DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 21-31 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 18-20 and 22-28 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 21 and 29-37 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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 22-24 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 22 recites that the valve is configured “to guide of the portion of the air” (two instances). These phrases cannot be understood. They are assumed to state that the valve is configured to guide a portion of the air.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 22.
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 18-20, 22-25, 27-30, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170311771 by Lutz et al. in view of WO2014174784A1 by Matoba et al. and EP3020319A1 by Lippera et al.
As to claim 18, Lutz teaches a dishwasher comprising a cavity with a movable front door for loading and unloading (fig. 1); a drying unit 12 comprising a sorbent (fig. 12); and a conveying device 17 to draw air from the cavity in a drying phase.
Lutz teaches that during a drying phase air is guided from the cavity over the sorbent and suggests that its drying arrangement can be combined with exhaust air drying (para. 12) using an air outlet while the door remains closed (para. 52), but does not teach particulars of such embodiment. Thus, Lutz does not teach a valve downstream of the conveying device such that in a drying phase a portion of air from the cavity is guided over the sorbent and a portion of air from the cavity is guided to a region in front of a front side of the dishwasher via an air outlet while the door remains closed during an entire drying phase. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the dishwasher taught by Lutz to have a valve and air outlet as claimed.
Matoba teaches that efficiency of drying is improved by first circulating air over a sorbent, and as dehumidification decreases, guide the air outside of the dishwasher cavity (para. 15); Matoba accomplishes the switching of air flow by using a valve (see fig. 1). Lippera suggests that discharging air in front of a dishwasher is preferred since it is undesirable to discharge air within a dishwasher casing (paras. 15, 23).
Based on the teachings of Lutz, Matoba, and Lippera, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the dishwasher explicitly disclosed by Lutz to have the valve and air outlet as claimed so that drying efficiency may be increased by exhausting air from the cavity during a latter portion of a drying phase, as suggested by Matoba, the air being exhausted to a region in front of the dishwasher to avoid undesirable exhausting into the dishwasher casing, as taught by Lippera.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 19, Lutz teaches that the dishwasher is a household dishwasher (fig. 1).
As to claim 20, Lutz teaches that the air is dried which necessitates it having moisture.
As to claim 22, Matoba teaches that the drying phase comprises a first section in which the valve is configured to guide air over the sorbent and a second section in which the valve is configured to guide air out of the cavity (para. 60). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to arrange the air outlet in front of the dishwasher in view of the teachings of Lippera.
As to claim 23, while Matoba does not disclose particular length of times of the drying phase, its dishwasher is structurally capable of performing the first section for at least a third of the time of the drying phase. The claimed length of time is an intended use of the dishwasher that the modified dishwasher of Lutz would be capable of performing.
As to claim 24, Matoba teaches that during the first section air is guided completely over the sorbent (fig. 1) and in the subsequent section the air is guided completely through the air outlet (fig. 2).
As to claim 25, Matoba teaches that the drying phase is designed such that air is guidable out from the cavity to the air outlet 18 and/or to the drying unit 20 (figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 27, Matoba teaches a valve 24 for opening or closing a blow-out line leading to the air outlet (fig. 1).
As to claim 28, Matoba teaches that the valve controller may be a three-way valve 27 for setting different modes of operation (fig. 4A).
As to claim 29, Lippera teaches that its air outlet has an air guiding element 8 for targeting discharge of air into a region in front of the dishwasher (fig. 1).
As to claim 30, Lippera teaches that the air outlet is on the front side of the dishwasher (fig. 1).
As to claim 34, Lippera teaches that the that the air outlet has a width of at least 40cm wide when the dishwasher has a width of 60cm (para. 75, note that the dishwasher of Lippera is a standard household dishwasher commonly known to have a width of 60cm).
As to claim 35, Lippera teaches that the air outlet is embodied as a flat slot outlet with a height to width ratio of between 1:20 and 1:200 (para. 75).
As to claim 36, Lippera teaches that the air outlet is embodied as a flat slot outlet with a height to width ratio of approximately 1:100 (para. 75).
Claims 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170311771 by Lutz et al. in view of WO2014174784A1 by Matoba et al. and EP3020319A1 by Lippera et al. as applied to claims 18 and 29 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140170954 by Hintz et al.
