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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12, last 2, one of the double occurrence of the term “in” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-18 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. With respect to claim 15, the recitation “lower than upper edges of the upright side walls” is vague and indefinite as to the upright side walls of the lower ware rack or the upper ware rack or both combined. Similarly, in claim 17, “the upright side walls” is vague and indefinite as to whether applicant is referring to the upright side walls of the lower ware rack or upper ware rack or both. Claims 16-18 are rejected as dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
1170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al (US Publication no. 12161279) in view of Carlson et al (US 12599282 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ko discloses a ware rack system for holding lightweight wares during cleaning in a warewash machine, comprising: a lower ware rack (200a) including a bottom wall (210, figure 5), upright side walls (UW, see examiner’s markup above) and a plurality of pegs extending upward from the bottom wall, wherein a multiplicity of the pegs are tall pegs (232a, 232b, 230a-1) that have upper ends that are located higher than upper edges (UE, see markup above) of the upright side walls (UW)..
However, Ko does not disclose an upper ware rack including a bottom wall and upright side walls, the upper ware rack positioned in an inverted manner over the lower ware rack with the side walls of the upper ware rack resting on the side walls of the lower ware rack.
Carlson discloses a ware rack system for holding lightweight wares during cleaning in a warewash machine, comprising: a lower ware rack (102, figure 2B) including a bottom wall (102, figure 2B), upright side walls (112A, figure 2B) and a plurality of pegs (108, 110, figure 2B) extending upward from the bottom wall; an upper ware rack (106) including a bottom wall (106) and upright side walls (side walls of 112B-112D, figure 2B, figure 1), the upper ware rack positioned in an inverted manner (figure 1) over the lower ware rack with the side walls of the upper ware rack resting on the side walls of the lower ware rack (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the ware rack system of Ko such that an upper ware rack including a bottom wall and upright side walls, the upper ware rack positioned in an inverted manner over the lower ware rack with the side walls of the upper ware rack resting on the side walls of the lower ware rack to act as a cover as taught to be desirable by Carlson.
Regarding claim 2, Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 1, wherein Ko discloses at least some of the pegs are short pegs (SP, see markup above) having upper ends that are located lower than upper edges of the upright side walls, wherein the lower rack comprises a first rack unit (230a) and a second rack unit (200a), the first rack unit (230a) engaged within the second rack unit (200a), wherein the second rack unit (200a) defines the bottom wall (210), the upright side wall (UW) and the short pegs (SP), and the first rack unit (230a) defines the tall pegs (232a, 232b, 230a-1).
With respect to claim 10(New), Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 1, wherein Carlson discloses the bottom wall (106) of the upper ware rack defines a main support plane, and the main support plane is spaced from the upper end of each of the tall pegs (10) by respective vertical gaps.
With respect to claim 11(New), Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 10, except for wherein at least some of the vertical gaps are less than one inch in height.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide some of the vertical gaps are less than one inch in height, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 12(New), Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 10, except for wherein at least some of the vertical gaps are between one quarter of an inch and three-quarters of an inch in height. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide some of the vertical gaps are between one quarter of an inch and three-quarters of an inch in height, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 13(New), Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 10, Carlson further comprising: a plastic ware item having a portion that is positioned in one of the vertical gaps (column 3, lines 25-46).
With respect to claim 14(New). Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 13, wherein Carlson discloses the plastic ware item (column 3, lines 25-46) and it is common that these plastic ware items sit in an inverted position such that inverted plastic cup or another inverted plastic container and the portion is a bottom wall of the plastic ware item.
With respect to claim 15(New). Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 1, wherein Carlson discloses at least some of the pegs (108) are short pegs having upper ends (110) that are located lower than upper edges of the upright side walls (112A).
With respect to claim 16(New). Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 15, wherein Ko discloses at least some of the tall pegs (232) are removably connected or fixedly connected onto short pegs of the lower ware rack.
With respect to claim 17(New), Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 15, wherein Carlson teaches the tall pegs (of Ko) and the short pegs (of Ko) are integrally molded to be unitary with the bottom wall and the upright side walls (see Carlson, column 10, lines 25-32).
With respect to claim 18(New), Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 15, wherein Ko discloses the tall pegs and the short pegs are arranged in an array defined by a plurality of rows and columns, wherein each row is defined by an alternating sequence of tall pegs and short pegs, wherein each column is defined by an alternating sequence of tall pegs and short pegs.
With respect to claim 19(New), Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 1, wherein Carlson teaches an alignment structure (118) is provided for positioning of the side walls of the upper ware rack on the side walls of the lower ware rack.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al (US Publication no. 12161279) in view of Carlson et al (US 12599282 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Dunn et al (US Patent no. 10631711).
Regarding claim 3, Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 2 as discussed above, except wherein the first rack unit is of wire form construction. Dunn discloses a ware rack system comprising a first rack unit (106, figure 4) engaged within a second rack unit (100); wherein the first rack unit (106) is of wire form construction (Dunn discloses in column 7, lines 55-60, that “the one or more modular pegs 106 can be formed from metal material”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the first rack unit of Ko and Carlson combined such that it is made of wire form material as such material is old and well-known in the art as demonstrated by Dunn.
Regarding claim 4, Ko, Carlson, and Dunn combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 3 as discussed above, and wherein Ko discloses the first rack unit (230a) is removably seated in the second rack unit (200a). However, Ko, Carlson, and Dunn combined is silent as to the second rack unit is of plastic construction.
Dunn discloses a ware rack system comprising a first rack unit (106, figure 4) engaged within a second rack unit (100); wherein the second rack unit (100) is of plastic construction (Dunn discloses in column 7, lines 55-60, that “the reservoir 100 can be formed from a plastic material”), and the first rack unit (106) is removably seated in the second rack unit (100)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the rack system of Ko and Carlson combined such that the second rack unit is of plastic construction as such material is old and well-known in the art as demonstrated by Dunn.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al (US Publication no. 12161279) in view of Carlson et al (US 12599282 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Wright (US Pub no.20010047968).
Regarding claim 3, Ko and Carlson combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 2 as discussed above, except wherein the first rack unit is of wire form construction.
Wright discloses a ware rack system (10) comprising a first rack unit (14) engaged within a second rack unit (12), wherein the first rack unit (14) is of wire form construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the first rack unit of Ko and Carlson combined such that it is made of wire form material as such material is old and well-known in the art as demonstrated by Wright.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ko, Carlson, and Wright combined discloses a ware rack system of claim 3 as discussed above, wherein Wright teaches each tall peg (14) is defined by an inverted U-shaped wire rod portion.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al (US Publication no. 12161279) in view of Carlson et al (US 12599282 B2) and in view of Wright (US Pub no.20010047968) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Dunn et al (US Patent no. 10631711).
Regarding claim 4, Ko, Carlson, and Wright combined discloses the ware rack system of claim 3 as discussed above, and additionally Ko discloses the first rack unit (230a) is removably seated in the second rack unit (200a). However, Ko, Carlson, and Wright combined is silent as to the second rack unit is of plastic construction.
Dunn discloses a ware rack system comprising a first rack unit (106, figure 4) engaged within a second rack unit (100); wherein the second rack unit (100) is of plastic construction (Dunn discloses in column 7, lines 55-60, that “the reservoir 100 can be formed from a plastic material”), and the first rack unit (106) is removably seated in the second rack unit (100)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the rack system of Ko, Carlson, and Wright combined such that the second rack unit is of plastic construction as such material is old and well-known in the art as demonstrated by Dunn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the amended claims overcomes the prior art. As discussed above, newly found art to Carlson teaches providing an upper ware rack in inverted position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record further demonstrate racks comprising bottom wall and sidewalls of interest.
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 Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Khc
Prosecution Insights