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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, line 2, “an iron ingot” is recited. Merriam-Webster defines ingot to be a mass of metal cast into a convenient shape for storage or transportation to be later processed or a mold in which metal is cast. In the instant specification, ingot is used 36 times with no discussion on the casting process required of the component. The examiner notes even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require an iron portion, cast or not cast.
Regarding claim 9, line 2, “an iron ingot” is recited. Merriam-Webster defines ingot to be a mass of metal cast into a convenient shape for storage or transportation to be later processed or a mold in which metal is cast. In the instant specification, ingot is used 36 times with no discussion on the casting process required of the component. The examiner notes even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require an iron portion, cast or not cast.
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, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S6359925 A (hereinafter JP9925; NOTE: page numbers are from the Espacenet machine translation of JP S6359925 A), and further in view of Benhammou, US 10392840 B2.
Regarding claim 1, JP9925 teaches a dishwasher (washing machine body 1) comprising:
a wash chamber (washing chamber 6) for holding items to be washed (dishes 2; Fig 6);
a hood (washing chamber cover 7) configured to be placed in an open position (Fig 1 solid line position of 7) and a closed position (Fig 1 dashed line position of 7), such that while the hood is in the open position, items may pass through an opening in the wash chamber (Fig 2 depicts 1 such that while 7 is in the open position, items may pass through an opening into 6) and while the hood is in the closed position, the wash chamber is water- tight (Fig 5 depicts 1 such that while the hood is in the closed position, the wash chamber is water- tight) ; and
an electromagnet (electromagnet 40) that holds the hood in the closed position while electric current is provided to the electromagnet (page 18) unless an amount of force that exceeds a predetermined threshold is vertically applied to the hood (page 18 discusses the hood being prevented from opening as a result of the electromagnetic lock therefore determining a threshold force in advance to open the hood);
wherein the hood further comprises a portion (movable body 41) that magnetically couples to the electromagnet while the hood is closed and the electric current is provided to the electromagnet (page 18; Fig 5).
JP9925 is silent on the material of movable body 41 comprising iron.
Benhammou teaches it is known in the art for an electromagnetic lock (counter plate 1; electromagnetic suction pad 3; Fig 1; col 3, line 66-col 4, line 8) to comprise an electromagnet (electromagnet 4) and a hood (door P) mounted iron (1; col 4, lines 45-50 discusses 1 being made of a ferromagnetic material therefore is ferrous thereby containing iron) that magnetically couples to the electromagnet (col 3, line 66-col 4, line 8) and powered by a 12V supply (col 4, lines 12-21) such that Benhamou teaches wherein the hood further comprises iron that magnetically couples to the electromagnet while the hood is closed and the electric current is provided to the electromagnet.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify JP9925’s silent magnetic moving body to explicitly be the magnetic ferrous material of Benhammou. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art for members to engage electromagnets. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need for magnetic materials (e.g. iron based, rare earth metal based). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to explicitly specify apparatus materials in order to better support apparatus sourcing and manufacturing. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solution, as taught by Benhammou, and redesigned JP9925 with Benhammou with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of hood mounted iron to magnetically couple to an electronmagnet in the same manner as JP9925.
Regarding claim 2, JP9925 in view of Benhammou teaches the dishwasher of claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold is about 25 Newtons (In re: Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), the court held where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists; JP9925 on page 18 teaches an apparatus where the electromagnetic retaining force is the predetermined threshold force needed to open the openable part (e.g. hood, door) is a force which can be reduced from a maximum force to zero, instant specification paragraphs [0018; 0025; 0027] discuss the predetermined threshold forces as options and do not appear to assign any significance to the values; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the claimed 25 Newtons, roughly equivalent to 5.5 pounds of force, would lie inside the lower end of the range disclosed by JP9925, therefore LP9925 teaches wherein the predetermined threshold is about 25 Newtons).
Regarding claim 3, JP9925 in view of Benhammou teaches the dishwasher of claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold is about 250 Newtons (In re: Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), the court held where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists; JP9925 page 18 teaches an apparatus where the electromagnetic retaining force is the predetermined threshold force needed to open the openable part (e.g. hood, door) is a force which can be reduced from a maximum force to zero, instant specification paragraphs [0018; 0025; 0027] discuss the predetermined threshold forces as options and do not appear to assign any significance to the values; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the claimed 250 Newtons, roughly equivalent to 55 pounds of force, would lie inside the upper end of the range disclosed by JP9925, therefore JP9925 teaches wherein the predetermined threshold is about 250 Newtons).
Regarding claim 4, JP9925 in view of Benhammou teaches the dishwasher of claim 1,wherein the iron (Benhammou, 1) comprises an iron ingot (col 4, lines 45-50 discusses 1 being made of a ferromagnetic material therefore is ferrous thereby containing iron).
Regarding claim 6, JP9925 in view of Benhammou teaches the dishwasher of claim 4, wherein the hood (JP9925, 7) further comprises a pin (Benhammou, Fig 1 depicts 1 coupled to P by a pin) that couples the hood to the iron ingot (Benhammou, 1; col 4, lines 45-50 discusses 1 being made of a ferromagnetic material therefore is ferrous thereby containing iron), the pin configured to allow the iron ingot to change position in response to a magnetic field generated by the electromagnet (the pin depicted in Fig1 is structurally capable without modification of allowing 1 to change position in response to a magnetic field generated by the electromagnet).
Regarding claim 8, JP9925 in view of Benhammou teaches the dishwasher of claim 1, wherein the electric current is provided from a 12-volt power source (Benhammou, col 4, lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 16, JP9925 in view of Benhammou teaches the dishwasher of claim 2, wherein the electric current is provided from a 12-volt power source (Benhammou, col 4, lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 17, JP9925 in view of Benhammou teaches the dishwasher of claim 3, wherein the electric current is provided from a 12-volt power source (Benhammou, col 4, lines 12-21).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S6359925 A in view of Benhammou, US 10392840 B2, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hapke, US 7654590 B2.
Regarding claim 5, JP9925 in view of Benhammou teaches the dishwasher of claim 4.
JP9925 in view of Benhammou is silent on the materials of the JP9925 Fig 5 or Benhammou Fig 1 structure containing the iron ingot, wherein the hood further comprises a plastic enclosure about the iron ingot, the plastic enclosure configured to protect the iron ingot from moisture.
Hapke teaches it is known in the electromagnetic lock are for a lock (latch 24) to comprise a plastic enclosure (plastic magnet frame 42; Fig 4) about an iron ingot (magnet 40), the plastic enclosure (plastic magnet frame 42; Fig 4) configured to protect the iron ingot from moisture (Fig 4 depicts 42 as structurally capable without modification of protecting 40 from moisture) such that Hapke teaches wherein the hood further comprises a plastic enclosure about the iron ingot, the plastic enclosure configured to protect the iron ingot from moisture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify JP9925 in view of Benhammou’s silent iron ingot mounting structure to be the plastic enclosure structure of Hapke. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need design an apparatus structure using materials to support the operational purpose of the overall apparatus. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need for structural materials (e.g. plastics, metals, composites). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify structural materials to improve the environmental performance of the lock apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Hapke, and redesigned JP9925 in view of Benhammou using plastics with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of structural materials.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S6359925 A in view of Benhammou, US 10392840 B2, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Roth et al., US 10392840 B2 Hereinafter Roth).
Regarding claim 7, JP9925 in view of Benhammou teaches the dishwasher of claim 4.
Benhammou doesn’t teach , wherein the hood further comprises a spring that provides floating angular deflection to the iron ingot.
Roth teaches it is known in the electromagnetic lock art wherein the lock (electromagnetic assembly 10) comprises an iron ingot (armature 22; col 3, line 65-col 4, line 6 discusses 22 being ferrous therefore comprising iron) coupled to a hood (sub-plate 24) by a spring (springs 36; 38) that provides floating angular deflection to the iron ingot (col 7, line 54-col 8, line 3) such that Roth teaches wherein the hood further comprises a spring that provides floating angular deflection to the iron ingot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale C, to modify the rigid iron ingot mounting structure of JP9925 in view of Benhammou with the pin mounted spring ingot mounting structure of Roth. The prior art contains a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” and a “comparable” device that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the rigid iron ingot mounting structure in order to provide a mounting which improves alignment between electromagnet and iron ingot thereby also improving apparatus physical engagement and locking efficacy. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” in the same way to the “base” device with a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable, namely an electromagnetic lock apparatus where the electromagnet and iron ingot make better locking contact.
Claims 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benhammou, US 10392840 B2.
Regarding claim 9, Benhammou teaches a lock apparatus (counter plate 1; electromagnetic suction pad 3; Fig 1; col 3, line 66-col 4, line 8) for a dishwasher (in re: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim), comprising:
an electromagnet (electromagnet 4) and an iron ingot (1; col 4, lines 45-50 discusses 1 being made of a ferromagnetic material therefore is ferrous thereby containing iron) that are magnetically coupled while electric current is provided to the electromagnet (col 3, line 66-col 4, line 8), holding a hood (door P) in a closed position (Fig 1 depicts the closed position to be the position where 1 contacts 4 and P is aligned with frame D) unless an amount of force that exceeds a predetermined threshold is vertically applied to the hood (Fig 1 depicts any opening force to be vertical; col 3, line 66-col 4, line 8 discusses a predetermined threshold force to be a force which was decided to be greater than the maximum force a human is capable of providing to open a door).
Regarding claim 10, Benhammou teaches the lock apparatus of claim 9, wherein the predetermined threshold is about 25 Newtons (In re: Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), the court held where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists; Benhammou teaches in col 3, line 66-col 4, line 8 and col 4, line 66-col 5, line 10 an apparatus where the electromagnetic retaining force is the predetermined threshold force needed to open the openable part (e.g. hood, door) is a force which can be reduced from a maximum force to near or at zero, instant specification paragraphs [0018; 0025; 0027] discuss the predetermined threshold forces as options and do not appear to assign any significance to the values; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the claimed 25 Newtons, roughly equivalent to 5.5 pounds of force, would lie inside the lower end of the range disclosed by Benhammou, therefore Benhammou teaches wherein the predetermined threshold is about 25 Newtons).
Regarding claim 11, Benhammou teaches the lock apparatus of claim 9, wherein the predetermined threshold is about 250 Newtons (In re: Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), the court held where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists; Benhammou teaches in col 3, line 66-col 4, line 8 and col 4, line 66-col 5, line 10 an apparatus where the electromagnetic retaining force is the predetermined threshold force needed to open the openable part (e.g. hood, door) is a force which can be reduced from a maximum force to near or at zero, instant specification paragraphs [0018; 0025; 0027] discuss the predetermined threshold forces as options and do not appear to assign any significance to the values; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the claimed 250 Newtons, roughly equivalent to 55 pounds of force, would lie inside the upper end of the range disclosed by Benhammou, therefore Benhammou teaches wherein the predetermined threshold is about 250 Newtons).
Regarding claim 13, Benhammou teaches the lock apparatus of claim 9, wherein the iron ingot (1) is coupled to the hood by a pin (Fig 1 depicts 1 coupled to P by a pin) configured to allow the iron ingot to change position in response to a magnetic field generated by the electromagnet (the pin depicted in Fig1 is structurally capable without modification of allowing 1 to change position in response to a magnetic field generated by the electromagnet).
Regarding claim 15, Benhammou teaches the lock apparatus of claim 9, wherein the electric current is provided from a 12-volt power source (col 4, lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 18, Benhammou teaches the lock apparatus of claim 10, wherein the electric current is provided from a 12- volt power source (col 4, lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 19, Benhammou teaches the lock apparatus of claim 11, wherein the electric current is provided from a 12- volt power source (col 4, lines 12-21).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benhammou, US 10392840 B2, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hapke, US 7654590 B2.
Regarding claim 12, Benhammou teaches the lock apparatus of claim 9.
Benhammou is silent on the materials of the Fig 1 structure containing the iron ingot, wherein the iron ingot is enclosed in a plastic enclosure configured to protect the iron ingot from moisture.
Hapke teaches it is known in the electromagnetic lock are for a lock (latch 24) to comprise an iron ingot (magnet 40), wherein the iron ingot is enclosed in a plastic enclosure (plastic magnet frame 42; Fig 4) configured to protect the iron ingot from moisture (Fig 4 depicts 42 as structurally capable without modification of protecting 40 from moisture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Benhammou’s silent iron ingot mounting structure to be the plastic enclosure structure of Hapke. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need design an apparatus structure using materials to support the operational purpose of the overall apparatus. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need for structural materials (e.g. plastics, metals, composites). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify structural materials to improve the environmental performance of the lock apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Hapke, and redesigned Benhammou using plastics with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of structural materials.
Regarding claim 20, Benhammou teaches the lock apparatus of claim 12, wherein the electric current is provided from a 12- volt power source (col 4, lines 12-21).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benhammou, US 10392840 B2, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Roth et al., US 10392840 B2 (hereinafter Roth).
Regarding claim 14, Benhammou teaches the lock apparatus of claim 9; wherein the iron ingot is coupled with a lug which is biased outward with a spring (col 1, lines 49-67).
Benhammou doesn’t teach wherein the iron ingot is coupled to the hood by a spring that provides floating angular deflection to the iron ingot.
Roth teaches it is known in the electromagnetic lock art wherein the lock (electromagnetic assembly 10) comprises an iron ingot (armature 22; col 3, line 65-col 4, line 6 discusses 22 being ferrous therefore comprising iron) coupled to a hood (sub-plate 24) by a spring (springs 36; 38) that provides floating angular deflection to the iron ingot (col 7, line 54-col 8, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale C, to modify the rigid iron ingot mounting structure of Benhammou with the pin mounted spring ingot mounting structure of Roth. The prior art contains a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” and a “comparable” device that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the rigid iron ingot mounting structure in order to provide a mounting which improves alignment between electromagnet and iron ingot thereby also improving apparatus physical engagement and locking efficacy. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” in the same way to the “base” device with a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable, namely an electromagnetic lock apparatus where the electromagnet and iron ingot make better locking contact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for dishwashers and lock apparatus.
Gillam, WO 9610122 A1, teaches electromagnetic locking devices.
DE 202007018433 U1 teaches a household appliance with an electromagnetic door lock device.
Noren et al., US 3246938 A, teaches a mechanism for holding dishwashing machine door close and for raising the door.
JP H0727456 U teaches door devices such as dishwashers with an electromagnetic lock.
WO 2018202366 A1 teaches a dishwasher comprising a hood secured with an electromagnetic lock.
JP 2515772 Y2 teaches a a dishwasher comprising a hood secured with an electromagnetic lock.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights