Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 1/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical error in lines 2-3: “…the hose connection feature comprises a plurality of threads to twistably couple with the hose with the hose connection feature.”. The suggested change is: “…the hose connection feature comprises a plurality of threads to twistably couple the hose with the hose connection feature”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schimke (US3821961A).
Regarding claims 1-3, 10, Schimke teaches a dishwashing appliance (see abstract) comprising: a tub 12 defining a wash chamber for receipt of articles for washing, the tub 12 comprising a sidewall 14, the sidewall 14 defining a fill hole 16 (see figure 1, column 2, lines 50-67); a fill funnel 20 coupled with the sidewall 14 of the tub 12, the fill funnel 20 positioned outside of the wash chamber at the fill hole 16, the fill funnel defining an inlet (see opening at distal end of 32, as shown in figures 2-4) (see figures 1-4, column 2, line 58 – column 3, line 37), the fill funnel 20 comprising: a hose connection feature (see 34, 36 and cylindrical pipe leading up to 32, as shown in figure 2) disposed within the fill funnel 20 adjacent to the inlet, the hose connection feature defining a primary flow path (see flow path of arrows 42 that collide with 40, as shown in figure 3), the primary flow path directed toward the fill hole 16, and wherein the hose connection feature 32, 34, 36 at least partially defines a secondary flow path (see flow path of arrows 42 that pass 40 and do not collide with 40, as shown in figure 3, which reads on claim 2 since the secondary flow path is unimpeded between the hose connection feature and the fill hole 16) directed toward the fill hole 16 (see figure 3, column 3, lines 9-46) (reads on claim 1); a hose 46 fluidly coupled with the hose connection feature, wherein the hose 46 is capable of primarily directing fluids into the hose connection feature (see figures 1-4, column 3, lines 35-46) (reads on claim 3); the hose connection feature is barbed (see jutting projection at base of 32, as shown in figure 2) to retain the hose 46 (see figure 2) (reads on claim 10).
Regarding claim 4, Schimke teaches the limitations of claim 3. Schimke also teaches that the fill funnel 20 further comprises: a body (see outer walls of 20, as shown in figures 1-4) coupled with the sidewall 14 at the fill hole 16; and a cap 32 operably coupled with the body, wherein the cap 32 defines the inlet.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimke (US3821961A) as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Schimke teaches the limitations of claim 3. Schimke does not teach that the hose connection feature is spaced from an interior periphery of the inlet by a distance that is substantially equal to a thickness of the hose. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the thickness of the hose may be chosen based on the desired weight and mechanical strength of the hose, so as to optimize the fluid flow therein as well as the connection with the fill funnel. Furthermore, it has been determined that changes in size and relative dimensions constitute an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimke (US3821961A) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Robinson (US20010000576).
Regarding claim 8, Schimke teaches the limitations of claim 3. Schimke teaches that the hose connection feature (see e.g. portion 34, as shown in figures 2-4) is cylindrical (see figures 2-4, abstract, column 3, lines 9-40). Schimke does not teach that the hose connection feature comprises a plurality of threads to twistably couple the hose with the hose connection feature. Robinson teaches a fluid cleaning system (see abstract) and that a plurality of threads may be used in order to couple a hose 14 with a hose connection feature 330, so as to allow for a suitable piping connection (see paragraph [0079], figure 10). Since both Schimke and Robinson teach fluid cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a plurality of threads may be included with the hose connection feature so as to provide a suitable piping connection with the hose, as shown to be known and conventional by Robinson.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimke (US3821961A) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Martinez et al. (US20230079570).
Regarding claim 10, Schimke teaches the limitations of claim 3. Schimke does not explicitly teach that the hose connection feature is barbed so as to retain the hose. Martinez et al. teaches a dishwashing system (see abstract) and that barbs 308 allow for the retention of the attached hose (see figures 7, 9, paragraphs [0054]-[0057]). Since both Schimke and Martinez et al. teach dishwashing systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the barb in the system by Schimke may be configured to retain the hose, so as to allow for a suitable piping connection, as shown to be known and conventional by Martinez et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Schimke (US3821961A). Schimke fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claim 5. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711