As to claim 21, Lippera teaches that its outlet is embodied as a slot outlet and may extend over at least two thirds of a width of the dishwasher (para. 75). Lippera teaches that its air outlet may be above or beside a door (para. 13), but does not teach that the air outlet is arranged in a lower quarter of a height of the dishwasher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious and would have had motivation to embody the outlet to be in a lower quarter of a height of the dishwasher based on the teachings of Hintz. Hintz teaches an air outlet that is under a door, in a lower quarter of a height of the dishwasher (fig. 2). Hintz teaches that it is preferable to exhaust air from a dishwasher cavity to flow along a floor so that moist air is not injected between the dishwasher and a countertop or under other cabinet areas (fig. 2, para. 51). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious to arrange the outlet in a lower quarter of a height of the dishwasher, e.g. towards the floor, based on the teachings of Hintz. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 31, Hintz also teaches an air guiding element to push outflowing air downward (fig. 2). Hintz teaches a wall downwardly delimiting the air outlet and embodying a second air guiding element, the air guiding elements embodying a blow-out channel that is pointed in a direction of the front side (fig. 2, note walls and structures defining the air outlet and directing the airflow 25 towards the front). As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to size the channel several centimeters in length in view of Lippera.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170311771 by Lutz et al. in view of WO2014174784A1 by Matoba et al. and EP3020319A1 by Lippera et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160022116 by Delellis et al.
As to claim 32, Lippera teaches that its air outlet extends essentially horizontally, but does not teach that its air outlet has a rear with a channel extending across a width of the outlet and is upwardly open and in which partial flows of air are guidable, the channel having a front edge which adjoins the air outlet at an angle. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the shape of the air outlet to be as claimed in view of Delellis. Delellis teaches that providing an abrupt change in an air outlet conduit, in particularly at an angle, allows for additional moisture to condense before the air is exhausted (para. 83). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that modifying the air outlet of Lippera to have a simple bend would accomplish the purpose of condensing additional moisture and would result in a structure with a channel across a width of the outlet and is upwardly open with a front edge that adjoins the outlet at an angle. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 33, the dishwasher of Lutz would have a shared airflow coming from the dishwasher cavity (see fig. 12, conduit 24). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, the airflow would be divided in an air distributor that would lead to the channel in the rear (see Lippera, fig. 4).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170311771 by Lutz et al. in view of WO2014174784A1 by Matoba et al. and EP3020319A1 by Lippera et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140170954 by Hintz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100083991 by Tolf., and U.S. Patent 4179821 granted to Herbst et al.
As to claim 37, Lutz teaches a base and a base panel attached flush to a front of the base (fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to overlap an air outlet with a base panel such that it projects with respect to the base panel at least equidistantly from a front side of the dishwasher.
Tolf explicitly teaches that an air outlet to exhaust air from within a dishwasher cavity may be arranged at a base panel (para. 38; see fig. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the outlet in a region of a base panel based on Hintz’s teaching that it is preferable to exhaust air from a dishwasher cavity to flow along a floor so that moist air is not injected between the dishwasher and a countertop or under other cabinet areas (fig. 2, para. 51) and Tolf’s teaching that explicitly teaches an outlet in a base panel and demonstrates success by doing so.
Upon the obvious modification to have the outlet at the base panel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the outlet such that it projects with respect to the base panel at least equidistantly from a front side of the dishwasher. Herbst teaches that condensation occurs when hot humid air comes into contact with adjacent cooler surfaces and may result in condensate dripping on the floor (col. 1, ll. 48-53). Herbst specifically teaches that such conditions may be met by exterior surfaces of a dishwasher adjacent to a vent opening (col. 1, ll. 66-68). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood using routine reasoned logic based on the teachings of Herbst that extending the air outlet so that it overlaps and projects past the base panel would reduce the risk of condensation due to exhausted air coming into contact with the base panel. Tolf demonstrates, at least schematically, an exhaust air outlet 7b that extends past an adjacent duct 14 surface (fig. 2), which would have informed one of ordinary skill in the art of a structural arrangement that could apply the teachings of Herbst. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to arrange the air outlet such that it overlaps and projects from the base panel. The projection distance being at least equidistant from a front side of the dishwasher would have been a routine matter of optimization with expected results.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711