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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Turning to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is noted that the terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989))
and limitations from a pending application's specification will not be read into the claims
(Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices. Inc.,
848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892
(1988); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference does not
require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or the recognition of
properties that are inherently possessed by the prior art reference. Verdegaal Brothers
Inc. v. Union Oil co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject
matter of a claim when that reference discloses each and every element set forth in the
claim (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990));
however, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what
Applicant is claiming, but only that the claims "read on” something disclosed in the
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984) (and overruled in part on another
issue), SRI Intel v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. Of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118, 227 USPQ
577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the
claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with
his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. See In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding claims 19, 21-22, 26, & 33-38 and the § 102 rejection over Electrolux (Reunanen), Applicant’s amendment has overcome this rejection. However, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection under § 103 for the claims as indicated below.
Regarding claim 20 and the § 103 rejection over Electrolux and rearrangement of parts regarding the spout inlet and nozzle configuration, Applicant has included more detailed structural features of such arrangement into independent claim 19 and argues that “rearranging Reunanen’s nozzle and spout inlet as proposed would destroy the intended function of the spout 31 ‘to provide a sealed connection to the water conduit’” and would “destroy the intended function of the spout 31.” This is not persuasive because simply rearranging Electrolux’s configuration of the spout inlet and nozzle that is disclosed as “sealed” does not negate that other rearrangements (including not sealed) would produce the same and predictable results of providing water from the nozzle to the spout inlet, as “sealed” merely describes the connection of the configuration. To further support rearrangement of parts, Examiner notes that US 2021/0259508 (“Reunanen ‘508”) which teaches an unsealed configuration of a nozzle and spout inlet achieving the same result of delivering water to the dispenser (see Fig. 1). Examiner has further cited US 5,235,994 to Comin et al. (“Comin”) which teaches a known arrangement wherein that the nozzle (10) is directly above the dispenser inlet (Comin at Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 19-22, 26, 34-36, and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/233811 to Electrolux Appliances Aktiebolag (“Electrolux”).
Regarding independent claim 19, Electrolux (in Figs. 1-3c and associated text) discloses a dishwasher comprising:
a tub (2) defining a washing compartment;
a delivery tube (water conduit 21) comprising an end and at least one nozzle located at the end of the delivery tube (end of tube 21 at inlet 31);
a flow controller (pump 22) for delivering fluid to the delivery tube;
a detergent dispensing system (9) for supplying a cleaning agent to the tub, the detergent dispenser comprising:
a frame (see outside frame of dispenser 9 in Figs. 3a-3b);
a door (casing 32, see Figs. 3a-3b) movable relative to the frame, the door defining a chamber (33) and comprising:
a front door panel (front of casing 32);
a lower portion comprising an outlet (37); and
a spout (31) defining a spout inlet, the spout being formed along the front door panel (see Figs. 3a-3b), wherein the spout inlet is configured to enable a volume of washing detergent to be located in the chamber, and wherein the fluid dispersed by the at least one nozzle flows into the chamber through the spout inlet to dissolve the washing detergent (note Fig. 3c with arrows directing water flow into the dispenser chamber for flushing detergent downwardly therethrough); and
a siphon comprising:
a first siphon member (see inner siphon proximate to 37 in Fig. 4)) having an inlet (top of siphon) and an outlet (bottom of siphon) in flow communication with the outlet of the lower portion; and
a second siphon member (at 35) surrounding the first siphon member (see Figs. 3a-3c), the first siphon member and second siphon member located in the chamber and defining a flow path (note arrows of flow path in Fig. 3c), wherein the siphon is configured to receive dissolved detergent via the flow path and convey flow of the dissolved detergent via the inlet of the first siphon and into the tub via the outlet of the first siphon (the siphon of Electrolux is fully capable of receiving and flushing dissolved detergent through the siphon and into the dishwasher tub).
Regarding claim 21, Electrolux further discloses wherein the door is movable between a first position away from the frame (see Fig. 3b) and a second position nested within the frame (see Fig. 3a), and wherein the volume of washing detergent is able to be inserted through the spout inlet when the door is nested within the frame (intended use operation, the spout inlet of Electrolux is fully capable of receiving detergent).
Regarding claim 22, Electrolux further discloses wherein the spout inlet is defined by the door and frame when the door is in the closed position (see Fig. 3a where the door and frame contact the spout inlet when the door is closed).
Regarding claims 34-36, Electrolux further discloses the dispenser door comprising:
a back door panel (see chamber 33 and back panel in Figs. 3a-3b, forming left wall of chamber 33);
a first side door panel and a second side door panel extending between the front and back door panels (see side panels forming chamber 33 in Fig. 4 which connects to the front and back panels of chamber 33 in Figs. 3a-3b; and
a bottom door panel joining the front, back, first side, and second side door panels, wherein the front, back, first side, and second side door, and bottom door panels define the chamber (see all Figs. forming chamber 33 with said panels),
wherein the bottom door panel of the door comprises an upper portion, the lower portion, and a transition member that joins the upper and lower portions, wherein the outlet of the first siphon member is formed on the lower portion (see bottom outlet at the siphon in Figs. 3a-3b),
wherein the volume of washing detergent is a pod or tablet (the type of detergent used during operation is intended use and not afforded patentable weight in apparatus claims, the dispenser of Electrolux being fully capable of the intended use of a pod or tablet detergent).
Regarding claims 19-20, Electrolux, supra, discloses the claimed invention including structure readable on a spout inlet and nozzle. Electrolux does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one nozzle is directly above the spout inlet, and wherein the one or more nozzles and spout inlet being separated by a distance. However, such configuration would be readily realized by a simple rearrangement/relocation of the spout inlet and nozzle. Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to rearrange the spout inlet and nozzle configuration of Electrolux such that the nozzle is directly above the spout inlet in order to yield the same and predictable result of introducing water into the dispenser, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claims 39-40, Electrolux discloses the claimed invention including a spout inlet and an opening (39) dimensioned to receive a tablet or gel tab (equivalent to a pod). Electrolux does not expressly disclose the claimed spout dimensions or the tapered spout walls. However, the modification of the spout inlet such that the nozzle sprays directly above the spout inlet would readily result in such configuration. Thus, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the size and/or shape of the spout inlet to accommodate detergent and/or fluid as desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or form/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A) regarding Obviousness and Changes in Size and § 2144.04(IV)(B) regarding Obviousness and Changes in Shape.
Claim(s) 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Electrolux in view of US 2021/0310177 to Leibman et al. (“Leibman”) or US 2020/0208330 to Rios Acebal.
Regarding claims 27-32, Electrolux, supra, discloses the claimed invention including a detergent dispensing system with a first siphon member (i.e. siphon tube) and a second siphon member (i.e. siphon cap) proximate the spout. Electrolux does not disclose additional details of the siphon configuration such as the second siphon member (i.e. siphon cap) comprising a removable insert including a tray configured to support a volume of detergent. Leibman (in Figs. 4-5 and associated text) teaches that it is known to provide a washing appliance detergent dispenser siphon with an insertable siphon cap (222) having a siphon tube (240) and tray (252,254) which reads on a tray fully capable of supporting a volume of detergent for the purpose of dispensing detergent to a washing tub. Rios Acebal (in Figs. 3-5 and associated text) teaches that it is known to provide a washing appliance detergent dispenser siphon with an insertable siphon cap having a siphon tube (222) and latticework (208) which reads on a tray fully capable of supporting a volume of detergent, such as a tab or pod for the purpose of dispensing detergent to a washing tub.
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the second siphon member (siphon cap) of Electrolux with the insertable siphon cap with tray, as disclosed in Leibman or Rios Acebal, to yield the predictable results of providing a siphon cap in a washing appliance dispenser that may hold/support detergent and provide a siphoning action to a washing tub.
Claim(s) 37-38 and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (“Electrolux”) in view of WO 2021/044254 to Eltek S.P.A. (“Eltek”).
Regarding claims 37-38, Electrolux further discloses a dishwasher comprising:
a washing compartment (see above); and
a detergent dispensing system for supplying a cleaning agent to the washing compartment, the detergent dispenser comprising:
a frame (see above);
a door movable relative to the frame between an open position and a closed position, the door defining a chamber (see above) and comprising:
a front door panel (see above);
a lower portion comprising a first outlet (see above);
a spout defining a spout inlet, wherein the spout is formed along the front door panel (see above),
wherein the spout inlet is configured to enable a volume of washing detergent to be located in the chamber and disperse fluid into the chamber to dissolve the washing detergent (see above); and
a siphon comprising:
a first siphon member having an inlet and an outlet, wherein the outlet of the first siphon is in flow communication with the first outlet of the lower portion (see above); and
a second siphon member surrounding the first siphon member, wherein the first siphon member and second siphon member are located in the chamber and define a flow path, wherein the siphon is configured to receive dissolved detergent via the flow path and convey flow of the dissolved detergent via the inlet of the first siphon and into the tub via the outlet of the first siphon (see above),
wherein the volume of washing detergent is able to be inserted through the spout inlet when the door is nested within the frame (the spout inlet of Electrolux is fully capable of the intended use of having a volume of washing detergent being inserted therethrough).
Regarding claims 37-38 and 41-42, Electrolux discloses the claimed invention with the exception of a latching mechanism as claimed. However, the prior art is replete with teachings of dishwasher detergent dispensers having latching mechanisms for opening/closing the door, as well as door stops for limiting the opening range of the dispenser door. For instance, Eltek discloses an art-related dishwasher dispenser dimensioned to receive a detergent pod (D) having a depressible latching mechanism (lever 19) for controlling the door movement, as well as means for limiting/inhibiting the door displacement/opening to a certain angle of opening for the purpose of controlling the door positioning (see paragraph bridging pages 11-12 in Eltek).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the dispenser door of Electrolux with a latching mechanism and means for inhibiting door displacement, such as that taught in Eltek, to yield the same and predictable door controlling results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0259508 (“Reunanen ‘508”) which teaches an unsealed configuration of a nozzle and spout inlet achieving the same result of delivering water to the dispenser (see Fig. 1).
US 5,235,994 to Comin et al. (“Comin”) which teaches a known arrangement wherein that the nozzle (10) is directly above the dispenser inlet (Comin at Fig. 1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights