DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the application filed 10/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 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 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.
Claims 1, 8-10, 12, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geda et al. (US 2014/0109938 A1) (cited by Applicant).
Re claim 1, Geda discloses a dishwasher (abstract) comprising:
a tub (ref. 14, see fig. 1) at least partially defining a treating chamber with an access opening (see fig. 1 ¶ [0018]), the tub including a lower portion forming a sump;
at least one sprayer (refs. 34, 38. 40) provided in the treating chamber;
a pump (ref. 33) fluidly coupling the sump to the at least one sprayer;
a filter assembly (see figs. 3-7) including a filter (ref. 74) provided in the sump and having a filter wall (ref. 106, see figs. 3-7) through which liquid passes;
a cleaning element (ref. 82 or arms of ref. 84 adjacent filter wall 106) extending along at least a portion of the filter wall; and
a displacement body (regarding “displacement body”, Examiner notes the structure of such a body is vague; as such, any structure that would be expected to displace anything, e.g. water, to any degree, e.g. non-inconsequential volume, as compared to having no such body/structure, would satisfy the limitation as claimed. As such, fig. 4 central body of ref. 84 satisfies a displacement body) configured to displace a percentage of a volume of the filter (inherent in the body of ref. 84 having volume that water otherwise present in the filter will be displaced);
wherein the filter and cleaning element are configured for relative movement (¶ [0032]) and wherein at least one of a rotary driver (ref. 61 motor and/or impeller 63) or a displacement body is configured to provide the relative movement (¶ [0028] rotating filter).
Re claims 2, wherein the filter or the cleaning element includes a shaft (see fig. 6, unlabeled shaft from ref. 60 coupled to ref. 63 coupled to ref. 84; alternatively, ref. 63 itself satisfies a shaft as it is tubular-shaped and transmits motion).
Re claim 3, wherein the displacement body is coupled to the shaft (indirectly via filter 74, at ref. 112, 86, see fig. 4), is located within the shaft, or forms the shaft.
Re claim 4, wherein the shaft (see fig. 6 ¶ [0028], [0032] rotating filter) or the displacement body couples to the filter wall for rotating the filter wall about the cleaning element.
Re claims 8-10, wherein the lower portion of the tub includes a recessed portion forming the sump (see fig. 1) and wherein the filter is a filter cup (see figs. 3-6 cup-shape filter 74) located at least partially in the recessed portion (see fig. 1); wherein the cleaning element is in contact with at least one of an interior (arms of ref. 84) or an exterior (ref. 82) of the filter cup; wherein the cleaning element extends vertically along the filter wall (see figs. 3-4 and 6).
Re claim 12, Regarding “wherein the cleaning element is in contact with both an interior and an exterior of the filter wall”, Geda discloses cleaning elements in contact with both an interior (arms of ref. 84) and an exterior (ref. 82) of the filter wall.
Re claims 14-15, Geda further discloses wherein the cleaning element comprises one of a cleaning roller, brush, or scraper (arms of ref. 84) secured to the displacement body. Re claim 15, Regarding “further comprising protruding bristles from the brush and protruding through at least a portion of the filter wall”, claim 15 further limits one of multiple alternatives recited in claim 14, since Geda discloses the scraper, the limitations of claim 15 are still met (Nonetheless see Arnold in 103 rejections below regarding brushes).
Re claim 16¸ Regarding “wherein the displacement body is one of hollow or an air dome”, Geda further discloses the displacement body receives a shaft (ref. 90 see fig. 4) and is therefore expected to be hollow such to hold the shaft.
Re claim 17, wherein the rotary driver drives rotation of the filter wall which drives rotation of the cleaning element about an outer surface of the filter wall and wherein the filter wall and the cleaning element are driven in opposing directions or at differing speeds (¶ [0028]-[0029], [0032] here, the filter 74 rotates by the motor 61 and the cleaning elements may be spherical beads; as such, it is expected the cleaning element will rotate in an opposite direction when in contact with the moving filter).
Re claim 20¸wherein the filter wall is a mesh screen (ref. 106 screen ¶ [0029]).
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fountain et al. (US 2010/0154841 A1).
Re claim 1, Fountain discloses a dishwasher comprising:
a tub (ref. 12 see fig. 1) at least partially defining a treating chamber with an access opening, the tub including a lower portion forming a sump (ref. 24);
at least one sprayer (ref. 20) provided in the treating chamber;
a pump (ref. 38) fluidly coupling the sump to the at least one sprayer (ref. 20);
a filter assembly (ref. 48 see fig. 3 ¶ [0020]) including a filter (ref. 50, 56) provided in the sump and having a filter wall (see fig. 3 ref. 52) through which liquid passes;
a cleaning element (ref. 62 see figs. 4-5 ¶ [0030])) extending along at least a portion of the filter wall; and
a displacement body (regarding “displacement body”, Examiner notes the structure of such a body is vague; as such, any structure that would be expected to displace by nature of its inherent volume, e.g. displacing water, to any degree, satisfies the limitation as claimed. As such, inner wall 44 and refs. 56, 57, 58 satisfy a displacement body) and configured to displace a percentage of a volume of the filter (inherent in refs. 44, 56, 57, 58 having volume);
wherein the filter and cleaning element are configured for relative movement (¶ [0030] deflector 62 disposed within sump and ¶ [0026] rotor 56 and sump 24 to rotate at different speed and/or in counter directions) and wherein at least one of a rotary driver (¶ [0025] rotor 56…rotated by any suitable mechanism…rotation of the sprayer…[a]nother suitable mechanism would include a motor) or a displacement body is configured to provide the relative movement.
Re claims 8-11, wherein the lower portion of the tub includes a recessed portion forming the sump (see fig. 2) and wherein the filter is a filter cup (see fig. 3 cup shape) located at least partially in the recessed portion; wherein the cleaning element is in contact with at least one of an interior or an exterior of the filter cup (see figs. 4-5); wherein the cleaning element extends vertically along the filter wall (¶ [0030] vertical or angled position); wherein the displacement body is configured to rotate the filter wall (refs. 57, 56, 58 rotate the filter elements 50 ¶ [0025]).
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 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geda et al. (US 2014/0109938 A1) (cited by Applicant), as applied above, in view of Rajendran et al. (US 2018/0148883 A1) (cited by Applicant).
Re claim 5, Geda discloses as shown above, including a filter wall (ref. 106) driven to rotate relative to both a stationary displacement body (central body of ref. 84, see figs. 4-6) and movable but non-driven cleaning elements (ref. 82), but does not disclose wherein the displacement body is coupled with the rotary driver to rotate either the filter wall or rotate the cleaning element.
However, Rajendran discloses it is known in the dishwasher filter art (abstract) to provide wherein a displacement body (central body of ref. 220) is coupled with a rotary driver (ref. 70 motor via ref. 72 drive shaft) to rotate either the filter wall or rotate the cleaning element (ref. 86 outer portions of ref. 50 rotates to clean filter wall 52).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the displacement body of Geda to further be coupled to a rotary driver to rotate the cleaning elements, as shown by Rajendran, in order to provide centrifugal force for cleaning the filter.
Re claim 6, Regarding “wherein the cleaning element is in contact with both an interior and an exterior of the filter wall”, Geda discloses cleaning elements in contact with both an interior (arms of ref. 84) and an exterior (ref. 82) of the filter wall.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geda et al. (US 2014/0109938 A1) (cited by Applicant) in view of Rajendran et al. (US 2018/0148883 A1) (cited by Applicant), as applied above, and further in view of Fountain et al. (US 2010/0154841 A1) (cited by Applicant).
Re claim 7, Geda/Rajendran discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein the rotary driver includes a gear system driven by the at least one sprayer. However, Fountain discloses it is known in the dishwasher filter art (abstract) to provide wherein a rotary driver (ref. 56) includes a gear system (¶ [0025]-[0026] rotation of sprayer 20 rotates shaft 57 to rotor 56…rotate at different speed and/or in counter directions) driven by the at least one sprayer (ref. 58).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotary driver of Geda/Rajendran to further include a gear system driven by the at least one sprayer, as taught by Fountain, in order use hydraulic driven rotation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geda et al. (US 2014/0109938 A1) (cited by Applicant), as applied above, in view of Arnold et al. (US 3784017 A) (cited by Applicant).
Re claim 13¸ Geda discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein the cleaning element includes brushes. However, Vancini discloses it is very old and well-known in the filter cleaning art (abstract) to provide a cleaning element including brushes (see fig. 2-4 ref. 45 brush) for cleaning a filter (ref. 23).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaning element of Geda to further include brushes, as suggested by Vancini, in order to mechanically remove particulates from the filter wall.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geda et al. (US 2014/0109938 A1) (cited by Applicant), as applied above, in view of Bauer (US 6,270,669 B1).
Re claim 18, Geda discloses as shown above including driving the rotation of the filter to rotate the cleaning element, but does not disclose wherein the rotary driver drives rotation of the cleaning element which drives rotation of the filter wall and wherein the filter wall and the cleaning element are driven in opposing directions or at differing speeds. However, Bauer discloses it is well-known in the filter cleaning art to provide a rotary driver (ref. 101, see fig. 6) that drives rotation of the cleaning element (ref. 60) which drives rotation of the filter wall (ref. 30) and wherein the filter wall and the cleaning element are driven in opposing directions or at differing speeds (the pressure and rotating force applied by the bristles in turn rotates screen drum 30, col. 6 lines 29-47).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotary driver of Geda to further rotate a cleaning element which drives rotation of the filter wall, as suggested by Bauer, in order to enable mounting of the motor on the exterior side of the filter wall.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geda et al. (US 2014/0109938 A1) (cited by Applicant), as applied above, in view of Yoon et al. (US 2013/0019899 A1) (cited by Applicant).
Re claim 19, Geda discloses as shown above, including rotation of the filter wall, but does not disclose wherein one of the cleaning element or filter wall rotates between about 1 to 4 revolutions per minute. However, Yoon discloses it is known in the dishwasher filter art (abstract) to provide relative rotation between a filter and cleaning element at a 2.5 RPM. It further being simply an optimization of a result-effective variable, where it is generally known by those of ordinary skill in the art that the rate of wiping/brushing should be balanced with the rate of contamination and/or fluid flow through the filter for efficient energy use and fluid flow.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the revolutions per minute of Geda to further be between 1 to 4 RPM, as suggested by Yoon, in order to optimization the rate of cleaning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights