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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10 is 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. In particular, the term “the positioning edge” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering this term to refer to the same component(s) as the term “a locating edge” in this claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 6-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12102280. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both U.S. Patent No. 12102280 and the instant application teach an inner container; a frame; and a door body. Thus, the invention of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12102280 is in effect a species of the generic invention of claims 1 & 6-15. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993). Since claims 1 & 6-15 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12102280, they are not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12102280.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-4 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Busing (DE102011003821).
Regarding claim 1, Busing teaches a dishwasher comprising: an inner container (3-6) having an accommodation cavity (i.e., space between 3-6), the accommodation cavity having an opening (2) facing forward; a frame (15) connected (via 28) to an outer surface (Fig. 3) of the inner container and arranged along an edge (45; or corner between 14 & 45) of the opening of the accommodation cavity (Figs. 1 & 3), wherein a sealing groove (16) is defined in the frame, and wherein a sealing strip (17) is disposed in the sealing groove; and a door body configured to open or cover the opening of the accommodation cavity, wherein the door body abuts against the sealing strip in response to the opening of the accommodation cavity being covered by the door body (par. 12 & 16).
Regarding claim 2, Busing teaches a sealing groove (16) directly defined in the frame (15) and extends in a length direction of the frame (implied by Fig. 3 & par. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Busing teaches a front end of a sealing strip (17) that protrudes from an opening (i.e., opening at front end of 16) of the sealing groove (16) to ensure that the door body is in effective contact with the sealing strip (implied by Fig. 3 and par. 12 & 16).
Regarding claim 4, Busing teaches a sealing strip (17) embedded (Fig. 3) in a sealing groove (16).
Regarding claim 15, Busing teaches a frame (15) configured as a plastic frame (see par. 14, stating that the frame (15) is a plastic profile made of PP or PA (i.e., polypropylene or polyamide, both of which are plastics)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busing (DE102011003821) in view of Mazzaro (20200260931). Busing teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a sealing strip (17) made of an elastomer (par. 14); but fail(s) to teach a foaming material. However, Mazzaro teaches making a sealing strip (50 - see Fig. 4 & par. 62) of a foaming material (i.e., closed cell foam rubber - see par. 71, 74, & 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the sealing strip of Busing from a foaming material, as taught by Mazzaro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure a better hydraulic seal between the sealing strip & the door (as suggested by par. 74 of Mazzaro).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busing (DE102011003821) in view of Duncan (3443719). Busing teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an edge (45) of the opening (2) of the inner container (3-6); but fail(s) to teach a reinforcement flange. However, Duncan teaches bending an edge (8) of an opening backwards to form a reinforcement flange (8b). See Fig. 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a reinforcement flange, as taught by Duncan, to the edge of Busing, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide structural reinforcement thereto.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busing (DE102011003821) in view of Park (20170275927). Busing teach(es) the structure substantially as claimed, including a frame (15) and a door body (par. 12 & 16); but fail(s) to clearly teach a lock. However, Park further teaches the inclusion, on a frame (113 - see Fig. 7), of a portion (C) of a lock (C, H) configured to lock or unlock a door body (16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a lock, as taught by Park, to the frame of Busing, in order to selectively hold the door body in the closed position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637