DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: The claim begins with “dishwasher with a…” as opposed to “A dishwasher with a…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “dishwasher body”, “power cord”, “socket” [Claim 1]; and “fixed slot” [Claim 4] must be clearly shown / labeled within the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claim 1, the phrase “the baskets are arranged in layers” is unclear and confusing as presently recited and as such, the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant is unascertainable; the phrase “the top of the washing chamber” does not have a proper antecedent basis; and the phrase “one of more baskets” is unclear and confusing since it is not known whether these features are new and distinct limitations, or if they are a reference back to the previously established “a grouped storage basket”; additionally, Claim 1 fails to recite sufficient structural elements and the interconnection of elements to positively position the baskets within the chamber so that an integral structural apparatus is set forth which is able to function as claimed. In Claim 2, the phrases “the hanging ring” & “the hook” [singular] are unclear and confusing since it is not known whether these features are new and distinct limitations, or if they are a reference back to one of the “hanging rings” or “hooks” {plural} as previously established. In Claim 3, the phrase “the inner cavity” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 4, the phrase “the basket (2) A fixed slot is provided” is unclear and confusing as presently worded and not properly understood; additionally, the phrase “the side wall” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 5, the phrase “each layer” does not have a proper antecedent basis; the phrase “the tableware” does not have a proper antecedent basis; and the phrase “in a classified manner” is not understood as presently set forth since there is no basis mentioned as to what may constitute a classified manner. In Claim 6, the phrase “bottom end” does not have a proper antecedent basis; while the phrase “a drawer-like manner” is not properly understood since the terminology drawer-like renders the claim indefinite because the claim may include elements not actually disclosed, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al., [US 7,493,905]. Jeong teaches of a dishwasher (dishwasher) with a grouped storage basket (note fig. 3), comprising: a dishwasher body (tub) and an inherent power cord (which is conventional in the art to supply electricity to the pump and motor – col. 3), wherein the power cord is configured to be connected to a power source (wall outlet for instance) after being inserted into an inherent socket (i.e., an opening into the casing in order to run the cord from the junction box to the wall outlet) of the dishwasher body, and characterized in that: a washing chamber (interior as shown in fig. 2) is arranged on the dishwasher body, and at least one basket (230) is arranged in the washing chamber (fig. 2); the baskets are arranged in layers (laterally as shown in fig. 3); a plurality of hanging rings (one shown in fig. 4) are arranged at the top of the basket; and the hanging rings are rotatably connected to a top of the washing chamber (i.e., the rings can pivot if only one side is engaged at a time for instance – fig. 7) through hooks (340). As to Claim 2, the top of the washing chamber is provided with one or more positioning rings (430), and the hanging ring is hung on the positioning ring through the hook (note fig. 7). As to Claim 6, a basket bottom end is connected in a drawer-like manner (via interconnecting liner of the tub as best understood in view of the 112(b) clarity issue) with a detachable basket and dirt collecting tray (32).
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 & 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs [US 3,727622]. Jacobs teaches of a dishwasher (10) with a grouped storage basket (54), comprising: a dishwasher body (12) and an inherent power cord (which is conventional in the art to supply electricity to the pump and drive means – col. 1), wherein the power cord is configured to be connected to a power source (wall outlet for instance) after being inserted into an inherent socket (i.e., an opening into the casing in order to run the cord from the junction box to the wall outlet) of the dishwasher body, and characterized in that: a washing chamber (14) is arranged on the dishwasher body, and at least one basket (54) is arranged in the washing chamber (fig. 1); a plurality of hanging rings (85, 66) are arranged at the top of the basket; and the hanging rings are rotatably connected to the top of the washing chamber (i.e., the basket can pivot if only one side is engaged at a time for instance) through hooks (68, 69, 110). Jacobs teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed dishwasher as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show at least two baskets. As to this feature, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an additional basket (such as having two narrower baskets serially aligned as opposed to one wider basket), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.; furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); as modified, the baskets would be arranged in layers (i.e., side by side for instance). Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the basket includes a basket grille (74, 75, 92 for instance) for layering, wherein the basket grille is connected obliquely in the inner cavity of the basket (as shown in fig. 2, the grille appears at an angle). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, a fixed slot (viewed as the cavity accepting (111) as best understood in view of the above 112(b) clarity issue) is provided on the side wall of the inner cavity, and the basket grille is detachably mounted on the fixed slot (through intervening component (100). Regarding Claim 5, as modified, each layer of the basket grille can be viewed as a placement layer (i.e., layer along a different plane for instance); a placement rack (viewed as the framework of the basket) is connected to the placement layer; the placement rack includes a first placement rack (74), a second placement rack (75) and a third placement rack (92); the tableware to be washed is placed on the placement rack in a classified manner (manner as shown in fig. 2 for instance); and the height of the placement layer matches the height of the tableware to be washed (shown). Regarding Claim 6, as modified, a basket bottom end is connected in a drawer-like manner (via interconnecting liner of the tub as best understood in view of the 112(b) clarity issue) with a detachable basket and dirt collecting tray (120).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various dishwashers with basket assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
JOH
March 5, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637