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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Albayrak fails to teach the amended subject added into the claim. This is not found persuasive because even in view of such a feature, newly found reference Aprea, appears to meet all shared technical features (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 below).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 3-6, 8, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aprea (EP3095911A1).
As to claims 1 & 14, Aprea discloses an appliance (Fig.1), such as a dishwasher [0001] comprising: a controller (ref 230 or 530) configured to control an electrical load (ref 205) within the appliance based on a control signal (ref Scomm, see [0059]); and a door contact (ref SWl) configured to trigger transmission of a sensing signal (i.e., via completion of the circuit) to an electrical load actuator (ref 210) electrically coupled to the electrical load device; wherein the sensing signal is transmitted to the electrical load actuator via a door latch circuit (see Figs.2 & 5) when the door contact is in the closed position; wherein the electrical load device is configured to be activated in a instance in which the sensing signal and the control signal are received by the electrical load actuator [0038-0039, 0059, 0069, & 0077-0078], and the controller provides the sensing signal to the door latch circuit via the door contact [0059 & 0090].
As to claims 3-4, Aprea teaches the appliance of claim 1, wherein the door latch circuit is configured to facilitate control of the electrical load device based on the sensing signal (see Figs.2 & 5) and deactivate the load device when the door contact is open (i.e., open circuit state). It is also noted that both limitations are merely intended use of the circuit, and so long as the circuit is capable of performing said functions it reads on the claim.
As to claim 5, Aprea teaches the appliance of claim 1, wherein a live alternating current voltage is disconnected when the door contact is in an open state (see Figs.2 & 5, Tl disconnected).
As to claim 6, Aprea teaches the appliance of claim 1, wherein a neutral alternating current voltage for the load device is disconnected when the door contact is open and the safety relay (RL2) is deenergized (i.e., Tn neutral is not provided to the rectifier for the load device).
As to claim 8, Aprea teaches the appliance of claim 1, wherein the door latch circuit facilitates control of the load device via a ground voltage signal connected to the electrical load actuator (see [0039-0040], conversion of AC to DC and providing a ground signal reads on such a limitation).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aprea (EP3095911A1) in view of Albayrak (US20100145525A1)
As to claim 2, Aprea teaches the appliance of claim 1, wherein the signal is transmitted from the door contact to the actuator when the door is closed (i.e., circuit closed, see Fig.2). Further, Aprea teaches that the load actuator can be a circuit board, but does not disclose the load actuator having a relay device. However, the use of relays for the control of electrical loads such as motors based on door position is known in the art, as seen by Albayrak.
Albayrak discloses an art related domestic appliance (abstract), wherein it is known that relays (see Fig.1 refs RE, RW1-RW3, and K1-K3) can be utilized for controlling a load such as a motor [0034] based on a signal obtained from a controller and a door closing circuit [0036, 0044, & 0047]. Albayrak allows for safe control of loads based on two different signals in order to activate the load [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aprea to include and utilize a relay device in the motor module in order to allow for safe control of the electric loads (Albayrak [0008]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aprea (EP3095911A1) in view of Xu (CN107653636B).
As to claim 9, Aprea teaches the appliance of claim 8, but does not disclose the load actuator receiving a ground signal, sensing signal, and control signal in order to activate the load device. Although Aprea showcases three signals being received by the actuator (VDC1, VDC2, & Scomm) for operation of the motor [0038-0039 & 0067], Aprea does not indicate that one of said signals is a ground signal. However, a rectified signal providing a ground signal as one of the inputs for operating a motor controller is known in the art, as seen by Xu.
Xu discloses an art related domestic appliance (abstract), wherein it is shown that a motor module (ref 22) can receive ground signal (GND1) and sensing signal (VBUS) from a door locking circuit (ref 12) via a rectifier (RB) and a control signal (+15V) from a voltage output circuit (ref 13). The rectified voltage is provided from door circuit to the motor module along with an additional signal in order to allow for the motor module to operate and control the motor [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aprea to utilize ground as one of the voltage signals provided to the motor module (i.e., load actuator), as such a voltage is known in the art for the operation of a motor after a rectifier (Xu [0034]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize known voltage signals when one is not explicitly disclosed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aprea (EP3095911A1) in view of Range (US6363563B1), Jeong (KR20000051164A), and Bischoff (US20100251776A1).
As to claims 12-13, Modified Aprea teaches the appliance of claim 8, but does not disclose the sensing signal being a low voltage DC signal. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Range, Jeong, and Bischoff.
Range disclose an art related domestic appliance (abstract), wherein it is known that a door switch can be provided on a low voltage circuit in or order to provide an indication to a controller when the door is opened/closed (Col.2 lines 55-65)
Jeong discloses an art related domestic appliance (abstract), wherein it is known that a DC low voltage signal can be utilized for determining a door position as closed or open (see page 2 and pages 4-5 3rd to last paragraph).
Bischoff discloses an art related dishwasher [0002], wherein it is known that a controller can receive a signal when a door is closed and provide a signal in order to actuate another element based on the signal provided from the controller when the door is determined to be closed [0038-0039 & 0043-0044]. Bischoff further indicates that controller is supplied with and utilize 5 volts DC [0036-0037 & 0042]. The controller providing a signal to actuate another electrical component when a determination has been made about the door state ensures a safer operation [0006-0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aprea to utilize a DC low voltage circuit and signal for determining the position of the door, as is known in the art (see Range and Jeong above). Further, a skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide a door sensing signal as a DC low voltage signal in order to actuate the load actuator in order to ensure safer operation (Bischoff [0006-0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 10 requires that the load is activated when the sensing signal and a second control are received by a neutral actuator electrically coupled to the electrical load device. Claim 11 requires the load is activated when the sensing signal, the ground voltage signal, and a first control signal are received by the electrical load actuator, and the sensing signal, the ground voltage signal, and a second control signal are received a neutral actuator electrically coupled to the electrical load device. The closest prior art of record is that presented in this action and the closest prior for the limitations presented in claims 10-11 is as follows.
Farris (US10934654B1) discloses determining an operational status of two load control devices and generation of a signal from each load device which is used to create a third control signal to operate the load (Fig.5B).
Xu (CN112323351A) showcases a safety circuit where motor enabling is based on sequential determinations including the door state and a safety switch (Figs.1 & 5).
Thus, although it is known in the prior art to utilize multiple validating signals (such as a third control signal) as well as sequential signaling for safety purposes, the art of record fails to teach or suggest the specific configuration of claims 10-11. Thus, claims 10-11 are considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights