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/Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 5/20/2026. Claims 16-32 are pending. Claims 16, 17, and 32 have been amended.
The interpretation of “a switching unit” and “a regulating unit” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 16-31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim 32 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isbilen et al. (US 2018/0325353). Claim 32 was amended to incorporate features from claim 16.
Applicant argues that Isbilen is silent at least to “detecting, using a detection unit included in the household dishwasher, a blockage of the receptacle or a stop request of a user as a function of the motor parameter or the regulating parameter” and “decoupling, using a switch unit included in the household dishwasher, the electric motor from the receptacle to be in a free-running state or disconnecting the electric motor from a power supply as a function of the detected blockage or the detected stop request.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Isbilen broadly and reasonably discloses detecting, using a detection unit included in the household dishwasher, a blockage of the receptacle or a stop request of a user as a function of the motor parameter or the regulating parameter (40, 41; paragraphs 8, 12, 84-87); and decoupling, using a switch unit included in the household dishwasher, the electric motor from the receptacle to be in a free-running state or disconnecting the electric motor from a
power supply as a function of the detected blockage or the detected stop request (25, 26; paragraphs 72, 87; "switching off the drive mechanism"). It is noted that claim 32 contains the alternative limitation “or disconnecting the electric motor from a power supply,” which is still considered to be met by the prior art, so this rejection is maintained.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, new/modified ground(s) of rejection are applied below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection unit” in claims 16 and 32; “a machine learning unit” in claim 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isbilen et al.
(US 2018/0325353).
Regarding claim 32, Isbilen discloses a method for operating a household dishwasher,
comprising: a) shifting a receptacle into the household dishwasher for items to be washed with aid of an electric motor included in the household dishwasher, the electric motor having a motor parameter and/or regulated as a function of a regulating parameter (10, 24; Figures 1-2);
b) detecting, using a detection unit included in the household dishwasher, a blockage of the receptacle or a stop request of a user as a function of the motor parameter or the regulating parameter (40, 41; paragraphs 8, 12, 84-87); and c) decoupling, using a switch unit included in the household dishwasher, the electric motor from the receptacle to be in a free-running state or disconnecting the electric motor from a power supply as a function of the detected blockage or the detected stop request (25, 26; paragraphs 72, 87; "switching off the drive mechanism").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-31 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, a household dishwasher as defined by claim 16. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Isbilen et al. (US 2018/0325353), to have a household dishwasher, comprising; a dishwasher cavity; a receptacle for items to be washed, said receptacle designed to be shifted into and at least partially out of the dishwasher cavity; an electric motor having a motor parameter and designed to shift in a driving state the receptacle into or at least partially out of the dishwasher cavity and to be decoupled in a free-running state from the receptacle and/or to be disconnected from a power supply; a detection unit designed to detect a blockage of the receptacle and/or a stop request of a user as a function of the motor parameter; and a switch unit designed to switch the electric motor into the free-running state as a function of the detected blockage or the detected stop request.
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 DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights