DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach the amended limitations of claim 1, in particular that the suction space, storage space, and additive transfer pipe are arranged such that the additive flows downward from the storage space toward the additive transfer pipe via the suction space. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the spatial orientation of the components within the cup washer would have been an obvious design choice with expected results. Furthermore, it was known that pumping of fluids may be assisted by gravity when so arranged (see U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230103316 by Goodjohn et al., para. 37).
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230414059 by Disch et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220298709 by Shafer and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230103316 by Goodjohn et al.
As to claim 1, Disch teaches a cup washer (para. 3) that washes a cup by spraying water in a tub (para. 5), the cup washer comprising an additive storage part to store an additive and an additive supply part to supply the additive to the tub (para. 170). Disch does not teach particulars of its additive supply and thus does not teach the claimed additive supply part. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to include such additive supply in the cup washer of Disch based on the teachings of Shafer.
Shafer teaches an additive supply part to supply an additive to a dishwashing machine, the supply part having a rotary plate rotated by a motor and providing an eccentric shaft; a piston connected to the shaft by a connecting rod and configured to reciprocate within a cylinder to suction and discharge an additive from an additive storage (see e.g. embodiment 90, fig. 6A); a pump housing forming a suction space 124 (fig. 6A) where additive from a storage part is suctioned; and an additive transfer pipe 216. Shafer teaches that its pump is low maintenance which reduces costs and downtime (para. 91). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an additive supply part such as taught by Shafter in order to supply an additive with the benefit of having low maintenance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that piston pumps were well-known in the art; Shafer is but one example of a piston pump used to dispense an additive. Upon this obvious modification, the additive transfer pipe would connect the pump housing with the tub of Disch so that additive discharged from the suction space would move to the tub.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized as obvious to arrange the suction space, storage space, and additive transfer pipe such that the additive flows downward from the storage space toward the additive transfer pipe via the suction space. Shafer recognizes that the pump module of at least one of its embodiments may be orientated in any direction (para. 111). The claimed spatial orientation would have also been an inconsequential obvious design choice and would have functioned as expected. See MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, it was known that pumping of fluids may be assisted by gravity (see Goodjohn, para. 37), which would occur with the claimed arrangement of the suction space, storage space, and additive transfer pipe.
As to claim 6, Shafer teaches that its piston reciprocates up and down within the cylinder (fig. 6A) and the suction space and an upper space inside the cylinder are connected to each other above a top dead center of the piston (e.g. a suction space 172, fig. 6D, and upper space 124, fig. 6A).
As to claim 7, Shafer teaches a first check valve to open an inlet 172 of the suction space and a second check valve to open an outlet 174 of the suction space (fig. 5A, para., 97). While Shafer does not teach that the second check valve is disposed below the first check valve in the embodiment of fig. 5A, it does teach such configuration in the embodiment of fig. 12 (see valves 284). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the second valve may be oriented below the first valve as an obvious variant as set forth by Shafer.
As to claim 13, Disch teaches that a washing water inlet may be above a treatment zone (para. 174). While Disch does not explicitly set forth a location of an additive inlet into the tub, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that any location would be below a water inlet above the treatment zone and that both washing water and additive inlets would be on an inner wall of the tub.
As to claim 14, Disch contemplates that its washer may accommodate two different additives (para. 170); Disch also teaches a controller to control operation of its washer (para. 185). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have first and second additive storage parts for the different additives contemplated by Disch, to have first and second additive supply parts for the additives, and to have the controller control the supply parts accordingly.
As to claim 15, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have first and second additive inlets for the different additives contemplated by Disch (see para. 170).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230414059 by Disch et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220298709 by Shafer and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230103316 by Goodjohn et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210393107 by Wang et al.
As to claims 2 and 3, Shafer does not teach a magnet on its rotary plate and Hall sensor on a side of a rotation path of the magnet and that an input amount of the additive is controlled by a signal from the Hall sensor. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use a magnet and Hall sensor to control an input amount of an additive. Wang teaches that in an additive supply device in which a motor controls pumping of an additive, the amount of additive pumped correlates to the number of revolutions of the motor (para. 281) and that a magnet and Hall sensor may be used to detect the number of revolutions (para. 280). Wang teaches that this arrangement allows for control of the amount of detergent in a reduced device volume (para. 197). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the claimed magnet and Hall sensor and control of an input amount based on the teachings of Wang that demonstrate benefits and successful implementation. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230414059 by Disch et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220298709 by Shafer and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230103316 by Goodjohn et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240376657 by Chun et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120291916 by Hwang.
As to claim 8, Shafer teaches that its check valves comprise an inlet plug and elastic member (para. 99), but does not explicitly teach an arrangement with a plug, elastic member, and inlet guide bar as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such embodiment of a check valve would have been an obvious variant. Chun and Hwang teach arrangements of check valves with a plug, elastic member, and guide bar (see Chun, valve 590, fig. 9; Hwang, fig. 8). The teachings of Chun and Hwang evidence the established principles of check valves and the implementation of a guided plug provided with an elastic member to act upon a pressure differential to open or close fluid flow. Based on the established use of such check valves one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious an arrangement of a plug, elastic member, and guide bar. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 9, Shafer teaches that its pump housing forms a connecting space with an outlet of a suction space and an inlet of an additive transfer pipe 216 (fig. 6A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a plug, elastic member, and guide bar for the reasons discussed above in regard to claim 8.
As to claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to arrange the connecting space below the suction space and above an additive transfer pipe as a design choice to adapt the additive supply part of Shafer into the washer of Disch. Shafer recognizes that the pump module of at least one of its embodiments may be orientated in any direction (para. 111). The claimed spatial orientation would have been an inconsequential obvious design choice and would have functioned as expected. See MPEP 2144.04.
As to claim 11, Shafer teaches an additive supply pipe in which an inlet of the additive transfer pipe 216 surrounds an outer surface (at 198, fig. 7A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230414059 by Disch et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220298709 by Shafer and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230103316 by Goodjohn et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200347535 by Jung et al.
As to claim 12, while Shafer does not explicitly teach a third check valve at an outlet of the additive transfer pipe, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an additional, known check valve for its established purpose in the art of preventing backflow of fluid into an additive transfer pipe, and ultimately an additive dispenser, in particular from a tub of a washing appliance (see Jung, para. 6). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights