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
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 14-22 are withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the following claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
“timing and duration of wash and rinse cycles” in claim 10;
“fluid flow characteristics” in claim 10;
“a plurality of sensors configured to optimize the washing and rinsing process based on load size and soil level” in claim 13.
Correction of is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitation is:
“sensors configured to optimize the washing and rinsing process based on load size and soil level” in Claim 13.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it’s being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
All instances of “wash and rinse water” (see, e.g., Claims 1, 9, 11, 12) should be separately recited as “wash water” and “rinse water” for purposes of consistency and clarity.
In Claim 2, “the wash and rinse arms” should be separately recited as “the wash arm” and “the rinse arm” for purposes of consistency and clarity.
In Claim 3, if “an attached wash arm” is the same as “a wash arm” recited in Claim 1, then “an attached wash arm” should be changed to “the wash arm.”
In Claim 3, if “an attached rinse arm” is the same as “a rinse arm” recited in Claim 1, then “an attached rinse arm” should be changed to “the rinse arm.”
In Claim 12, “upper and lower hubs” should be separately recited as “upper hub” and “lower hub” for purposes of consistency and clarity.
All instances of “upper and lower wash and rinse arm assemblies” (see, e.g., Claims 8, 9, 12) should be separately recited as “upper wash and rinse arm assembly” and “lower wash and rinse arm assembly.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at time of filing.
Claim 9 recites “the upper and lower wash and rinse arm assemblies are configured to rotate at different relative rates to randomize application of wash and rinse water.” To the extent that “rotate at different relative rates” means differently from “rotate at different rates” or “rotate at different absolute rates,” then the subject matter of Claim 9 is not sufficiently described in the specification to reasonably convey that the inventor(s) had possession at time of filing. See MPEP § 2163.03.V (an original claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed).
The only relevant disclosure comes from ¶ 0037 of the specification, which is merely a repetition of the claim language:
[0037] . . . In various embodiments the relative rates of rotation are different to randomize the application of wash and rinse water. In various embodiments the relative rates of rotation are similar. . . .
Indeed, the specification fails to sufficiently describe:
how to change the rate of rotation for a given wash-and-rinse arm assembly;
how to set one rate of rotation for the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly, and set a different rate of rotation for the lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly;
how to change the relative rates of rotation between the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly and the lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly;
what are the particular structures of the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly and the lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly that allow them to “rotate at different relative rates to randomize application of wash and rinse water.”
Claim 13 recites “a plurality of sensors configured to optimize the washing and rinsing process based on load size and soil level,” which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Since the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure that perform the entire claimed function—see 35 USC 112(b) section below for more explanation—then the claim limitation lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a). That’s because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP § 2163.03.VI; see also MPEP § 2163.03.V (an original claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed).
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a single wash and rinse arm assembly” at line 3. It’s unclear what’s meant by “single” in this context, and the specification does not provide any relevant guidance. Moreover, the difference between “a wash and rinse arm assembly” (without the word “single”) and “a single wash and rinse arm assembly” is unclear. Additionally, if the word “single” is meant to exclude “multiple” wash and rinse arm assemblies, then two problems arise: (1) the exclusion is not sufficiently supported by the specification (see MPEP § 2173.05(i) on negative limitations); and (2) Claim 1 would conflict with Claims 12, 8, and 9, which recite “upper and lower wash and rinse arm assemblies.”
For examination purpose, the term “a single wash and rinse arm assembly” is interpreted to mean “a wash and rinse arm assembly,” i.e., Claim 1 does not impose any exclusion on multiple wash and rinse arm assemblies.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the components within the service compartment are moveably coupled to facilitate access for service.” The components are moveably coupled to what? To each other or another structure? This is unclear. Clarification is requested.
The specification discloses that the components are moveably coupled to the dish washing machine (see specification at ¶ 0033, Fig. 5). Thus, for examination purpose, it’s interpreted that the components are moveably coupled to the dish washing machine.
Claim 7 recites “the wash arms” (plural) at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because claim 1 only recites “a wash arm” (singular).
Claim 7 recites “the rinse arms” (plural) at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because claim 1 only recites “a rinse arm” (singular).
Claim 8 recites “wherein the upper and lower wash and rinse arm assemblies are configured to rotate in opposite directions when pressurized.” It’s unclear if the rotational directions are determined from the same reference point or different reference points, and the specification does not provide sufficient disclosure. Clarification is requested.
Claim 9 recites “to randomize application of wash and rinse water” at line 2-3. It’s unclear what’s meant by “randomize”—the specification does not explain what “randomize” means—especially considering that the operations of the dishwasher are automated by a controller with software program (see specification at ¶¶ 0046, 0052, 0055-57, Fig. 7).
Claim 10 recites the term “fluid flow characteristics” at line 4. It’s unclear what is meant by “fluid flow characteristics,” a term that does not appear in the specification. The specification discloses that the pump’s electrical characteristics are used to determine whether a fluid is flowing through the pump (see ¶¶ 0047, 0050).
For examination purpose, “fluid flow characteristics” is interpreted to mean whether or not a fluid is flowing through the pump.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the wash and rinse arm assembly includes a dual hub system” at lines 1-2. First, it’s unclear whether “dual hub system” includes or excludes the “hub” recited in Claim 1. Second, if the “hub” of Claim 1 is one of the two hubs constituting the “dual hub system,” then it’s unclear how the arm assembly also “includes” the dual hub system, given that Claim 1 recites that “the arm assembly rotates on the hub.” Thus, the metes and bounds of terms like “hub,” “dual hub system,” and “wash and rinse arm assembly” are all unclear.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as follows: the dish washing machine itself comprises two hubs constituting the “dual hub system”; one of those two hubs is the “hub” recited in Claim 1; and the “wash and rinse arm assembly” rotates on just one hub, i.e., the “hub” recited in Claim 1 (see specification at Figs. 8A-8C, ¶ 0035).
Claim 12 recites “upper and lower hubs” at line 2. It’s unclear if there is one upper hub or multiple upper hubs. It’s also unclear if there is one lower hub or multiple lower hubs. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as one upper hub and one lower hub (see specification at Figs. 8A-8C, ¶ 0035).
Claim 12 recites “upper and lower wash and rinse arm assemblies” at line 2-3. It’s unclear if there is one upper wash and rinse arm assembly or multiple upper wash and rinse arm assemblies. It’s also unclear if there is one lower wash and rinse arm assembly or multiple lower wash and rinse arm assemblies. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as one upper wash and rinse arm assembly and one lower wash and rinse arm assembly (see specification at Figs. 8A-8C, ¶ 0035).
Claim 12 recites “upper and lower hubs that distribute wash and rinse water to corresponding upper and lower wash and rinse arm assemblies” at line 2-3. It’s unclear what correspond to what. In particular, it’s unclear if one hub (out of upper hub and lower hub) corresponds to one arm assembly (out of upper arm assembly and lower arm assembly), or if one water (out of wash water and rinse water) corresponds to one arm assembly (out of upper arm assembly and lower arm assembly). Clarification is requested.
Claim 13 recites “a plurality of sensors configured to optimize the washing and rinsing process based on load size and soil level.” First, it’s unclear what the optimization entails. Second, it’s unclear what type of sensor can perform the “optimize” function (as opposed to measuring physical phenomena like temperature, pressure, light, etc.). Clarification is requested.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein.
Claim limitation “a plurality of sensors configured to optimize the washing and rinsing process based on load size and soil level” (as recited in Claim 13) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). But the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to the function. For example:
The specification does not mention the terms “optimize,” “load size,” and “soil level”;
The specification does not explain how the “optimize” function is performed;
The specification does not mention any sensors that perform the “optimize” function.
Therefore, Claim 13 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In response to the 112(b) rejection of the 112(f) limitation, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WONG et al. (US PGPUB 20180256001).
Regard Claim 1, WONG teaches a dish washing machine for washing dishes in the machine (dishwashing machine 10, see abstract, Figs. 1-13, ¶¶ 0005-07, claims 1-26).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WONG’s machine comprises: a single wash-and-rinse arm assembly comprising a first set of nozzles (wash nozzles 132) on a wash arm (see annotated Fig. 10 above; see also annotated Fig. 13 below) configured for washing the dishes with wash water (see ¶ 0032) and a second set of nozzles (rinse nozzles 120) on a rinse arm (see annotated Fig. 10; see also annotated Fig. 13) configured for rinsing the dishes with rinse water (see ¶¶ 0031, 0034).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
WONG’s machine comprises: a hub comprising a first channel (e.g., line 128, line 130) to provide wash water to the first set of nozzles of the arm assembly (see Figs. 10-13, ¶ 0032) and a second channel (e.g., line 116, line 118) to provide rinse water to the second set of nozzles of the arm assembly (see Figs. 10-13, ¶¶ 0031, 0034).
WONG teaches the arm assembly rotates on the hub to spray wash water and rinse water on the dishes in the machine (see Figs. 10-13, ¶¶ 0029, 0031-32, 0034).
Regarding Claim 2, WONG teaches the machine of claim 1. WONG teaches wherein the wash-and-rinse arm assembly is configured to rotate based on a propulsion of water through nozzles located on the wash arm and the rinse arm (see ¶ 0032, force of water leaving the nozzles cause the spray arms to rotate).
Regarding Claim 3, WONG teaches the machine of claim 1. WONG teaches wherein the hub includes a stationary hub (see annotated Figs. 10 & 13 above) that receives input from two separate liquid sources (e.g., from tank 108 & tank 124, see ¶¶ 0031-35) and directs flows to an attached wash arm and an attached rinse arm (see annotated Figs. 10 & 13 above; see also annotated Fig. 12 below).
Regarding Claim 4, WONG teaches the machine of claim 1.
WONG teaches a sump (see Figs. 10-13), wherein the sump includes a sump pan (basin 103, see Figs. 10 & 12, ¶¶ 0029, 0031-34) and a sump well (tank 124, see Figs. 10-13, ¶¶ 0031-34), the sump well configured to collect liquid from the sump pan (see Figs. 10-13, ¶¶ 0031-32, 0034, liquid falls to basin 103 and flows into tank 124).
WONG teaches a pump system (e.g., pump 126) configured to recirculate liquid within the dish washing machine (see ¶¶ 0006-07, 0032-33).
Regarding Claim 5, WONG teaches the machine of claim 4. WONG teaches wherein the sump pan (basin 103) includes an inclined wall (see Figs. 10 & 12), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “facilitate drainage of liquid into the sump well” (see ¶¶ 0031-32, 0034, liquid falls to basin 103 and flows into tank 124)
Regarding Claim 7, WONG teaches the machine of claim 1. WONG teaches wherein nozzles (e.g., wash nozzles 132) on the wash arms (see annotated Figs. 10 & 13 above; see also annotated Fig. 12 below) are larger than nozzles (e.g., rinse nozzles 120) on the rinse arms (see annotated Figs. 10 & 13 above; see also annotated Fig. 12 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
652
959
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The recited function of “to provide a greater volumetric flow of wash solution” is interpreted as intended use/outcome, as it does not impose any structural requirement on the claimed machine. Because WONG teaches the same structural limitations (e.g., larger nozzles on the wash arms) as the claimed machine, WONG’s machine is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.") A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See id.
Regarding Claim 9, WONG teaches the machine of claim 12.
As explained for claim 12 below, WONG teaches an upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly and a lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly.
The recited function of “rotate at different relative rates to randomize application of wash and rinse water” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the two wash-and-rinse arm assemblies are used without imposing any structural requirements. WONG’s upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly and lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly are structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. As explained above, the arm assemblies rotate due to water ejecting from the nozzles (see WONG at ¶ 0032). Therefore, when a pump is activated to supply water to a given arm assembly, water pressure in the arm assembly would increase, thereby changing the arm assembly’s rate of rotation from zero to a non-zero value. Conversely, when the pump is deactivated to stop supplying water to a given arm assembly, water pressure in the arm assembly would decrease, thereby changing the arm assembly’s rate of rotation from a non-zero value to zero. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II.
Regarding Claim 11, WONG teaches the machine of claim 1. WONG teaches wherein the wash-and-rinse arm assembly includes a dual hub system (an upper hub and a lower hub, see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13 above) with separate channels for wash water and rinse water (lines 128 and 130 for wash water, lines 116 and 118 for rinse water, as explained above).
Regarding Claim 12, WONG teaches the machine of claim 11. WONG teaches wherein the dual hub system includes upper and lower hubs that distribute wash water and rinse water to corresponding upper and lower wash-and-rinse arm assemblies (see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13 above, upper hub for upper arm assembly, lower hub for lower arm assembly).
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PAYZANT (US Patent 5725002).
Regarding Claim 1, PAYZANT teaches a dish washing machine for washing dishes in the machine (see abstract, Figs. 1-7, claims 1-14, col. 1 line 50 to col. 2 line 40).
PAYZANT’s machine comprises a single wash-and-rinse arm assembly (see Figs. 1-5, 7) comprising a first set of nozzles (nozzles 200, 122) on a wash arm (wash arms 196, 118) configured for washing the dishes with wash water (see col. 7 lines 40-49) and a second set of nozzles (nozzles 174, 94) on a rinse arm (rinse arms 168, 90) configured for rinsing the dishes with rinse water (see col. 4 lines 48-51, col. 6 lines 29-40, col. 8 lines 2-8).
PAYZANT’s machine comprises a hub (e.g., an upper hub as shown in Figs. 2 & 4; a lower hub as shown in Figs. 3 & 5) comprising a first channel (e.g., inlet 50, inlet 128) to provide wash water to the first set of nozzles of the arm assembly (see Figs. 4-5, col. 3 lines 59-65, col. 5 lines 60-65) and a second channel (e.g., inlet 62, inlet 142) to provide rinse water to the second set of nozzles of the arm assembly (see Figs. 4-5, col. 4 lines 8-14, col. 6 line 8-9).
PAYZANT teaches wherein the arm assembly rotates on the hub to spray wash water and rinse water on the dishes in the machine (see col. 7 lines 40-49, col. 8 lines 2-10, water pressure causes the spray arms to rotate while spraying).
Regarding Claim 2, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 1. PAYZANT teaches wherein the wash-and-rinse arm assembly is configured to rotate based on a propulsion of water through nozzles located on the wash arm and the rinse arm (see col. 7 lines 40-49, col. 8 lines 2-10, water pressure causes the spray arms to rotate while spraying; see Figs. 2-3, nozzles 200 on arm 196, nozzles 174 on arm 168, nozzles 122 on arm 118, nozzles 94 on arm 90).
Regarding Claim 3, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 1. PAYZANT teaches wherein the hub includes a stationary hub (spray base 126, 46, see Figs. 2-5) that receives input from two separate liquid sources (reused water, see col. 1 lines 61-63, col. 7 lines 26-30; clean water, see col. 1 line 64, col. 3 line 45-50, col. 8 lines 1-5) and directs flows to an attached wash arm (wash arms 196, 118) and an attached rinse arm (rinse arms 168, 90).
Regarding Claim 4, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 1.
PAYZANT teaches a sump (sump 22, see Fig. 1), wherein the sump includes a sump pan (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a sump well (see id.), the sump well configured to collect liquid from the sump pan (see Fig. 1, col. 3 line 15-17, col. 8 line 8-10).
PNG
media_image4.png
600
772
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PAYZANT also teaches a pump system (pump 26, see Fig. 1) configured to recirculate liquid within the dish washing machine (see col. 3 lines 25-37).
Regarding Claim 5, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 4. PAYZANT teaches the sump pan includes an inclined wall (see annotated Fig. 1 above), which is structurally fully capable of performing the function of “facilitate drainage of liquid into the sump well” (see col. 3 line 15-17, col. 8 line 8-10).
Regarding Claim 7, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 1. PAYZANT teaches wherein nozzles on the wash arms are larger than nozzles on the rinse arms (see Fig. 2, nozzles 200 on wash arm 196 are larger than nozzles 174 on rinse arm 168; see Fig. 3, nozzles 122 on wash arm 118 are larger than nozzles 94 on rinse arm 90).
The recited function of “to provide a greater volumetric flow of wash solution” is interpreted as intended use/outcome, as it does not impose any structural requirement on the claimed machine. Because PAYZANT teaches the same structural limitations (e.g., larger nozzles on the wash arms) as the claimed machine, PAYZANT’s machine is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.")
Regarding Claim 8, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 12. As explained above, each wash-and-rinse arm assembly is configured to rotate when pressurized, i.e., when water is ejected from the nozzles (see col. 7 lines 40-49, col. 8 lines 2-10).
PAYZANT teaches that: given the orientation of nozzles 174, the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly is configured to rotate in the clockwise direction in a bottom-up view (see Figs. 1-2; see annotated Fig. 2 below) or the counterclockwise direction in a top-down view; and given the orientation of nozzles 94, the lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly is configured to rotate in the clockwise direction in a top-down view (see Figs. 1 & 3; see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
762
671
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
713
671
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This means that, in a top-down view, the upper arm assembly is configured to rotate in the counterclockwise direction when pressurized and the lower arm assembly is configured to rotate in the clockwise direction when pressurized, i.e., the two assemblies are configured to rotate in opposite directions when pressurized.
Regarding Claim 9, PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 12.
As explained for claim 12 below, PAYZANT teaches an upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly and a lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly.
The recited function of “rotate at different relative rates to randomize application of wash and rinse water” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the two wash-and-rinse arm assemblies are used without imposing any structural requirements. PAYZANT’s upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly and lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly are structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. As explained above, the arm assemblies rotate due to water ejecting from the nozzles (see PAYZANT at col. 7 lines 40-49, col. 8 lines 2-10). Therefore, when a pump is activated to supply water to a given arm assembly, water pressure in the arm assembly would increase, thereby changing the arm assembly’s rate of rotation from zero to a non-zero value. Conversely, when the pump is deactivated to stop supplying water to a given arm assembly, water pressure in the arm assembly would decrease, thereby changing the arm assembly’s rate of rotation from a non-zero value to zero. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II.
Regarding Claim 11, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 1. PAYZANT teaches wherein the wash-and-rinse arm assembly includes a dual hub system with separate channels for wash water and rinse water (see Figs. 2 & 4, an upper hub having channels 128 and 142 for wash water and rinse water, respectively; see Figs. 3 & 5, a lower hub having channels 50 and 62 for wash water and rinse water, respectively).
Regarding Claim 12, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 11. PAYZANT teaches wherein the dual hub system includes upper and lower hubs that distribute wash water and rinse water to corresponding upper and lower wash-and-rinse arm assemblies (see Figs. 2 & 4, an upper hub for the upper arm assembly; see Figs. 3 & 5, a lower hub for the lower arm assembly).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WONG, as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of MUEGGENBORG et al. (US PGPUB 20200375430).
Regarding Claim 6, WONG teaches the machine of claim 1. WONG teaches a service compartment (cabinet 18, see Figs. 1-13, ¶ 0024) housing components including at least a pump (e.g., any of pumps 110, 126, 136, 206, 226, see Figs. 3-6, 8-13) and a reservoir (e.g., any of tanks 16/200/220, 108, 124, see Figs. 3-6, 8-13).
WONG does not explicitly teach: the components within the service compartment are “moveably coupled to facilitate access for service.”
MUEGGENBORG teaches a dishwasher 100 comprising a service compartment (see Fig. 7, ¶ 0040) housing components 700 including at least a pump and a reservoir (see id.). MUEGGENBORG teaches that those components are moveably coupled to the dishwasher (see id.); this feature facilitates access for service (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify WONG such that the components are moveably coupled to the dishwasher, with reasonable expectation of increasing access. First, by making the components moveably coupled to the dishwasher, it’s possible to increase access for repairs by a technician (see MUEGGENBORG at Fig. 7, ¶ 0040). Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to make those components moveably coupled to the dishwasher. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to make components moveably coupled to the dishwasher to facilitate access for service (see MUEGGENBORG). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WONG, as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of MCGINNESS et al. (US PGPUB 20210369076) and BALTES et al. (US PGPUB 20050245413).
Regarding Claim 10, WONG teaches the machine of claim 1. WONG teaches a controller configured to control operation of the dish washing machine (see ¶ 0035, control system; see also ¶ 0040, control panel 302 having controls 304).
WONG does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to control “timing and duration of wash and rinse cycles,” as well as “monitor electrical characteristics of a pump to determine fluid flow characteristics.”
But these features are already known in the prior art. For example, MCGINNESS teaches a dishwasher 100 comprising a controller 200 (see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0047), wherein the controller is configured to control timing and duration of wash and rinse cycles (see ¶ 0047). As another example, BALTES teaches a dishwasher 10 comprising a controller 22 (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0028, claim 1), wherein the controller is configured to monitor electrical characteristics of a pump to determine fluid flow characteristics (see claim 6, ¶¶ 0042-45, using a current of the pump’s motor recognize if there is air or water in the pump; see Figs. 13-14, claim 6, ¶¶ 0042, 0047-50, using a current of the pump’s motor to recognize blockage in the pump).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify WONG to configure WONG’s controller to control timing and duration of wash and rinse cycles and monitor electrical characteristics of a pump to determine fluid flow characteristics, with reasonable expectation of automating the dishwasher. First, automation is generally considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04.III. Second, it's already known in the prior art for a dishwasher to have a controller for controlling the operation of the dishwasher (see WONG, MCGINNESS, BALTES); wherein the controller is configured to control timing and duration of wash and rinse cycles (see MCGINESS); and wherein the controller is configured to monitor electrical characteristics of a pump to determine fluid flow characteristics (see BALTES). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAYZANT, as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of MCGINNESS et al. and BALTES et al.
Regarding Claim 10, PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1.
PAYZANT does not explicitly teach: “a controller configured to control operation of the dish washing machine, including timing and duration of wash and rinse cycles, wherein the controller is configured to monitor electrical characteristics of a pump to determine fluid flow characteristics.”
But these features are already known in the prior art. For example, MCGINNESS teaches a dishwasher 100 comprising a controller 200 configured to control operation of the dish washing machine (see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0047), wherein the controller is configured to control timing and duration of wash and rinse cycles (see ¶ 0047). As another example, BALTES teaches a dishwasher 10 comprising a controller 22 configured to control operation of the dish washing machine (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0028, claim 1), wherein the controller is configured to monitor electrical characteristics of a pump to determine fluid flow characteristics (see claim 6, ¶¶ 0042-45, using a current of the pump’s motor recognize if there is air or water in the pump; see Figs. 13-14, claim 6, ¶¶ 0042, 0047-50, using a current of the pump’s motor to recognize blockage in the pump).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify PAYZANT to incorporate a controller configured to control operation of the dish washing machine (including timing and duration of wash and rinse cycles), wherein the controller is configured to monitor electrical characteristics of a pump to determine fluid flow characteristics, with reasonable expectation of automating the dishwasher. First, automation is generally considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04.III. Second, it's already known in the prior art for a dishwasher to have a controller configured to control the operation of the dishwasher (see MCGINNESS, BALTES); wherein the controller is configured to control timing and duration of wash and rinse cycles (see MCGINESS); and wherein the controller is configured to monitor electrical characteristics of a pump to determine fluid flow characteristics (see BALTES). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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 at (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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714