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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical error in line 5: “…in an side…”. The suggested change is: “…in a side…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR20140101631A).
Regarding claims 1-3, Lee et al. teaches a cup washer (see abstract) comprising a washing part, wherein the washing part includes: a tub 10 providing a space in which a is capable of being accommodated, and allowing a washing water to be sprayed (via washing arm) (see figures 1-3 and page 3 of the translation); a drying module 100, 140, 150 disposed in a side of the tub 10 to be connected to the tub 10, and capable of spraying a heated air for drying into the tub 10 (see figure 3 and page 4 of the translation); and an air discharge part 200a, 200 disposed in an upper side of the tub 10, and connected with the tub 10 to allow air inside the tub 10 to be discharged to an outside (see figure 3, pages 4 and 6 of the translation) (reads on claim 1); the tub 10 is provided with an air inlet hole 120a formed in a lower side of the tub 10, and connected with an outlet of the drying module 100, 140, 150 (see figure 3, pages 4 and 6 of the translation); and an air discharge hole formed in an upper side of the tub 10, and connected with an inlet of the air discharge part 200a, 200 (see figure 3, pages 3 and 6 of the translation) (reads on claim 2); the drying module 100, 140, 150 includes: a blower fan 140 provided with an air inlet through which air is introduced, and blowing the introduced air toward the tub 10 (see figure 3, page 3 of the translation); an air heating part 150 disposed in an outlet side of the blower fan 140, and capable of heating the air (see figure 3, page 4 of the translation); and an air flow path part 100 accommodating the blower fan 140 and the air heating part 150, and connected with the air inlet hole 120a (see figure 3, pages 3-5 of the translation) (reads on claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3. Lee et al. also teaches in figures 2, 3 and pages 3, 6 and 7 of the translation that the air flow path part 100 includes: an ascending part extending from the blower fan 140 in an upward direction of the tub 10 capable of allowing the air to rise (see e.g. portion of 100 corresponding to upstream vertical section of fluid flow arrow D, as shown in figure 3); a lateral extension part (see e.g. portion of 100 corresponding to horizontal section of fluid flow arrow D, as shown in figure 3) bent from the ascending part, and extending in a lateral direction of the tub 10 capable of allowing the air to flow in the lateral direction; and a descending part (see e.g. portion of 100 corresponding to downstream vertical section of fluid flow arrow D, as shown in figure 3) bent from the lateral extension part, and extending in a downward direction of the tub 10 capable of allowing the air to descend.
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.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20140101631A) as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3. Lee et al. also teaches in pages 3 and 7 of the translation and figures 1-3 a second ventilation hole 200b formed at a location corresponding to an outlet of the air discharge part 200a, 200; a rear panel covering a rear of the cup washer, wherein the rear panel includes: a first ventilation hole 110b formed at a position corresponding to the air inlet of the blower fan 140. Lee et al. does not teach that the second ventilation hole formed at a location corresponding to an outlet of the air discharge part is disposed on the rear panel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the second ventilation hole may be disposed on the rear panel so as to guide the discharged air in a rearwards direction and away from the front of the dishwasher. Moreover, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20140101631A) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN212213682U).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Lee et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4. Lee et al. also teaches in figures 2 and 3 and pages 3, 5-7 of the translation that the air flow path part 100 includes: a first duct 100 accommodating the blower fan 140 and coupled to the tub 10; the first duct 100 forming the ascending part, the lateral extension part, and the descending part. Lee et al. does not teach a fan casing covering the blower fan and a second duct connected with the fan casing, and coupled with the first duct. Zhu et al. teaches a dishwashing machine (see abstract) and a fan casing 253 covering the blower fan 1; a first duct 25 accommodating the blower fan 1, coupled with the fan casing 253, and coupled to the tub; and a second duct 26 connected with the fan casing 253, and coupled with the first duct 25; wherein the first duct 25 and the second duct 26 are coupled with each other; thereby allowing for a simple configuration with convenient detachability and low cost (see figures 1-6, pages 5, 6 of the translation) (reads on claim 6). Since both Lee et al. and Zhu et al. teach dishwashing machines with fans 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 Lee et al. may include a fan casing covering the blower fan and a second duct connected with the fan casing, and coupled with the first duct, so as to allow for a simple configuration with convenient detachability and low cost, as shown to be known and conventional by Zhu et al. Hence, in the modified system by Lee et al. it is readily apparent that the first duct and second duct would be coupled with each other to form the ascending part, the lateral extension part, and the descending part.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20140101631A) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Han et al. (US20100095989).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Lee et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2. Lee et al. also teaches in figures 2, 3 and pages 3, 4 of the translation that the air discharge part 200a, 200 includes: a third duct 200 connected with the air discharge hole 200a. Lee et al. does not teach a fourth duct having an inlet disposed higher than the third duct and connected with the third duct. Han et al. teaches a dishwasher (see abstract) and an air discharge part including: a third duct 192/592 connected with the air discharge hole 196/596; and a fourth duct 194/594 having an inlet disposed higher than the third duct 192/592, and connected with the third duct 192/592; a step part formed at a region where the third duct 192/592 and the fourth duct 194/594 are connected to each other so that an inlet of the fourth duct 194/594 is located higher than an outlet of the third duct (reads on claim 14); in a configuration that allows for recovery of water and prevents leakage of fluid (see figures 4, 5, paragraphs [0067]-[0071], [0099]-[0101], [0105]-[0107]). Since both Lee et al. and Han et al. teach dishwashing machines with discharge fans 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 Lee et al. may include a fourth duct having an inlet disposed higher than the third duct and connected with the third duct so as to allow for the recovery of water and prevention of fluid leakage, as shown to be known and conventional by Han et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20140101631A) in view of Han et al. (US20100095989) as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Akagi et al. (KR20020070846A).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. and Han et al. together teach the limitations of claim 13. Lee et al. does not teach that the third duct is formed so that an inner bottom surface slopes upward from the air discharge hole toward the fourth duct. Akagi et al. teaches a dishwasher (see abstract) and that a discharge passage may slope upwards so as to allow for water vapor to be smoothly discharged (see page 4 of the translation). Since both Lee et al. and Akagi et al. teach dishwashers it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the third duct in the modified system by Lee et al. may be formed so that an inner bottom surface slopes upward from the air discharge hole toward the fourth duct, so as to allow for smooth discharge of water vapor, as shown to be known and conventional by Akagi et al. Furthermore, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20140101631A) in view of Zhu et al. (CN212213682U) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Miyase et al. (KR20130040919A).
Regarding claims 16, 17, Lee et al. and Zhu et al. together teach the limitations of claim 5. Lee et al. also teaches in pages 2, 5 and 7 of the translation a sump 60 disposed in a lower side of the tub 10 so as to be connected with the tub 10, and storing water; a circulation pump 45 disposed in a lower side of the tub 10, and capable of circulating water between the tub 10 and the sump 60. Lee et al. does not teach a water tray disposed between the drying module and the circulation pump, and provided to cover the circulation pump at an upper side, thereby preventing water existing on an outer surface of the air flow path part from dropping to the circulation pump. Miyase et al. teaches a dishwasher (see abstract) and a water tray 41 disposed between the drying module 33 and the circulation pump 35, and provided to cover the circulation pump 35 at an upper side, thereby preventing water existing on an outer surface of the air flow path part 56, 57 from dropping to the circulation pump 41; the water tray 41 includes: a floor plate (see flat horizontal portion from which 53a protrudes, as shown in figure 4); a first rib 53a formed to protrude from an edge of the floor plate in an upward direction of the tub 40; a recessed portion formed by recessing a portion of the floor plate; and a second rib (see step-like lateral protrusion in the recessed portion, as shown in figure 4) formed to protrude in a lateral direction of the tub 40 at a location where the recessed portion is formed (reads on claim 17); allowing for easy assembly, improved production efficiency and the prevention of leakage (see figures 1, 4, pages 5, 6 of the translation). Since both Lee et al. and Miyase et al. teach dishwashers it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a water tray may be disposed between the drying module and the circulation pump in the modified system by Lee et al. so as to allow for the prevention of leakage and improved production efficiency, as shown to be known and conventional by Miyase et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 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 closest prior art of record is Lee et al. (KR20140101631A). Lee et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 7 and 8. 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