DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein handle driver” should be “wherein the handle driver”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “based a user” should be “based on a user”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109723279A by Deng et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230175296 by Dirnberger et al.
As to claim 1, Deng teaches a dishwasher (para. 46) comprising a tub defining a washing space and having an open front (while Deng does not describe the particulars of a dishwasher embodiment of its invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the dishwasher would include a tub as claimed since a tub is a typical and essential component of a dishwasher of the type contemplated by Deng; see Dirnberger, fig. 1); a door 10 (fig. 1); a handle 20 to reciprocate between extended (fig. 10) and retracted (fig. 11) positions; and a handle driver within the door to reciprocate the handle (para. 12).
Deng does not teach that its dishwasher includes a pop-up device for the handle as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a pop-up device in the dishwasher of Deng. The claimed pop-up device functions as a typical and common “push-push” latching mechanism well-known in the art (see Dirnberger, para. 3). Dirnberger teaches that a push-push mechanism may be providing along with an electrical driver to allow for automatic opening along with manual opening by a user, as desired (para. 15). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the dishwasher taught by Deng to include a pop-up device in order to allow a user to manually extend the door handle if desired.
As to claim 17, the pop-up device would be configured to move the handle to the pop-up position based on a user pressing the handle at the retracted position (see Dirnberger, para. 3).
As to claim 18, the pop-up position would be the extended position (see Deng, fig. 10).
As to claim 19, Deng teaches that the handle is flush with a front surface of the door when in the retraced position (fig. 11).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109723279A by Deng et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230175296 by Dirnberger et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN219569824U by Dong et al.
As to claim 16, Deng does not teach that its driver moves the handle to the extended position based on a user being detected within a predetermined range from the door. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the dishwasher taught by Deng to have the claimed driver function. Dong teaches a dishwasher with a handle driver that moves a handle from use and stowed positions that can be activated upon detection of a user close to the handle body (para. 74). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the claimed driver configuration in order to allow for automatic extension of the handle into a use position upon detection of a user.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109723279A by Deng et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230175296 by Dirnberger et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170049295 by Lagness et al.
As to claim 20, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a plurality of pop-up devices at lateral end portions of the handle. Dishwasher handles having a bar extending between two lateral spaced mounts were well-known and common in the art (see Lagness, fig. 1). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a handle comprising lateral mounts, as common in the art, and corresponding pop-up devices at each lateral end of the handle in order to provide a pop-up function for a handle of the type taught by Lagness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 prior art of record does not teach, alone or in obvious combination, the totality of the limitations of claim 2 and claim 1 from which it depends. As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a dishwasher with a handle that reciprocates between a flush, retracted position and an extended position to be grasped by a user, the reciprocating being performed by a driver or a pop-up device. However, the prior art of record does not teach the structural details of handle being configured to reciprocate by a driver and by a pop-up device. The claimed sliding block and functions of the sliding block and pop-up device are not taught in the prior art of record, and nothing in the present record suggests that the particular claimed structure would have been obvious.
Conclusion
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