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 .
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). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
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. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim and the conflicting claims are directed to substantially similar subject matter, with the instant claim generally being broader in scope than the conflicting claims and having only minor differences in language or minor obvious differences.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,514,424. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim and the conflicting claims are directed to substantially similar subject matter, with the instant claim generally being broader in scope than the conflicting claims and having only minor differences in language or minor obvious differences.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/723,632 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim and the conflicting claims are directed to substantially similar subject matter, with the instant claim generally being broader in scope than the conflicting claims and having only minor differences in language or minor obvious differences.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-26 of copending Application No. 18/723,619 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim and the conflicting claims are directed to substantially similar subject matter, with the instant claim generally being broader in scope than the conflicting claims and having only minor differences in language or minor obvious differences.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 19/204,071 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim and the conflicting claims are directed to substantially similar subject matter, with the instant claim generally being broader in scope than the conflicting claims and having only minor differences in language or minor obvious differences.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spray arm or connection pipe." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is only a previous recitation of “a spray arm,” so “the spray arm or connection pipe” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if the limitation should be interpreted as “the spray arm or a connection pipe.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the connection pipe." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is a previous recitation of “the spray arm or connection pipe” and “a connection pipe,” and it is unclear if the connection pipes are the same pipe.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2019/0343366).
Regarding claims 1-2, and 6, Lee discloses a dishwasher comprising: a tub (24); a sump disposed under the tub and storing washing water therein (26); a spray arm disposed within the tub and spraying the washing water into the tub (42, 44); a pump supplying the spray arm with the washing water stored in the sump (28); a washing water flow pipe supplying the spray arm with the washing water discharged from the pump (54); and a bubble generator disposed in the spray arm or connection pipe and having a Venturi-tube shape to generate bubbles in the washing water flowing therethrough (55, 100); wherein the spray arm comprises: a lower spray arm (42); and an upper spray arm disposed above the lower spray arm (44), wherein the washing water flow pipe extends along a bottom surface and a side surface of the tub to supply the upper spray arm with the washing water discharged from the pump (54), and wherein the bubble generator is disposed to protrude obliquely from a side of the washing water flow pipe (see angled/protruding portions of 100); wherein the washing water flow pipe comprises: an upper washing water flow pipe disposed above the bubble generator (upper part of 54); and a lower washing water flow pipe disposed under the bubble generator (lower part of 54), and wherein a size of a sectional area of a flow path of the upper washing water flow pipe is formed smaller than a size of a sectional area of a flow path of the lower washing water flow pipe (see sizes of lower part of 54 and upper part of 54, such as at element 46; note the regions where the pipes are shown to expand/contract; also note that the claim does not specify the sectional area such that any arbitrary cross-sectional area could be measured).
Claim(s) 1, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2014/0069469).
Regarding claims 1, and 8, Choi discloses a dishwasher comprising: a tub (115); a sump disposed under the tub and storing washing water therein (50); a spray arm disposed within the tub and spraying the washing water into the tub (132); a pump supplying the spray arm with the washing water stored in the sump (145); a washing water flow pipe supplying the spray arm with the washing water discharged from the pump (141); and a bubble generator disposed in the spray arm or connection pipe and having a Venturi-tube shape to generate bubbles in the washing water flowing therethrough (70); wherein the spray arm comprises a first blade formed with a first spray path that sprays the washing water into the tub, a second blade formed with a second spray path that sprays the washing water into the tub (Figure 3: see sides of 132), and a hub supplying the washing water to each of the first blade and the second blade (center of 132 and/or 136), and wherein the bubble generator is disposed on at least one of the first blade and the second blade (70).
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.
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(s) 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2014/0069469) in view of Xu (CN 210541428; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 9 Choi is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose
wherein the spray arm comprises: a first blade formed with a first spray path for spraying the washing water into the tub, and a first bubble generation path for discharging the washing water containing microbubbles to the tub; a second blade formed with a second spray path for spraying the washing water into the tub, and a second bubble generation path for discharging the washing water containing microbubbles to the tub; and a hub supplying the washing water to each of the first blade and the second blade.
Xu discloses a cleaning machine and a spraying arm (1), wherein the spraying arm includes first and second lateral extensions (Figures 2, 3; corresponding to first and second blades), a water storage cavity extending from a center of the arm to the spraying holes (11-13; corresponding to first and second spray paths and a hub), and nozzles having an internal path and provided to make sprayed water contain entrained bubbles (Figures 2-5: 2; corresponding to a bubble generation path).
Because it is known in the art to have a spray arm for generating wash water with bubbles as claimed, and the results of the substitution would be predictable, namely, providing a known structure for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the spray arm comprises: a first blade formed with a first spray path for spraying the washing water into the tub, and a first bubble generation path for discharging the washing water containing microbubbles to the tub; a second blade formed with a second spray path for spraying the washing water into the tub, and a second bubble generation path for discharging the washing water containing microbubbles to the tub; and a hub supplying the washing water to each of the first blade and the second blade.
Claims 10-11 are considered to be met by the combination of Choi, in view of Xu, as applied above and which results in: wherein the hub comprises: a supply path through which the washing water flows upward (Choi: 141; Xu: center of 11); a 1-1 branch path connecting the supply path and the first spray path (Xu: lateral extension of 11); and a 1-2 branch path connecting the supply path and the second spray path (Xu: lateral extension of 11), wherein the 1-1 branch path is formed in a direction parallel to the first spray path, and wherein the 1-2 branch path is formed in a direction parallel to the second spray path (Xu: see portions of 11 close to the center and portions of 11 close to the outer side of the arm); wherein the 1-1 branch path is formed with a larger sectional area than the first spray path, and the 1-1 branch path has a shape in which the sectional area thereof decreases from the supply path to the first spray path, and wherein the 1-2 branch path is formed with a larger sectional area than the second spray path, and the 1-2 branch path has a shape in which the sectional area thereof decreases from the supply path to the second spray path (Xu: see portions of 11 close to the center and portions of 11 close to the outer side of the arm, and note the tapering shape of 11 towards the distal ends)
Claims 12-13 are considered to be met by the combination of Choi, in view of Xu, as applied above and which results in: wherein the hub comprises: a 2-1 branch path connecting the supply path and the first bubble generation path (Xu: Figure 5: branching portion below element 22); and a 2-2 branch path connecting the supply path and the second bubble generation path (Xu: Figure 5: branching portion below element 22; note Figures 2 and 3 show plural elements 2 on opposite sides of the arm), wherein the 2-1 branch path is disposed at an angle with the first bubble generation path, and wherein the 2-2 branch path is disposed at an angle with the second bubble generation path (Xu: note that the angle could be zero degrees);
wherein the sectional area of each of the 2-1 branch path and the 2-2 branch path is formed smaller than the sectional area of the 1-1 branch path or the 1-2 branch path (Xu: Figure 5: branching portion below element 22 compared to 11; note that any arbitrary cross-sectional area could be measured).
Claims 14-15 are considered to be met by the combination of Choi, in view of Xu, as applied above and which results in: wherein the first spray path disposed in the first blade is located at a rear of the first bubble generator on the basis of a rotating direction of the spray arm, and wherein the second spray path disposed in the second blade is located at a rear of the second bubble generator on the basis of the rotating direction of the spray arm (Xu: note that the spray path portion of 11 is located at the front and rear of the spray arm);
wherein each of the first bubble generation path and the second bubble generation path comprises therein a connecting path connected to the supply path (Xu: interior of 22), a buffer chamber connected to the connecting path and having a path sectional area expanded or reduced (Xu: 1251), an air inlet path which is connected to the buffer chamber and through which outside air is sucked in (Xu: 21), and a discharge path connected to the air inlet path and discharging washing water in which microbubbles are created (Xu: outlet of 125).
Claims 16-17 are considered to be met by the combination of Choi, in view of Xu, as applied above and which results in: wherein the buffer chamber comprises an expansion part in which a sectional area of a flow path is expanded (Xu: transition between interior of 22 and beginning of 1251), a maintenance part in which the sectional area of the flow path is maintained (Xu: constant diameter portion immediately after 1251), and a reduction part in which the sectional area of the flow path is reduced (Xu: 1251), wherein an inlet connected to the connecting path (Xu: end of interior of 22) and an outlet connected to the air inlet path (Xu: end of 21) are formed in the buffer chamber, and wherein central positions of the inlet and the outlet formed in the buffer chamber are formed differently from each other (Xu: interior of 22 and 21 are offset); wherein the air inlet path is connected at a side thereof to an air path, and wherein the air path allows outside air to flow in through a suction hole formed in a lower surface of the spray arm (Xu: see 15, 52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the dishwasher as defined by the combination of claims 1-3; or the dishwasher as defined by the combination of claims 1 and 7. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Lee (US 2019/0343366), to further include wherein the bubble generator comprises: a connection pipe branching from the washing water flow pipe; a buffer chamber pipe extending from the connection pipe and forming a buffer chamber therein; a discharge pipe extending from the buffer chamber pipe and discharging the washing water that contains bubbles; and an air inlet pipe disposed between the buffer chamber pipe and the discharge pipe, and having an air path through which outside air is introduced, and wherein the air inlet pipe is disposed on a downstream end of the buffer chamber, and has a structure extending downward. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Lee (US 2019/0343366), to further include wherein the spray arm comprises a top spray arm that sprays the washing water downward from an upper end of a washing space defined by the tub, and an upper spray arm that is disposed under the top spray arm and sprays the washing water into the washing space, wherein the washing water flow pipe comprises: a first washing water flow pipe sending the washing water supplied from the pump to the upper spray arm; and a second washing water flow pipe sending the washing water supplied from the pump to the top spray arm, and wherein the bubble generator comprises: a first bubble generator disposed on a side of the first washing water flow pipe; and a second bubble generator disposed on a side of the second washing water flow pipe.
Conclusion
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