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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments and remarks in the reply filed 3/2/2026 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. The rejection of claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cen (CN114052614, machine translation referenced herein), and further in view of Kurihara (JP H11262600, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8: Cen teaches a dishwasher or drying system with a dry mode, the dishwasher comprises:
a wash compartment (Fig. 6, element 7); and
a heating unit to directly heat a plurality of fan blades from outside the wash compartment, wherein the heating unit comprises:
a fan motor (Fig. 5, element 6);
the plurality of fan blades made of a ferromagnetic material (pg. 4, seventh full paragraph), fluidly coupled with an atmosphere of the wash compartment (pg. 5, third full paragraph), wherein:
the plurality of fan blades circulates the atmosphere, and the ferromagnetic material heats the atmosphere (pg. 5, third full paragraph); and
a wireless power source (Fig. 5, elements 1 and 2) wirelessly inducing heating of the ferromagnetic material from outside of the wash compartment.
Cen teaches the magnetic conduction impeller enters the next magnetic field from one magnetic field in the rotating process, the magnetic field passing through the blades can be changed, so that eddy current is generated, the blades can generate heat. Thus, Cen does not disclose a wireless power source which uses an induction coil to wirelessly induce heating of the ferromagnetic material from outside of the wash compartment. However, Kurihara teaches a ventilating dryer comprising a plurality of fan blades made of an induction material, wherein a wireless power source using an induction coil is used to wirelessly induce heating of the blades from outside the space being heated (see abstract and Fig. 1). It has been held that substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Cen’s heating device with Kurihara’s induction coil heating device as both devices are used to heat the fan blades to bring heat to the space. Thus, the proposed substitution would have obtained the predictable result of similarly heating the wash compartment.
Regarding Claims 3 and 10: Cen and Kurihara teach the elements of Claims 1 or 8 as discussed above. Cen does not expressly disclose the heating unit is used as a retrofit kit, but does teach that the heating device is applied to the existing technology offering a simple construction and low energy consumption (pg. 2, fourth full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dishwasher of Cen such that the heating unit is provided as a retrofit kit in order to provide simple and low-energy options to existing dishwashers, as suggested by Cen.
Regarding Claims 4, 6, 11, and 13: Cen and Kurihara teach the elements of Claims 1 or 8 as discussed above. The claims recite a manner of operating the plurality fan blades. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The fan blades of Cen meet the structural limitations of the claimed fan blades, and are, thus, considered fully capable at operating at an RPM or during a wash cycle as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15: Cen teaches a drying method for drying a plurality of utensils with a dry mode, comprising:
directly heating a plurality of fan blades of a heating unit from outside the wash compartment (see abstract), wherein the heating unit comprises:
a fan motor (Fig. 5, element 6);
the plurality of fan blades made of a ferromagnetic material (pg. 4, seventh full paragraph), fluidly coupled with an atmosphere of the wash compartment (pg. 5, third full paragraph), wherein:
the plurality of fan blades circulates the atmosphere, and the ferromagnetic material heats the atmosphere (pg. 5, third full paragraph); and
a wireless power source (Fig. 5, elements 1 and 2) wirelessly inducing heating of the ferromagnetic material from outside of the wash compartment.
Cen teaches the magnetic conduction impeller enters the next magnetic field from one magnetic field in the rotating process, the magnetic field passing through the blades can be changed, so that eddy current is generated, the blades can generate heat. Thus, Cen does not disclose the wireless power source uses an induction coil to wirelessly induce heating of the ferromagnetic material from outside of the wash compartment. However, Kurihara teaches a ventilating dryer comprising a plurality of fan blades made of an induction material, wherein a wireless power source using an induction coil is used to wirelessly induce heating of the blades from outside the space being heated (see abstract and Fig. 1). It has been held that substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Cen’s heating device with Kurihara’s induction coil heating device as both devices are used to heat the fan blades to bring heat to the space. Thus, the proposed substitution would have obtained the predictable result of similarly heating the wash compartment.
Regarding Claim 17: Cen and Kurihara teach the elements of Claim 15 as discussed above. Cen does not expressly disclose the speed of the fan blades. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cen by operating the fan blades at an RPM which reduces noise generated by the fan blades which provides a quieter environment for the user.
Regarding Claim 19: Cen teaches the elements of Claim 15 as discussed above. Cen does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of fan blades of the heating unit rotates during a wash cycle to disperse water within the wash compartment during the wash cycle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cen by rotating the plurality of fan blades of the heating unit during a wash cycle in order to disperse heated water and air during the wash cycle in order to enhance the cleaning efficiency.
Claim 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cen (CN114052614) and Kurihara (JP H11262600, machine translation referenced herein), as applied above and further in view of Shin et al. (EP3653099).
Regarding Claims 7 or 14: Cen and Kurihara teach the elements of Claims 1 or 8 as discussed above. Cen does not expressly disclose that the plurality of fan blades is divided into a plurality of heating zones. However, Shin teaches a dishwasher drying system comprising a plurality of fans as heating zones to enhance the air circulation and dehumidification of the dishwasher [0080, 0081]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cen such that the plurality of fan blades are divided into a plurality of heating zones to enhance the drying effect as suggested by Shin.
Regarding Claim 20: Cen teaches the method of Claim 15 as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose that the plurality of fan blades is divided into a plurality of heating zones. However, Shin teaches a dishwasher drying method wherein a plurality of fans are provided as heating zones to enhance the air circulation and dehumidification of the dishwasher [0080, 0081]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cen such that the plurality of fan blades are divided into a plurality of heating zones to enhance the drying effect as suggested by Shin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 18 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 reviewed prior art does not anticipate or fairly suggest the dishwasher, drying system, or drying method having all features as set forth in the aforementioned claims. The closest prior art of record is that of Cen as discussed above. Cen does not teach or fairly suggest the system further comprises a plurality of fan blades of a fan that is attached to a shaft and is operable to cool down the wireless power source using a first subset of the plurality of fan blades at a first position along the shaft, and reduce moisture buildup within the wash compartment using a second subset of fan blades at a second position along the shaft, as required by claims 2, 9, and 16. Cen does not teach or fairly suggest that the plurality of fan blades of the heating unit collapse or retract when not in use, as required by clams 5, 12, and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is noted that applicant has argued that claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite limitations that are not found in these claims. The limitations that applicant has noted are found in amended dependent claims 2, 9, and 16.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, and 15 to recite the wireless power source uses an induction coil to wirelessly induce heating of the ferromagnetic material. Though Cen does not disclose this feature, Kurihara is now cited for disclosing this feature as noted above.
Therefore, the rejections of Claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights