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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claim 1 preamble recites “a mechanism for a door of an electrical household appliance” with “a door of an electrical household appliance” recited merely as an intended use, however, the body of the claim and dependent claims contain positive recitations of the “door”. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the “mechanism” or the “mechanism” in combination with the “door of an electrical household appliance”. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, lines 14-15, “coupling sections” is recited. Line 10 is where the limitation “a coupling portion” is first recited. It is US practice to maintain a consistent naming convention for limitations. While the instant specification uses the term “sections”, the limitation is first recited as a “portion” therefore, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “coupling portions”.
Regarding claim 7, line 1, “coupling sections” is recited. In claim 1, the limitation “a coupling portion” is first recited. It is US practice to maintain a consistent naming convention for limitations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “coupling portions”.
Regarding claim 8, lines 1-2, “coupling sections” is recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “coupling portions”.
Regarding claim 9, line 3, “coupling sections” is recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “coupling portions”.
Regarding claim 11, line 3, “the section” is recited. The “the” should likely be an “a” because the “section” has not previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a section”.
Regarding claim 11, lines 2 and 3, “movable element” is recited. In claim 10, the limitation “a movable member” is first recited. It is US practice to maintain a consistent naming convention for limitations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “movable member”.
Regarding claim 12, line 1, “movable element” is recited. In claim 10, the limitation “a movable member” is first recited. It is US practice to maintain a consistent naming convention for limitations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “movable member”.
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 4, 5, and 6 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 4, line 3, “the shutter housing “ is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is not any shutter feature claimed in claims 1 or 3 from which claim 4 pends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the latch housing”, a second housing claimed in claim 1 in addition to the opener housing.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, they are rejected because they pend from claim 4.
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, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Assmann et al., US 9084526 B2 (hereinafter Assmann).
Regarding claim 1, Assmann teaches a mechanism (door lock 3; push-open unit 5) for a door (door 2) of an electrical household appliance (dishwasher 1), the mechanism comprising:
an opener for pushing open the door (5), the opener comprising an opener housing (housing part 500; housing part 502) and, accommodated therein, a pusher (opening bar 504) arranged for a linear push-open movement (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann) and a drive for the pusher (motor 506); and
a latch for holding the door closed (3), wherein the latch comprises a latch housing (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann) and, accommodated therein, at least one movably arranged closing element (roller 30), wherein the at least one closing element is provided for engagement, holding the door closed, with a counter-body (lock catch 22) approaching the closing element when the door is closed (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann depicts and col 3, lines 49-67 discusses how 30 approaches and engages 22);
wherein the opener housing and the latch housing each have a coupling portion (Fig 3 depicts the opener housing coupling portion to be the portion of 520 perpendicular to the long axis of 504; Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann depicts the latch housing coupling portion), which cooperate to effectuate a mechanical coupling of the opener housing and the latch housing (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann depicts the two coupling portions coming together thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of coupling and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term); and
wherein the opener housing comprises at least a first fastening means, which is adapted to attach the mechanism to the electrical household appliance when the coupling portions (see claim interpretation for claim 1 Claim Objection) of the opener housing and the latch housing are mechanically coupled (Fig 3 depicts the first fastening means to be the center molded screw hole located on the upper side of 512 and Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann depicts the mounted opener housing and the mechanically coupled opener and latch housings).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig2-Assmann
Regarding claim 2, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the drive (506) is an electric motor drive (col 4, line 33-col 5, line 5 discusses 5406 being a DC motor).
Regarding claim 7, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the coupling portions (see claim interpretation for claim 7 Claim Objection; Fig 3 depicts the opener housing coupling portion to be the portion of 520 perpendicular to 504) forms an arresting means (the opener housing coupling portion forms an arresting means, as discussed in instant specification [0015], because it blocks the latch housing from being released from contact with opener housing in a direction towards 552 as shown in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 8, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 7, wherein the at least one of the coupling portions (see claim interpretation for claim 8 Claim Objection; Fig 3 depicts the opener housing coupling portion to be the portion of 520 perpendicular to 504) comprises an undercut, tab, catch, rail, and/or a clamping hook (Fig 4 depicts the opener housing coupling portion to be a structural wall member, similar to 422 of the instant invention, thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1b of rail and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Regarding claim 9, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein:
the opener housing (500; 502) comprises at least a second fastening means (Fig 3 depicts second fastening means to be the center molded screw hole located on the lower side of 512) adapted to attach the mechanism to the electrical household appliance when the coupling portions (see claim interpretation for claim 9 Claim Objection) of the opener housing and the latch housing are mechanically coupled (Fig 3 and Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann depict the mounted opener housing and the mechanically coupled opener and latch housings);
the latch housing (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann) has at least a third fastening means (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann), which is adapted to fasten the mechanism to the electrical household appliance when the coupling portions of the opener housing and the latch housing are mechanically coupled (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann depicts the third fastening means fixing the coupled opener and latch houses firmly against the top rail of the appliance washing chamber 14 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1c for fasten and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term); and/or
the opener housing and the latch housing each have a further coupling section (Fig 3 depicts the opener housing further coupling section to be the portion of 520 parallel to the long axis of 504; see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann), which cooperate to effectuate a further mechanical coupling of the opener housing and the latch housing (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann depicts the further coupling sections cooperating to further mechanically couple the opener and latch housing against movement).
Regarding claim 10, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 1, further comprising a door sensor (microswitch 570; 570 responds to physical stimulus and transmits a resulting impulse thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of sensor and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) disposed in the opener housing (Fig 3), wherein the latch or the opener (5) comprises a movable member (anchor member 560) adapted to transmit a movement of the door to a portion of the movable member cooperating with the door sensor when the door is closed (col 5, line 65-col 6, line 20 discusses the movement of 560 resulting from the movement of 504 which moves with door 2 and how 560 works with 570 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of cooperate and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Regarding claim 11, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 10, wherein: the movable member (see claim interpretation for claim 11 Claim Objection; 560) comprises a rocker arm (Fig 4 depicts 560 to be a rocker arm) and/or a slider; and a (see claim interpretation for claim 11 Claim Objection) section (arm 564) of the movable member (see claim interpretation for claim 11 Claim Objection) cooperating with the door sensor (570) is arranged in a region of the latch housing facing away from the door (2; Fig 3 depicts 564 located upward and leftward of the sides of the latch housing thereby arranged in a region of the latch housing facing away from door; the door would be located towards the bottom of Fig 3).
Regarding claim 12, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 10, wherein the movable member (see claim interpretation for claim 12 Claim Objection; 560) comprises: a section (locking pin 558) coupled to the closing element (30; Fig 4), which is configured to mechanically transmit a movement of the closing element to the section cooperating with the door sensor (570) when the door is closed (col 7, line 33-col 8, line 22 discusses the movement of 558 along 504 which results in the rotation of 560 which engages with 570); or a portion protruding from the latch housing (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann) adapted to mechanically transmit a movement of the door to the portion cooperating with the door sensor when the door is closed (Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
Regarding claim 13, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein: the latch (3) comprises no electrical and/or electronic components (col 3, lines 49-67 discusses the construction of 3 as a simple design including a resiliently mounted 30 which engages with 22); and only the opener comprises an electrical connection (col 4, line 33-col 5, line 5 discusses 5 comprising a connection to the DC motor 506).
Regarding claim 14, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the latch (3) has a function for mechanically influencing at least one movement feature of the pusher (504; col 6, line 63-col 7, line 22 discusses the 40N closure force of 3 having to be overcome by the spring force of 504 thereby mechanically influencing the movement of 504).
Regarding claim 15, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 14, wherein in having the function for mechanically influencing at least one movement feature of the pusher, the latch (3) has a function for mechanically releasing a movement blocking of the pusher (the closure force of 3 no longer hinders the movement of 504 when 22 is no longer engaged with 30 so no longer blocks the movement of 504 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1b of block and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
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 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmann, US 9084526 B2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kessler et al., US 9605464 B2 (hereinafter Kessler).
Regarding claim 3, Assmann teaches the mechanism according to claim 1.
Assmann is silent on housing materials wherein the opener housing and the latch housing are made of different materials.
Kessler teaches it is known in the art for a drive mechanism to comprise multiple components made of different multiple materials for different reasons (col 6, lines 35-64) or the same component made of different materials for different reasons (col 3, lines 43-67; In re Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), the court held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination) such that Kessler teaches wherein the opener housing and the latch housing are made of different materials.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the silent housing materials of Assmann with the different components with different materials taught by Kessler. The prior art contains a mechanism which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of silent materials (the housing materials of Assmann) with explicit different materials for different components (as taught by Kessler). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to clearly specify component materials in order to improve component durability and reliability resulting in enhanced mechanism performance. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted materials with another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely an mechanism comprising housings made of different materials that is configured to function in the same manner as the mechanism taught by Assmann.
Regarding claim 4, Assmann in view of Kessler teaches the mechanism according to claim 3, wherein: the opener housing (Assmann, 500; 502) comprises a reinforced material (Kessler, col 6, lines 58-64 discusses the first housing formed with glass fibre-reinforced plastic); and/or the latch (see claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 4) housing (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Assmann) comprises a low-friction material (Kessler, col 6, lines 35-48 discusses polyoxymethylene as a component material; Note: the claim recites alternative limitations therefore only one rejection is required).
Regarding claim 5, Assmann in view of Kessler teaches the mechanism according to claim 4, wherein the reinforced material comprises a glass fiber-reinforced material (Kessler, col 6, lines 58-64 discusses the first housing formed with glass fibre-reinforced plastic).
Regarding claim 6, Assmann in view of Kessler teaches the mechanism according to claim 4, wherein the low-friction material comprises polyoxymethylene (Kessler, col 6, lines 35-48 discusses polyoxymethylene as a component material).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for latch and opener mechanisms.
Li et al., CN 108661455 B, teaches an automatic door lock of dishwasher and dishwasher with a door opener and latch.
Rehm et al., DE 102011003818 A1, teaches a dishwasher used in household application, with operating element that is provided with specific force that is larger than locking force of door lock to open the door with a door opener and latch.
Zeig, CH 673856 A5, teaches a locking bar for washing machine or tumble dryer with fish plate and spring loaded tilting catch with a door opener and latch.
Shah et al., US 20090265993 A1, teaches an integrated window regulator assembly which comprises different components made with different materials for different reasons.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675