DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 3/2/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/2/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein pivot assembly” should be “wherein the pivot assembly”. 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 5-7 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 5 recites the limitation "a coverage sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear if it refers to all the coverage sensors recited in claim 2, a particular coverage sensor as recited in claim 2, or a coverage sensor different than one recited in claim 2.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a coverage sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear if it refers to all the coverage sensors recited in claim 2, a particular coverage sensor as recited in claim 2, or a coverage sensor different than one recited in claim 2.
Claims 6 is rejected due to being dependent on claim 5.
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 1 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140261552 by Ellebracht in view of WO2016111648A1 by Kong et al.
As to claim 1, Ellebracht teaches a dishwasher table comprising a housing defining an interior volume (fig. 1) with a washing assembly (fig 3); a panel 108 within a frame 105 mounted to the housing (fig. 1), one side of the panel defining a utensil surface; and a pivot assembly that engages the panel with the housing an allows the panel to move to present the utensil surface to the interior of the housing or face away from the interior of the housing (fig. 3).
Ellebracht does not teach that its panel has an interior volume defining a manifold in communication with a plurality of apertures in the utensil surface, and also does not teach a vacuum pump connected to the manifold, operation of the pump engages utensils placed over one or more of the apertures. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the table taught by Ellebracht to have a vacuum pump and manifold panel. Kong teaches that utensils may be held to a moving carrier by operation of a vacuum pump that creates a suction and engages utensils placed on the carrier (para. 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use a vacuum pump to engage utensils on the panel taught by Ellebracht based on the known and established use as evidenced by the teachings of Kong. Upon the modification to have a vacuum pump to engage utensils, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used routine skill to provide the panel of Ellebracht as a manifold with apertures, which would have been necessary in order to suction to be applied to utensils.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 10, Ellebracht teaches that the panel is mounted within the fame using a seal 110 between the panel and frame (fig. 1).
As to claim 11, Ellebracht teaches that the pivot assembly operates to present the utensil surface as the upper surface of the table when used by diners, and to present the utensil surface engaged with utensils to the interior volume of the housing (fig. 4).
As to claim 12, Ellebracht teaches that the pivot assembly includes at least one axle substantially in the middle of a side of the panel and engaged with a bearing assembly allowing rotation of the panel (fig. 3).
As to claim 13, Ellebracht teaches a pair of axles opposite one another on opposed sides of the panel (para. 33).
As to claim 14, Ellebracht teaches that at least one axle is engaged with a drive motor 109f to pivot the panel (fig. 3).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140261552 by Ellebracht in view of WO2016111648A1 by Kong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2019180254A1 by Newbold et al.
As to claims 16-18, Kong suggests the use of a vacuum pump but does not provide further details of its implementation, and thus does not teach a tiler between the pump and manifold to separate solids and liquids from gases, the filter includes a separation chamber divided by a baffle, the chamber including a drain to allow for removal of solids and liquids. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a filter as claimed. Newbold teaches the use of a filter to inhibit debris from forming an obstruction or damaging a vacuum pump, the filter understood to filter out solids and liquids to prevent damage to the vacuum pump, the filter having separation chamber and baffle between inlet and outlet ports (p. 10, ln. 29 – p. 11, ln. 14). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to not only include a filter in the table taught by Ellebracht, as modified to have a vacuum pump in view of Kong, in order to prevent obstructions and damage to the pump, but also to have a drain in order to provide a means to remove filtered solids and liquid. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8, 9, and 15 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.
Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 2, the prior art of record does not teach a coverage sensor as claimed, and nothing in the present record suggests that it would have bene obvious to have such sensor in a dishwasher table as set forth in claims 1 and 2. As to claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach a dishwasher table as set forth in claims 1 and 12 that further comprises a lifting arm as set forth in claim 15, in particular the lifting arm’s structure and function of lifting the panel above and out of the way of the frame as opposed to merely allowing rotation of the panel as described by Ellebracht.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights