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed shape is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a change in shape. It is old and well known to change shapes, with no change in their respective functions, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B. Changes in Shape.
As for claim 13, Rockwell teaches an insulation assembly (paragraphs [0039]-[0041]; Figs. 4-6) for a dishwasher appliance (Fig. 1: part 100), the dishwasher appliance comprising a structural base (Figs. 1-6; depicted as the structure below the tub 200 including the space for the inlet 300 and drain lines 302) and a wash tub (Fig. 2: part 200) positioned on top of the structural base (Figs. 1-6), the insulation assembly comprising: a tub support positioned between the structural base and the wash tub (Figs. 3-6; the structure directly below tub 200 is supporting tub 200, with the structural base below), a blanket retention feature (Fig. 4: part 490); and an insulation blanket (Fig. 4: part 400) positioned over at least a portion of the wash tub, the insulation blanket configured to engage the blanket retention feature to retain the insulation blanket on the wash tub (paragraph [0049]; Figs. 4-6).
Rockwell differs from the instant claims in failing to teach that the tub support defines the blanket retention feature. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVON J SHAHINIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/LEVON J SHAHINIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711