Hanghange 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 Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim appears to be missing the term “wherein” (or similar term) before -the plurality of second-direction holders-. 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 38-39 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.
Claims 38 and 39 specify “along a lengthwise direction” but do not state what the lengthwise direction is in reference to such as the base, the first or second direction holders. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,279. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because only minor differences in terminology or phrasing are present so that one of ordinary skill would recognize the present claim 1 to be obvious over the patented claim.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Moser et al. (US 2008/0302740).
Regarding claim 21, Moser et al. (hereafter “D1”) discloses a dishwasher (abstract) comprising: a storage assembly (basket 1, holding devices 2), the storage assembly comprising: a base (at wire mat 6) comprising a plurality of horizontal bars (parallel bars in one direction of 6/7/8) and a plurality of vertical bars (bars of 6/7/8 normal to the horizontal bars), wherein the plurality of horizontal bars intersect with the plurality of vertical bars (figure 3); a supporter (support plate 10) that is disposed at the base and protrudes from the base ([0035]; figure 1); and a first holder (wire 5b, prong row 4b) that is mounted on the supporter and configured to rotate with respect to the supporter (10) ([0039]), wherein the supporter supports the first holder to thereby maintain a posture of the first holder at a pre-determined angle with respect to the supporter (stop noses 15b secures prong row 4b at a specific angle – [0038]).
Regarding claim 22, D1 discloses wherein the first holder (5b, 4b) comprises: a rotating body (wire 5b) that is mounted on the supporter and configured to rotate with respect to the supporter ([0039]); a first rotation tine (top of prong 3b that extends above 5b) that protrudes from the rotating body toward a direction that intersects with a direction of a rotation axis of the rotating body (as it intersects with 5b); and a second rotation tine (bottom of prong 3b that extends above 5b) that is configured to rotate together with the rotating body and protrudes in a direction that intersects with (i) the direction of the rotation axis and (ii) a protruding direction of the first rotation tine (tines of 3b intersect at 5b and extend in differing directions from their connection to 5b, figure 1; even though tines are part of a same prong member, much as applicants disclosed tines are part of a single member).
Regarding claim 23, D1 discloses wherein the first holder (5b, 4b) comprises: a mounting projection (projecting part of 5b which is received by bearing bush 11b – [0036]; figure 5) that protrudes in the direction of the rotation axis; and a stopper (holding part 17b) that is coupled to the mounting projection and protrudes in a direction that intersects with the direction of the rotation axis (protrudes up from the end of 5b to be stopped in the stop nose 15b – [0038]).
Regarding claim 24, D1 discloses wherein the supporter (10) defines: a mounting groove (in/at bearing bush 11b) at a first recessed surface of the supporter (11b is recessed away from main surface of 10), wherein the mounting projection (projecting part of 5b received in 11b) is disposed at the mounting groove; and a plurality of guide grooves (in/at holding parts 15a, 15b – figure 5) at a second recessed surface of the supporter (15a and 15b are recessed to a surface away from the main body of 10), wherein the plurality of guide grooves extend toward the mounting groove (figure 5), wherein a degree of recession at the second recessed surface is less than a degree of recession at the first recessed surface (second recessed surface of 15a/b is recessed a lesser distance from the main body of 10 than the first recessed surface at 11b), wherein the plurality of guide grooves are disposed at different angles with respect to the mounting groove (figure 5), and wherein the stopper (17b) is mounted on at least one of the plurality of guide grooves (mounted to/in 15b as in figure 4).
Regarding claim 25, D1 discloses wherein the stopper (at 17b) is configured to, based on an external force being applied to the first holder, be mounted on the at least one of the plurality of guide grooves (at 11b) or be disengaged from the at least one of the plurality of guide grooves ([0038]).
Regarding claim 28, D1 discloses wherein the rotating body (5b) is disposed in parallel with at least one of the plurality of horizontal bars or the plurality of vertical bars (parallel to a wire 6), and the rotating body overlaps with at least one of the plurality of horizontal bars or the plurality of vertical bars (passes over a wire 6 – figure 1).
Regarding claim 29, D1 discloses wherein the first holder (5b, 4b) comprises a rib (top of one of tine 3b has a ribbed cover or end member – figure 1) that protrudes from a surface of at least one of the rotating body, the first rotation tine, or the second rotation tine to thereby enhance stiffness of the first holder.
Regarding claim 30, D1 discloses wherein the supporter (10) protrudes from the base at an intersection position between at least one of the plurality of horizontal bars and at least one of the plurality of vertical bars (as best seen in figure 4, supporter 10 is mounted at an intersection of wires 6 of the base / basket frame).
Regarding claim 31, D1 discloses wherein a length of the first rotation tine (top / upward extending tine of 3b) is greater than a length of the second rotation tine (downward extending tine of 3b).
Regarding claim 32, D1 discloses wherein the first holder (5b, 4b) comprises: a plurality of first rotation tines (of members 3b) including the first rotation tine; and a plurality of second rotation tines (of members 3b) including the second rotation tine, wherein each of the plurality of first rotation tines intersect with each of the plurality of second rotation tines in the direction of the rotation axis (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 33, D1 discloses wherein the first rotation tine (top of prong 3b that extends above 5b) or the second rotation tine (bottom of prong 3b that extends above 5b) extends from an intersection position (intersection at 5b) between the first rotation tine and the second rotation tine in the direction of the rotation axis.
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.
Claim(s) 34-35, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser et al. (US 2008/0302740) in view of Harr et al. (US 2021/0393108).
Regarding claim 34, D1 discloses only first holders (5b, 4b) in a same direction in the dishrack. Harr et al. teaches a dishrack (400) having a configuration of tine assemblies (indicated as tine rows TR) arranged in perpendicular directions (figure 2F, 8; [0053-0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize a plurality of the holders/supporters of D1 arranged in perpendicular directions in the dishrack for accommodating a variety of dish and glass ware.
Regarding claim 35, D1 as modified discloses holders arranged in differing directions and it further would have been obvious to utilize the holders in differing lengths including wherein a length of each of the plurality of first-direction holders is greater than a length of each of the plurality of second-direction holders, to accommodate desired amounts of differing types of dishware products.
Regarding claim 38, D1 as modified discloses wherein the plurality of first-direction holders are disposed in the same direction and overlap with each other along a lengthwise direction (as in D1 holders arranged in parallel are overlapping in a lengthwise direction).
Regarding claim 39, D1 as modified discloses wherein the plurality of second-direction holders are disposed in the same direction and spaced apart from each other along a lengthwise direction (as per claim 34 the second-direction holders would be arranged in parallel).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-27, 36-37, 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest any combination meeting the limitations claims 26-27, 36-37, and 40. Specifically, D1 does not teach at least the claimed guide grooves at the specified angular positions as required by claims 26-27 or the handle as required by claim 36 or the lesser length end tines of claim 37 or the division bar of claim 40, and the prior art documents of record do not suggest a modification to meet these limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited form PTO-892. References not applied but cited are relevant as disclosing or suggesting at least one feature in the claims or disclosure of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631 c