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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Turning to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is noted that the terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989))
and limitations from a pending application's specification will not be read into the claims
(Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices. Inc.,
848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892
(1988); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference does not
require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or the recognition of
properties that are inherently possessed by the prior art reference. Verdegaal Brothers
Inc. v. Union Oil co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject
matter of a claim when that reference discloses each and every element set forth in the
claim (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990));
however, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what
Applicant is claiming, but only that the claims "read on” something disclosed in the
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984) (and overruled in part on another
issue), SRI Intel v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. Of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118, 227 USPQ
577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the
claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with
his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. See In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding the § 102 rejection of claim 1 over Jeong, Applicant argues that Jeong does not teach or suggest the claimed amendment that includes “defining a dishrack interior, and wherein the pod tray is positioned on the front wall exterior of the dishrack interior.” Examiner disagrees and points out that the pod tray of claim 1 recites being “positioned on the front wall of the dishrack exterior” and Jeong teaches a pod tray positioned “on the front wall of the dishrack exterior” (note pod tray holder 47 which is positioned on the front wall of the dishrack exterior in Fig. 7). Accordingly, the invention as claimed reads on the teachings of Jeong. Even if one were to assume, arguendo, that the entire pod tray is positioned on the exterior of the dishrack, such rearrangement would produce the same and predictable results of mounting the pod tray to the dishrack. Applicant’s arguments provide no arguments as to how or why the claimed configuration imparts patentability to the dishwasher, and no such patentability is readily apparent based on the current record. It is further noted that regarding Applicant’s argument that there’s no space for a rearrangement of the pod tray in Jeong, Examiner submits that such modification would be well within the knowledge and skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, as the cited prior art includes numerous configurations with a pod tray completely in front of the dishrack. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant’s arguments against Jeong are moot as the amendment has resulted in the withdrawal of the rejection.
Regarding the § 102 rejections of claim 1 and 11 over Bertsch, Applicant’s arguments are moot as the amendment has resulted in withdrawal of the claim 1 rejection and necessitated a modified new grounds of rejection for claim 11.
Regarding the § 103 rejections, Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable for reasons of same indicated for claims 1 and 11. These reasons are not persuasive because claims 1 and 11 remain rejected and are not in condition for allowance.
It is noted that Applicant’s reply provides no arguments as to how and why the claims serve to patentably distinguish over the cited prior art. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant is requested to provide proper patentability arguments in the next reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by WO 2024/136301 A1 to Jeong.
Regarding claims 1-6, and 8-10, Jeong (in Figs. 1-17 and associated text) discloses a dishwasher comprising:
a cabinet (casing 21) defining an interior;
a tub (10) located within the interior and defining a washing chamber (11) with an open face;
a door (23) moveably mounted to the cabinet for selectively closing the open face; and
a dishrack (31,32) located within the tub and moveable through the open face when the door is in an open position, the dishrack including a front wall partially defining a dishrack interior (see Figs. 4, 7, 8, and associated text); and
a pod tray (detergent box 4) positioned on the front wall of the dishrack exterior of the dishrack interior, the pod tray for holding detergent (note detergent box 4 is fully capable of the intended use of receiving a detergent pod and reads on the recited pod tray; also note holder 46 located on the front exterior of the dishrack),
wherein the pod tray comprises one or more clips (46,47) for connecting to one or more wire tines of the dishrack,
wherein the one or more clips (46,47) comprise at least a first clip (46) for connecting to a horizontal wire tine of the dishrack,
wherein the pod tray comprises one or more hooks for connecting to one or more wire tines of the dishrack (see Figs. 9-17 showing various hook configurations of the clips),
wherein the one or more hooks comprises first and second surfaces for connecting to vertical wire tine of the dishrack, and wherein the first surface and the second surface protrude separately from the pod tray (see surfaces of hook 46 including groove 461 and protrusion 463 in Fig. 12),
wherein the one or more hooks comprises one hook laterally disposed from a side of the pod tray (note hooks 47 are laterally disposed from a side of the pod tray),
wherein the pod tray comprises a horizontal support surface (492 and 428 in Figs. 11 and 13, respectively) for supporting a detergent pod,
wherein the horizontal support surface comprises spaced ribs (428 in Fig. 13) defining draining apertures for allowing detergent to drain into the tub,
wherein the pod tray is positioned on the front wall of the dishrack and extends out from the front wall toward an inner surface of the door (see Figs. 4 and 7-8),
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of US2006/0144424 to Marchitto et al. (“Marchitto”).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-10, Examiner’s primary position (above) is that Jeong teaches the pod tray configuration being positioned on the front wall of the dishrack exterior of the dishrack interior with holder 46 clearly having such configuration. Even if assuming, arguendo, that such recitation was to be interpreted as the entire pod tray to be on the front wall of the dishrack exterior, such configuration is old and known. For instance, Marchitto teaches a dispenser (10) positioned on a front wall of a dishrack (CS) exterior as claimed (see Fig. 6).
The position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to rearrange the pod tray of Jeong to be entirely on the front exterior wall of the dishrack to achieve the same and predictable dispensing results, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 7, Jeong discloses the claimed invention including plural clips for engaging wire tines. Jeong discloses clips for engaging a horizontal wire time and inclined wire tine, but does not expressly disclose a clip for engaging a vertical wire tine (claim 7) or use of four hooks for connecting the bottom surface of the dishrack (claim 16). However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to rearrange the clips at any matching wire tine angle to clip on to the dishrack as desired, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts. Furthermore, Jeong discloses plural clips but does not expressly disclose four clips. However, merely duplicating the number of clips would achieve the same and predictable results of clipping the tray to the dishrack and is considered prima facie obvious. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) regarding Obviousness and Duplication of Parts.
Claim(s) 11-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertsch in view of Jeong.
Regarding claims 11-12, 14-18, and 20, Bertsch (in Figs. 1-3 and associated text) discloses a dishwasher comprising:
a cabinet defining an interior (outer portion of 5);
a tub located within the interior and defining a washing chamber with an open face (inner portion of 5);
a door (20) moveably mounted to the cabinet for selectively closing the open face; and
a dishrack (16) located within the tub and moveable through the open face when the door is in an open position, the dishrack including a bottom and a front wall; and
a pod tray (98) positioned beneath both the front wall of and the bottom of the dishrack, the pod tray for holding detergent, and wherein the pod tray includes a mounting portion,
wherein the pod tray further comprises a mounting portion (300) and a moveable tray portion (drawer 375) that is slidable along the mounting portion, (see Fig. 3 and associated text),
wherein the mounting portion comprises a track and the moveable tray portion comprises rails configured to slide in the track (note ¶ [0029] wherein the drawer may be slid relative to the housing, which implicitly teaches some type of sliding track),
wherein the moveable tray portion comprises a handle for sliding the moveable tray portion relative to the mounting portion (see Figs. 2-3, note front portion of 98 capable of being gripped and readable on a handle).
Bertsch discloses the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the pod tray includes a mounting portion with a set of connecting mechanisms to connect the pod tray to the dishrack, particularly the use of clips/hooks. Jeong, supra, discloses use of such clips/hooks for fastening a detergent dispensing tray to a dishrack and obvious modifications relating thereto.
Therefore, regarding claims 11-12, 14-18, and 20, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to provide the pod tray of Bertsch with clips/hooks such as those disclosed in Jeong and associated modifications above, to yield the same and predictable fastening results of the pod tray to the dishrack.
Regarding claim 19, Bertsch discloses a horizontal support surface but does not expressly disclose spaced ribs. Jeong, supra, discloses the horizontal support surface with spaced ribs as claimed for support and dispensing of detergent therethrough.
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to modify the bottom of the pod tray of Bertsch with such support ribs such as those taught in Jeong, to yield the same and predictable results.
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 JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael E. Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights