DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 8 is canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-22 are pending. Claims 14-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are examined on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The objections to specification are withdrawn. The claim objections are withdrawn.
The 35 USC 112(a) rejections are maintained.
Only some of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. Any 112(b) rejections not withdrawn are reiterated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 5/6/2026 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 9, the specification and Applicant’s Remarks still do not explain what specific structures of the spray arm assemblies would allow the spray arm assemblies to perform the recited function of “rotate at different relative rates to randomize application of wash water and rinse water.” See MPEP § 2163.03. In other words, the specification and Applicant’s Remarks still do not explain how the spray arm assemblies are structurally configured to perform the recited function.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 13, merely copying the claim language into the specification does not overcome the rejection. See MPEP § 2163.03. The specification and the Remarks still do not explain: (1) which specific types of sensors can perform the recited function of “optimize washing and rinsing processes based on load size and soil level” or (2) which specific structures of those sensors would allow them to perform the “optimize” function. See MPEP § 2163.03. In other words, the specification and Applicant’s Remarks still do not explain how the sensors are structurally configured to perform the “optimize” function.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of Claim 1, Applicant contends:
Neither Wong nor Payzant discloses this integrated combined wash/rinse arm assembly structure or the opposite rotation of such assemblies. The arguments from the prior response remain applicable and are incorporated herein. The § 102 rejections are overcome. All dependent claims are likewise allowable. (Remarks at 10)
This argument is conclusory without any evidentiary support. The Remarks fail to discuss any specific teachings from WONG or PAYZANT, and fail to address any specific parts of the 2/6/2026 Non-Final Action. The Remarks fail to address ¶¶ 67-68 of the Non-Final Action, which explain that PAYZANT teaches the two arm assemblies rotating in opposite directions. Likewise, each of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the claimed dual hub system (see Non-Final at ¶¶ 52, 72), but the Remarks also fail to address those parts of the Non-Final Action. Thus, the Remarks do not amount to a sufficient rebuttal.
Claim Interpretation
As explained in previous Office Action(s), 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 washing and rinsing processes 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
In claim 2 line 2, the definite article “the” should be added immediately before “lower wash and rinse arm assembly.”
In claim 12 line 3, the definite article “the” immediately before “lower wash and rinse arm assembly” should be deleted.
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 wash and rinse arm assembly and the lower wash and rinse arm assembly are configured to rotate at different relative rates to randomize application of wash water 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 1-7 and 9-13 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 at lines 7-10:
a dual hub system comprising an upper hub and a lower hub, each hub comprising a first channel to provide wash water to the first set of nozzles of the corresponding wash and rinse arm assembly and a second channel to provide rinse water to the second set of nozzles of the corresponding wash and rinse arm assembly
It’s unclear which wash-and-rinse arm assembly corresponds to what structure(s). For example, it’s unclear what structure(s)—e.g., upper hub, lower hub, first channel, second channel, wash water, rinse water—correspond to the upper arm assembly and what structure(s) correspond to the lower arm assembly. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted that the upper hub corresponds to the upper arm assembly and the lower hub corresponds to the lower arm assembly.
Claim 1 recites at lines 11-13:
wherein the upper and lower wash and rinse arm assemblies rotate on the corresponding upper and lower hubs to spray wash water and rinse water on the dishes in the machine
It’s unclear which arm assembly corresponds to which hub. Clarification is requested. For examination purpose, it’s interpreted that the upper hub corresponds to the upper arm assembly and the lower hub corresponds to the lower arm assembly.
Claim 3 recites “the wash arm and the rinse arm” at line 3. It’s unclear the recited arms belong to which of the two arm assemblies. Clarification is requested. For examination purpose, the “wash arm” and “rinse arm” recited in Claim 3 line 3 are interpreted as belonging to the upper arm assembly.
Claim 9 recites “to randomize application of wash water and rinse water” at line 3. It’s unclear what’s meant by “randomize”—the specification does not explain what “randomize” means—especially considering that the dishwasher’s operations 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.” Clarification is requested.
Although paragraph 0050 of the specification has been amended to copy the claim language of “fluid flow characteristics,” that alone does not explain what “fluid flow characteristics” actually means. What’s even more confusing is that the rest of paragraph 0050 uses a different term (“fluid flow metric”) instead.
The specification discloses that the pump’s electrical characteristics are used to determine whether a fluid is flowing through the pump (see ¶¶ 0047, 0050). Therefore, for examination purpose, “fluid flow characteristics” is interpreted to mean whether or not a fluid is flowing through the pump.
Claim 12 recites “the upper hub and the lower hub distribute wash water and rinse water to the corresponding upper wash and rinse arm assembly and the lower wash and rinse arm assembly.” It’s unclear which structure(s) correspond to which arm assembly. For example, it’s unclear which structure(s)—upper hub, lower hub, wash water, rinse water—correspond to the upper arm assembly, and which structure(s) correspond to the lower arm assembly.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted that the upper hub corresponds to the upper arm assembly and the lower hub corresponds to the lower arm assembly.
Claim 13 recites “a plurality of sensors configured to optimize washing and rinsing processes based on load size and soil level.” First, it’s unclear what is meant by “optimize washing and rinsing processes.” Indeed, the specification does not explain what “optimize washing and rinsing processes” entails. Second, it’s unclear which specific type of sensors can perform the “optimize” function. Typically, a sensor detects or measures physical phenomena like temperature, pressure, light, etc. Indeed, the specification does not explain the specific type of sensors or the specific structures of those sensors required to perform the “optimize” function. 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 washing and rinsing processes 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 explain what is meant by “optimize washing and rinsing processes”;
The specification does not explain how the “optimize” function is performed;
The specification does not explain which specific types of sensors can perform the “optimize” function;
The specification does not explain which specific structures of the sensors that would allow the sensors to 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites “the dual hub system includes separate channels for wash water and rinse water.” But this subject matter already appears in Claim 1, which Claim 11 depends on. In particular, Claim 1 already cites:
a dual hub system comprising an upper hub and a lower hub, each hub comprising a first channel to provide wash water to the first set of nozzles of the corresponding wash and rinse arm assembly and a second channel to provide rinse water to the second set of nozzles of the corresponding wash and rinse arm assembly.
Therefore, Claim 11 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “the upper hub and the lower hub distribute wash water and rinse water to the corresponding upper wash and rinse arm assembly and the lower wash and rinse arm assembly.” But this subject matter already appears in Claim 1, which Claim 12 depends on. In particular, Claim 1 already cites:
an upper wash and rinse arm assembly and a lower wash and rinse arm assembly…
a dual hub system comprising an upper hub and a lower hub, each hub comprising a first channel to provide wash water to the first set of nozzles of the corresponding wash and rinse arm assembly and a second channel to provide rinse water to the second set of nozzles of the corresponding wash and rinse arm assembly.
Therefore, Claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Comments
The Examiner notes that it’s already well known in the prior art for a dishwasher to have an upper arm assembly and a lower arm assembly configured to rotate in opposite directions. See references in “Relevant Prior Art” section.
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 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PAYZANT’s machine comprises an upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 above; see also annotated Fig. 2 below), the upper arm assembly comprising a first set of nozzles (nozzles 200) on a wash arm (wash arm 196) configured for washing the dishes with wash water (see col. 7 lines 40-49) and a second set of nozzles (nozzles 174) on a rinse arm (rinse arm 168) 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 lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 above; see also annotated Fig. 3 below), the lower arm assembly comprising a first set of nozzles (nozzles 122) on a wash arm (wash arm 118) configured for washing the dishes with wash water (see col. 7 lines 40-49) and a second set of nozzles (nozzles 94) on a rinse arm (rinse arm 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 dual hub system (see Fig. 1), the dual hub system comprising an upper hub (see Figs. 1, 2, 4) and a lower hub (see Figs. 1, 3, 5). The upper hub corresponds to the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly (see Figs. 1, 2, 4) and the lower hub corresponds to the lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly (see Figs. 1, 3, 5).
The upper hub comprises a first channel (channel 128) to provide wash water to the first set of nozzles (nozzles 200) of the upper arm assembly (see Figs. 2 & 4) and a second channel (channel 142) to provide rinse water to the second set of nozzles (nozzles 174) of the upper arm assembly (see Figs. 2 & 4).
The lower hub comprises a first channel (channel 50) to provide wash water to the first set of nozzles (nozzles 122) of the lower arm assembly (see Figs. 3 & 5) and a second channel (channel 62) to provide rinse water to the second set of nozzles (nozzles 94) of the lower arm assembly (see Figs. 3 & 5).
PAYZANT teaches that the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly rotate on the upper hub (see Figs. 1, 2, 4) to spray wash water and rinse water on the dishes in the machine (see Figs. 1, 2, 4, col. 7 lines 40-49, col. 4 lines 48-51, col. 6 lines 29-40, col. 8 lines 2-8), wherein the upper arm assembly is configured to rotate when pressurized (see id.).
PAYZANT teaches that the lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly rotate on the lower hub (see Figs. 1, 3, 5) to spray wash water and rinse water on the dishes in the machine (see Figs. 1, 3, 5, col. 7 lines 40-49, col. 4 lines 48-51, col. 6 lines 29-40, col. 8 lines 2-8), wherein the lower arm assembly is configured to rotate when pressurized (see id.).
PAYZANT teaches that the upper arm assembly and the lower arm assembly are configured to rotate in opposite directions when pressurized when viewed from a top-down perspective. For example:
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 annotated Fig. 2 below) or the counterclockwise direction in a top-down view;
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 annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
762
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
713
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This means that, in a top-down perspective, 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 arm assemblies are configured to rotate in opposite directions when pressurized when viewed from a top-down perspective.
Regarding Claim 2, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 1. PAYZANT teaches that each of the upper arm assembly and the lower 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 arms to rotate while spraying; see also Figs. 2-3, col. 4 lines 48-51, col. 6 lines 29-40, 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 upper hub (see annotated Fig. 1) includes a stationary hub (spray base 126, see Figs. 1, 2, 4) 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 the wash arm (wash arm 196) and the rinse arm (rinse arm 168) of the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly (see Figs. 1, 2, 4).
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 9, PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1.
As explained above, PAYZANT teaches an upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly and a lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly, wherein each arm assembly is configured to rotate when supplying wash water and rinse water.
The recited function of “rotate at different relative rates to randomize application of wash water 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. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.")
Regarding Claim 11, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 1. As explained above, PAYZANT teaches the dual hub system includes separate channels for wash water and rinse water: the upper hub comprises channel 128 for wash water and channel 142 for rinse water, the lower hub comprises channel 50 for wash water and channel 62 for rinse water.
Regarding Claim 12, PAYZANT teaches the machine of Claim 11. As explained above, PAYZANT teaches that the upper hub distributes wash water and rinse water to the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly (e.g., via channels 128 and 142); and the lower hub distributes wash water and rinse water to the lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly (e.g., via channels 50 and 62).
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 1-5, 7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WONG et al. (US PGPUB 20180256001), in view of PAYZANT.
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_image5.png
598
831
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
652
959
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
567
538
media_image7.png
Greyscale
WONG’s machine comprises an upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly (see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13 above, ¶¶ 0029, 0031, 0034) and a lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly (see id.). WONG teaches that each arm assembly comprises a first set of nozzles (wash nozzles 132) on a wash arm (see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13) configured for washing the dishes with wash water (see ¶ 0032, supplying wash water to wash nozzles 132) and a second set of nozzles (rinse nozzles 120) on a rinse arm (see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13) configured for rinsing the dishes with rinse water (see ¶¶ 0031, 0034, supplying rinse water to rinse nozzles 120).
WONG’s machine comprises a dual hub system comprising an upper hub (see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13) and a lower hub (see id.). WONG teaches that each hub comprises a first channel (e.g., line 128, line 130) to provide wash water to the first set of nozzles (wash nozzles 132) of the corresponding wash and rinse 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 (rinse nozzles 120) of the corresponding wash and rinse arm assembly (see Figs. 10-13, ¶¶ 0031, 0034).
WONG teaches wherein the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly rotates on the upper hub (see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13) to spray wash water and rinse water on the dishes in the machine (see Figs. 10-13, ¶¶ 0029, 0031-32, 0034), wherein the upper arm assembly is configured to rotate when pressurized (see ¶¶ 0031-32, 0034, water is pumped).
WONG teaches wherein the lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly rotates on the lower hub (see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13) to spray wash water and rinse water on the dishes in the machine (see Figs. 10-13, ¶¶ 0029, 0031-32, 0034), wherein the lower arm assembly is configured to rotate when pressurized (see ¶¶ 0031-32, 0034, water is pumped).
WONG does not explicitly teach that the two arm assemblies are configured to rotate “in opposite directions…when viewed from a top-down perspective.” But these features are already taught by PAYZANT. As explained above, PAYZANT teaches a dishwasher comprising an upper arm assembly and a lower arm assembly, wherein the two arm assemblies are configured to rotate in opposite directions when pressurized when viewed from a top-down perspective (see annotated Figs. 2-3 of PAYZANT above).
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 WONG’s two arm assemblies are configured to rotate in opposite directions when viewed from a top-down perspective, with reasonable expectation of cleaning dishes. It’s already known in the prior art that a dishwasher’s two arm assemblies may be configured to rotate “in opposite directions…when viewed from a top-down perspective” (see PAYZANT). 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, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. WONG’s two wash-and-rinse arm assemblies—configured to rotate in opposite directions—still perform the same functions as before (e.g., spraying water on dishes), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1. The combination teaches each of the two wash-and-rinse arm assemblies is configured to rotate based on a propulsion of water through nozzles located on the wash arm and the rinse arm (see WONG at ¶ 0032, force of water leaving the nozzles cause the spray arms to rotate; see WONG at ¶¶ 0031-32, 0034, water is pumped).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the upper hub includes a stationary hub (see annotated Figs. 10 & 13 of WONG) that receives input from two separate liquid sources (e.g., from tank 108 & tank 124 of WONG, see ¶¶ 0031-35) and directs flows to the wash arm and the rinse arm (see Figs. 10 & 13 of WONG; as explained above, wash water is supplied to each arm assembly via the first channel, and rinse water is supplied to each arm assembly via the second channel).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1. The combination teaches a sump (see WONG at Figs. 10-13), wherein the sump includes a sump pan (WONG’s basin 103, see id. at Figs. 10 & 12, ¶¶ 0029, 0031-34) and a sump well (WONG’s tank 124, see id. at Figs. 10-13, ¶¶ 0031-34), the sump well configured to collect liquid from the sump pan (see id. at Figs. 10-13, ¶¶ 0031-32, 0034, liquid falls to basin 103 and flows into tank 124). The combination also teaches a pump system (e.g., pump 126 of WONG) configured to recirculate liquid within the dish washing machine (see WONG at ¶¶ 0006-07, 0032-33).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 4. The combination teaches the sump pan (WONG’s basin 103) includes an inclined wall (see Figs. 10 & 12 of WONG), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “facilitate drainage of liquid into the sump well” (see WONG at ¶¶ 0031-32, 0034, liquid falls to basin 103 and flows into tank 124).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1. The combination teaches that nozzles (e.g., WONG’s wash nozzles 132) on the wash arms (see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13 of WONG) are larger than nozzles (e.g., WONG’s rinse nozzles 120) on the rinse arms (see annotated Figs. 10, 12-13 of WONG).
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 the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the same structural limitations (e.g., larger nozzles on the wash arms) as the claimed machine, the machine as taught by the combination of WONG and PAYZANT 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, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches the upper arm assembly and the lower arm assembly, each configured to rotate and spray water (e.g., wash water, rinse water).
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. In the combination of WONG and PAYZANT, the upper arm assembly and the lower arm assembly are structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. As explained above, the two 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. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.")
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the dual hub system includes separate channels for wash water and rinse water (WONG’s lines 128 and 130 for wash water, WONG’s lines 116 and 118 for rinse water).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 11. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the upper hub distributes wash water and rinse water to the upper wash-and-rinse arm assembly, the lower hub distributes wash water and rinse water to the lower wash-and-rinse arm assembly.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of WONG and PAYZANT, as applied to Claim 1, in view of MUEGGENBORG.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1. The combination teaches a service compartment (WONG’s cabinet 18, see WONG at Figs. 1-13, ¶ 0024), wherein the service compartment houses components including at least a pump (e.g., any of WONG’s pumps 110, 126, 136, 206, 226, see id. at Figs. 3-6, 8-13) and a reservoir (e.g., any of WONG’s tanks 16/200/220, 108, 124, see id.).
The combination 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 the combination of WONG and PAYZANT 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 PAYZANT, as applied to Claim 1, in view of MCGINNESS et al. (US PGPUB 20210369076) and BALTES et al. (US PGPUB 20050245413).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of WONG and PAYZANT, as applied to Claim 1, in view of MCGINNESS and BALTES.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of WONG and PAYZANT teaches the machine of claim 1. The combination teaches a controller configured to control operation of the dish washing machine (see WONG at ¶ 0035, control system; see also WONG at ¶ 0040, control panel 302 having controls 304).
The combination 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 the combination of WONG and PAYZANT 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.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PANG et al. (Chinese Publication CN210169990U) teaches a dishwasher having an upper arm assembly and a lower arm assembly configured to rotate in opposite directions (see ¶ 0016), which can create diverse spraying and comprehensive washing coverage (see id.).
WANG et al. (Chinese Publication CN108784580A) teaches a dishwasher having an upper arm assembly and a lower arm assembly configured to rotate in opposite directions (see ¶¶ 0019-20, 0045, 0049-50, 0060), which can improve cleaning efficiency (see id.).
RYAN (US Patent 2683059) teaches a dishwasher having an upper arm assembly and a lower arm assembly configured to rotate in opposite directions (see Fig. 4, col. 4 lines 56-60).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights