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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150-word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 27, 35-36, 38-39, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100186772 to Hatfield et al. (Hatfield) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090205680 to Bragg.
Regarding claims 27 and 39, Hatfield discloses a washing appliance (dishwasher, paragraphs 1-3; Fig. 1, part 100) comprising: a tub configured to house items to be washed (wherein one of ordinary skill envisages that this relates to a residential/domestic dishwasher with tub thereof, see paragraph 1-3); an inlet valve operable to be selectively switched between an open condition for causing washing fluid to be loaded into the tub and a closed condition for preventing washing fluid be fed to the appliance (paragraph 23; Fig. 1, part 110); a circulation pump configured to circulate the washing fluid in the tub during a washing cycle (Fig. 1, part 108); a control unit (Fig. 1, part 102) configured to determine an operative state of the circulation pump between (i) a saturation state indicative that sufficient washing fluid is present in the tub to prevent air from being drawn out by the circulation pump, and (ii) a starvation state indicative that insufficient washing fluid is present in the tub to prevent air from being drawn out by the circulation pump (paragraph 23), wherein the control unit is further configured to receive an indication of a target speed for the circulation pump and control the circulation pump (rated pump motor speed, paragraph 15) by: causing a speed of the circulation pump to increase towards the target speed with a first speed increase rate (paragraph 32) if b) the inlet valve is in the open condition; and causing the speed of the circulation pump to increase towards the target speed with a second speed increase rate lower than the first speed increase rate (paragraph 32). Hatfield does not teach wherein both conditions a) and b) are met including a) a starvation state of the circulation pump is determined before the speed of the circulation pump reached the target speed.
Bragg discloses a washing appliance and control method thereof (paragraph 2) wherein a starvation state of the circulation pump is determined before the speed of the circulation pump reached the target speed (paragraph 27) all in order to prevent a starvation state of the pump and damage thereto.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have modified the control unit of Hatfield with the configuration of determining a starvation state of the circulation pump thereof as in Bragg all in order to prevent a starvation state of the pump and damage thereto.
Regarding claims 35 and 46, Hatfield in view of Bragg is relied upon as above in claim 39. Hatfield discloses wherein the target speed depends on a user-selected washing cycle being carried out by the washing appliance and/or by a phase of the user-selected washing cycle being carried out by the washing appliance (see quiet dishwashing cycle, paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 36, Hatfield in view of Bragg is relied upon as above in claim 27. Hatfield in view of Bragg does not disclose wherein: the first speed increase rate is higher than 70 RPM/s; and the second speed increase rate is lower than 10 RPM/s.
However, where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed, as in Hatfield in view of Bragg, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the speed increase rates by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, II., A.
Regarding claim 38, Hatfield in view of Bragg is relied upon as above in claim 27. Hatfield discloses that the washing appliance is dishwasher (dishwasher, paragraphs 1-3; Fig. 1, part 100). Hatfield does not specifically disclose or make obvious wherein comprising: at least one basket provided in the tub for accommodating the items to be washed; and a set of spray devices for receiving washing fluid from the circulation pump and for spraying the received washing fluid into the tub.
Bragg discloses that the washing appliance is a dishwasher (paragraph 7) comprising at least one basket provided in the tub for accommodating the items to be washed (wherein one of ordinary skill envisages this, Fig. 1, generally and at part 380); and a set of spray devices for receiving washing fluid (Fig. 1, parts 340A-C) from the circulation pump and for spraying the received washing fluid into the tub (Fig. 1, part 350) all in order to achieve the predictable result of cleaning dishes therein.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have modified the apparatus of Hatfield with the basket, spray devices, and circulation pump of Bragg all in order to achieve the predictable result of cleaning dishes therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-34, 37, and 40-45 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 closest prior art of record is that of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100186772 to Hatfield et al. (Hatfield). Hatfield does not disclose or make obvious the limitations of claims 28-29 and 40-41, claiming wherein the control unit is configured to cause the speed of the circulation pump to decrease if condition a) is met while condition b) is not met (as in claims 28 and 40) or wherein the control unit is configured to cause the speed of the circulation pump increase towards the target speed with the second speed increase rate if, in addition to having both conditions a) and b) met, no saturation state of the circulation pump is determined during a predetermined time period after the determination of a starvation state of the circulation pump (as in claims 29 and 41).
The advantage of the current invention over that of the prior art to Hatfield is that of the configuration of the control unit determining a starvation state of the pump wherein this prevents cavitation of the pump thereby preventing damage to the pump while also reducing undesirable noise in operation thereof.
Since claims 28-29 and 40-41 are allowable as above, claims 30-34, 37, and 42-45 which depend thereon, respectively, are also allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (571)270-7379. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/BENJAMIN L OSTERHOUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711