DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Fig. 21), with claims 1-19 readable thereon, in the reply filed on 10 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 July 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 219569824 U to Dong et al. (“Dong”; machine translation provided by Examiner) in view of US 2023/0232979 to Xie.
Regarding claim 1, Dong discloses a dish washer (see abstract) comprising:
a tub that defines a washing space configured to accommodate one or more objects to be washed therein, the tub having an open front surface that is in fluid communication with the washing space (such washing tubs are inherent/implicit to dishwashers; note front door configuration of door 100, which manifestly pivots to close an open front surface of the dishwasher machine body);
a door (door body 100) configured to open and close the open front surface of the tub;
a handle (handle body 20) configured to reciprocate between (i) an extended position in a forward direction relative to the door and (ii) a retracted position in which the handle is at least partially accommodated within the door (clearly shown in numerous figures, for instance, Figs. 1-2); and
a handle driver (see motor in Embodiment 1, p. 6, ¶ 7-9 of translation) disposed within the door and configured to move the handle from the retracted position toward the extended position or from the extended position toward the retracted position.
Dong discloses the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the handle driver comprises: a pivot link having (i) a first end configured to rotate relative to the door and (ii) a second end that is connected to the handle and configured to rotate relative to the handle, a driving cam configured to (i) press the pivot link in a frontward direction based on the driving cam rotating in a first direction and (ii) press the pivot link in a rearward direction based on the driving cam rotating in a second direction opposite to the first direction, and a driving motor configured to generate a driving force for rotating the driving cam in the first direction or the second direction, the driving motor comprising a rotation shaft disposed below a vertical level of the handle. Xie teaches that it is known to provide a cabinet door with a handle configuration of equivalent configuration in which a first rotating bracket (106) ca be switched from a pressed state to a returned state as a first driving shaft (110) is rotated by the rotation of a swing link (132), which is rotated forwardly and reversely by a driving motor (126) in order to deploy and retract handle cap assemblies (140,142) (see Figs. 9-12 and associated text).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known handle driver configuration for the other to achieve the same and predictable cabinet door opening and closing operations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dong and Xie further disclose wherein the door is configured to pivot about a pivot axis relative to the tub to thereby open and close the open front surface of the tub, and wherein a rotation direction of the door around the pivot axis to open the tub matches one of the first direction or the second direction of the drive motor to move the handle toward the extended position (see door configuration of Dong above and handle driver configuration of Xie in Figs. 9-12 and associated text).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Dong further discloses a handle housing (10) disposed inside the door and configured to receive the handle therein based on the handle moving to the retracted position, wherein the handle housing defines a rail groove configured to guide a reciprocating movement of the handle between the extended position and the retracted position (see Figs. 1-9 of Dong, note groove 13 to stabilize the handle movement), and the handle comprises a guide protrusion that protrudes toward the rail groove and is inserted into the rail groove, and wherein the guide protrusion is configured to move along the rail groove during the reciprocating movement of the handle (note slide block 23 protruding toward and inserted into slide groove 13).
Regarding claims 8-9, Dong further discloses wherein the door defines an opening at a front surface thereof, and wherein the handle is configured to reciprocate through the opening of the door during a reciprocating movement of the handle and configured to close the opening of the door based on the handle being disposed at the retracted position (see Figs. 1-9, note open hole 11 through which the handle body is reciprocally moved), and wherein the opening is spaced apart from a top surface of the door by a vertical distance, and wherein the opening is spaced apart from each of right and left side surfaces of the door by a left-right distance that is less than the vertical distance (see open hole 11 configuration in Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 10, Dong further discloses wherein the handle has a front end surface that is configured to be coplanar with the front surface of the door based on the handle being disposed at the retracted position (see Figs. 1-2 and 22-23).
Regarding claim 11, Dong in view of Xie further discloses wherein the handle comprises: a first handle body configured to be exposed out of the door (see 142 in Fig. 23 of Xie) based on the handle moving to the extended position; and a second handle body connected to a rear end of the first handle body and received inside the door (see 140 in Fig. 23 of Xie).
Regarding claims 12-13, Dong and Xie do not expressly disclose the different handle bodies having comparative size widths. However, changes in size/shape is a prima facie obvious modification (see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A) and (B) regarding Obviousness and Changes in Size/Proportion and Shape).
Regarding claims 14-16 and 18-19, Dong discloses use of a sensor for detection of human body proximity to activate the motor and operate the handle body (see Embodiment 1), which implicitly teaches use of an automatic controller to operate such electrical components. Similarly, Xie discloses detecting human body components upon receiving a control signal, and controlling the driving assembly of the handle accordingly (see Xie at ¶ [0118]-[0122], as well as use of various known sensors including infrared sensors at ¶ [0122]). Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to employ such touch/proximity sensors to determine the proximity of a hand of the user in order to operate the driving motor of the handle and control the operation thereof.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Xie, as applied to claims 1 and 14-15 above, and further in view of US 2020/0158028 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
Dong and Xie, supra, disclose the claimed invention including sensors for detecting user proximity to a dishwasher door. Neither discloses use of a vibration element to generate haptic vibration based on user proximity. Kim (at ¶ [0075]) teaches that it is known to provide a haptic module (423) for user feedback in use of a touch sensor for various components including in a dishwasher (see ¶ [0135]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the user sensor configuration in the dishwasher handle combination of Dong and Xie with a haptic vibrating element, such as that taught in Kim, to yield the same and predictable results of providing vibrational feedback to user touch for sensor activation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0258019 to Smart, which discloses a retractable handle with cam and driving motor configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights