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 without traverse of claims 15-16 and new claims 17-24 in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 directed to non-elected invention have been canceled in the reply filed on 3/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024, 12/16/2024, and 3/11/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation "the vertical spacing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read as “a vertical spacing” or the claim should depend upon claim 16.
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.
Claims 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaczmarek (PG Pub U.S 2007/0144985) and further in view of Vacca (PG Pub U.S 2013/0233353).
Regarding claim 15, Kaczmarek teaches a method of cleaning a lightweight ware item (abstract), comprising: utilizing a rack (1) with a bottom wall (2) and upright peripheral sidewalls (para 0021; implicitly taught as basket and by peripheral pegs 3), and multiple tall pegs (3) that extend upward beyond upper edges of the upright sidewalls (figs 1-3; para 0021 and 0026-0027; adjustable length of inner peg reads on extending beyond upper edges of upright side walls); placing the lightweight wear-ware item in an inverted manner downward (fig 1 and para 0021) onto a first tall peg (3) of the multiple tall pegs (para 0021 and 0026-0027) such that a bottom wall portion of the lightweight wear-ware item sits atop an upper end of the first tall peg (para 0025, claim 16 and 29)
Kaczmarek fails to teach forming a rack system by placing an upper rack with a bottom wall and peripheral sidewalls in an inverted manner down over the lower rack such that the bottom wall portion of the lightweight wear-ware item is captured between the upper end of the first tall peg and the bottom wall of the upper rack; and cleaning the lightweight ware item in a chamber of a warewash machine while the rack system is disposed within the chamber. However, Vacca also teaches a dishwashing method (abstract) which includes forming a rack system by placing an upper rack (12) with a bottom wall and peripheral sidewalls (figs 1-5) in an inverted manner down over the lower rack (30) such that the bottom wall portion of the lightweight wear-ware item is captured between the upper end of the first tall peg and the bottom wall of the upper rack (para 0010 and 0050; implicitly taught); and cleaning the lightweight ware item in a chamber of a warewash machine while the rack system is disposed within the chamber (para 0010, and claims 1 and 8) in order to secure the rack during cleaning in the dishwasher and then separately store the rack after cleaning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaczmarek such that it’s rack is the bottom rack and forming a rack system by placing an upper rack with a bottom wall and peripheral sidewalls in an inverted manner down over the lower rack such that the bottom wall portion of the lightweight wear-ware item is captured between the upper end of the first tall peg and the bottom wall of the upper rack; and cleaning the lightweight ware item in a chamber of a warewash machine while the rack system is disposed within the chamber as taught by Vacca in order in order to secure the rack during cleaning in the dishwasher and then separately store the rack after cleaning.
Regarding claim 16, the present combination of Kaczmarek and Vacca fails to teach wherein a vertical spacing between the bottom wall of the upper rack and the upper end of the first tall peg is less than one inch. However, the vertical spacing between the bottom wall of the upper rack and the upper end of the first tall peg is a result effective variable. The vertical spacing affects the holding capacity/volume of the rack system. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate vertical spacing between the bottom wall of the upper rack and the upper end of the first tall peg such that it is less than one inch for the predictable result of effectively accommodating and holding a specific size of ware items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the vertical spacing such that it is less than one inch in order to effectively accommodate and hold a specific size of ware items. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 17, the present combination of Kaczmarek and Vacca fails to teach wherein a vertical spacing between the bottom wall of the upper rack and the upper end of the first tall peg is between one-quarter of an inch and three-quarters of an inch. However, the vertical spacing between the bottom wall of the upper rack and the upper end of the first tall peg is a result effective variable. The vertical spacing affects the holding capacity/volume of the rack system. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate vertical spacing between the bottom wall of the upper rack and the upper end of the first tall peg such that it is between one-quarter of an inch and three-quarters of an inch for the predictable result of effectively accommodating and holding a specific size of ware items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the vertical spacing such that it is between one-quarter of an inch and three-quarters of an inch in order to effectively accommodate and hold a specific size of ware items. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 18, the present combination of Kaczmarek and Vacca teaches wherein the lightweight ware item is a plastic cup (para 0021of Kaczmarek).
Regarding claim 19, the present combination of Kaczmarek and Vacca teaches prior to the forming step (based on combination above; para 0010 of Vacca), placing a further lightweight ware item in an inverted manner downward onto a second tall peg of the multiple tall pegs such that a bottom wall portion of the further lightweight ware item sits atop an upper end of the second tall peg (para 0022-0023 and 0025-0026 of Kaczmarek); in the forming step, the bottom wall portion of the further lightweight ware item is captured between the upper end of the second tall peg and the bottom wall of the upper rack (para 0010 and 0050 of Vacca; implicitly taught).
Regarding claim 20, the present combination of Kaczmarek and Vacca teaches wherein the lower rack includes multiple short pegs (para 0021 and 0023 of Kaczmarek) that have upper ends that are located lower than upper edges of the upright side walls (para 0025-0026 of Kaczarek; implicitly taught since peg height is adjustable).
Regarding claim 21, the present combination of Kaczmarek and Vacca teaches wherein the first tall peg (4/5 of 3) is removably connected or fixedly connected onto one of the short pegs (other 3s) of the lower ware rack (para 0025 of Kaczmarek).
Regarding claim 22, the present combination of Kaczmarek and Vacca teaches wherein the tall pegs and the short pegs are integrally molded to be unitary with the bottom wall and the upright side walls (fig 1 and para 0021 of Kaczmarek).
Regarding claim 23, the present combination of Kaczmarek and Vacca teaches wherein an alignment structure (55a in fig 5 of Vacca) is provided for positioning of the side walls of the upper ware rack on the side walls of the lower ware rack (para 0014-0019 of Vacca).
Regarding claim 24, the present combination of Kaczmarek and Vacca teaches wherein the upper rack lacks any pegs (seen from figs 1-5 and para 0014 of Vacca).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714