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 § 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 1-15 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: “…a water storage chamber disposed below the tub and configured to store water in the tub…”. It is unclear how the water storage chamber would be capable of storing water in the tub while being disposed below the tub. For examination purposes it has been determined that the limitation reads as follows: “…a water storage chamber disposed below the tub and configured to store water from the tub…”.
The term “elastic” in claims 1-4, 13 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “elastic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of elasticity of material is being claimed.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "…the first hook…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it has been assumed that claim 8 depends on claim 6.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "…the second hook…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it has been assumed that claim 8 depends on claim 6.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN208808423U) in view of Yoon et al. (US20100252080).
Regarding claims 1, 5, Cai et al. teaches a dishwasher (see abstract) comprising: a tub 200 (see figures 1-3, page 7 of the translation); a water storage chamber 300 disposed below the tub 200 and capable of storing water in the tub 200 (see figures 1-3, pages 7-9 of the translation); a filter 2 disposed inside the water storage chamber 300 and capable of filtering water introduced into the water storage chamber 300 (see figures 2-6, pages 7, 8 of the translation); a filter motor 111 configured to generate a rotational force to rotate the filter 2 (see pages 7, 8, 10 of the translation, figures 1-4); a shaft 112 configured to be rotated by the filter motor 111 and configured to transmit the rotational force of the filter motor 111 to the filter 2 (reads on claim 5) (see figures 2, 3 and pages 8, 9 of the translation). Cai et al. does not teach an elastic member comprising an elastic material configured to guide rotation of the filter. Yoon et al. teaches a dishwasher (see abstract) and an elastic member 520 comprising an elastic material configured to guide rotation of the filter 510, wherein the elastic member 520 comprises: a first body part 524 mountable on an upper portion of the filter 510 and comprising a first opening; and a second body part 526 extending upward from the first body part 524 and comprising a second opening larger than the first opening, so as to provide mechanical support for the filter (see figures 2-4, paragraphs [0052], [0058]-[0064]). Since both Cai et al. and Yoon et al. teach dishwashers with filters it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that an elastic member may be included in the system by Cai et al. so as to provide mechanical support for the filter, as shown to be known and conventional by Yoon et al.
Regarding claim 2, Cai et al. and Yoon et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Yoon et al. also teaches in figures 4, 5, paragraphs [0064]-[0070] that the elastic member 520 further comprises a protruding rib (see uppermost portion of 526, as shown in figures 4 and 5) extending upward from the second body part 526 and configured to be bent in an inner direction (see inwardly bent 526a, as shown in figures 4 and 5) of the second opening.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Cai et al. and Yoon et al. together teach the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Yoon et al. also teaches in figures 5, 6, paragraphs [0064]-[0070] the filter 510 comprises a first filter 510, the dishwasher further comprises a second filter 530 configured to filter water introduced into the water storage chamber 200, 300 and flowing toward the first filter 510, and the protruding rib of the elastic member 526 is configured to be pressed by the second filter 530 (reads on claim 3); and the elastic member 520 is configured to provide a seal (see sealing connection between 526a and 534a, as shown in figures 5 and 6) between the first filter 510 and the second filter 530 (reads on claim 4).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Cai et al. and Yoon et al. together teach the limitations of claim 5. Cai et al. also teaches in figures 1-3, 5, 6 and pages 8-10 of the translation a rotating frame 24, 120 configured to connect the shaft 112 and the filter 2 and configured to be rotated by the shaft 112 (reads on claim 10); the rotating frame 24, 120 comprises: a filter fixing part 24 mountable on a lower portion of the filter 2; and a shaft fixing part 120 connected to the filter fixing part 24 and configured to be engaged with an outer surface of the shaft 112 (reads on claim 11).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN208808423U) in view of Yoon et al. (US20100252080) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Wu (CN208573697U),
Regarding claim 7, Cai et al. and Yoon et al. together teach the limitations of claim 5. Yoon et al. also teaches in figures 5, 6, paragraphs [0064]-[0070] that the filter 510 includes a first filter 510, the dishwasher further comprises a second filter 530 configured to filter water introduced into the water storage chamber 200, 300 and flowing toward the first filter 510, and the second filter 530 comprises a filter body. Cai et al. does not teach a second filter with a filter body wherein at least a portion of the filter body is disposed inside the first filter and a hollow portion formed inside the filter body so that the shaft is insertable therein. Wu teaches a dishwasher (see abstract) and a second filter 16 with a filter body wherein at least a portion of the filter body is disposed inside the first filter 14 and a hollow portion (see hollow space in 16 through which 123 passes, as shown in figure 2) formed inside the filter body so that the shaft 123, 1234, 1232 is insertable therein, allowing for a simple and stable structure (see figures 1-4, pages 4, 5 of the translation). Since both Cai et al. and Wu teach dishwashers with filters it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the system by Cai et al. may include a second filter with a hollow filter body disposed inside the first filter and through which the shaft is insertable so as to allow for a simple and stable construction, as shown to be known and conventional by Wu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 9, 12-15 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 closest prior art of record is Cai et al. (CN208808423U). Cai et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 6, 8, 9, 12-15. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights