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 .
This is the first office action for application number 19/318,929, ROTATING RACK ASSEMBLY, filed on September 4, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "30B" in Fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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 has ambiguous claim terminology where it is unclear whether latter recitations of originally cited terminology are intended to refer to the originally cited terms. It is unclear if "a dishwasher rack" in line 2 of the claim is intended to refer to the original recitation of the term "A rotatable dishwasher rack" in line 1 of the claim.
Claim 7 has ambiguous claim terminology where it is unclear whether latter recitations of originally cited terminology are intended to refer to the originally cited terms. It is unclear if "a dishwasher rack" in line 2 of the claim is intended to refer to the original recitation of the term "A rotatable dishwasher rack" in line 1 of the claim.
Claim 15 has ambiguous claim terminology where it is unclear whether latter recitations of originally cited terminology are intended to refer to the originally cited terms. It is unclear if "a dishwasher" in line 2 of the claim is intended to refer to the original recitation of the term "A dishwasher" in line 1 of the claim.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/629,446 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-20 of copending Application No. 19/629,446 in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,731 to Harr. Here claims 15-20 of copending Application No. 19/629,446 recites a dishwasher having a dishwasher housing having an interior cavity and at least one set of parallel wheel tracks, a rack, a mounting frame, a plurality of wheels, a skid plate, a plurality of brackets, and an inner race, an outer race, and a ball bearing assembly. The dishwasher of claims 15-20 of the copending Application No. 19/626,446 differ from claims 15-20 herein that it fails to disclose a plurality of handles. Harr teaches a dishwasher (100) having a housing having an interior cavity and at least one set of parallel wheel tracks (T), a dishwasher rack (400), a mounting frame with a front edge, a rear edge, and side edges, a handle (445) coupled to the rack, and a plurality of wheels (415) coupled to the mounting frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rack in copending Application No. 19/639,446 to have included a handle as taught by Harr for the purpose of providing a grip for the rack in order to move the rack from one position to another. It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle in Harr to have included a plurality of handles, since such a modification would have merely involved a duplication in part and would not have yielded any unpredictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
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) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Publication DE102018109699 to Bogdanski in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,731 to Harr. Bogdanski discloses a dishwasher (1) comprising: a housing having an interior cavity and at least one set of parallel wheel tracks; a dishwasher rack (2); mounting frame (9) with a front edge, a rear edge, and side edges; a rotatable member (6) positioned between the dishwasher rack and the mounting frame; a plurality of wheels (10) coupled to the mounting frame, the plurality of wheels engaging the tracks when the rack is removed from the interior cavity; and wheel tracks is on an inside surface of a door that is coupled to the dishwasher housing.
Bogdanski discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation of a plurality of handles coupled to the dishwasher rack.
Harr teaches a dishwasher (100) having a housing having an interior cavity and at least one set of parallel wheel tracks (T), a dishwasher rack (400), a mounting frame with a front edge, a rear edge, and side edges, a handle (445) coupled to the rack, and a plurality of wheels (415) coupled to the mounting frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rack in Bogdanski to have included a handle as taught by Harr for the purpose of providing a grip for the rack in order to move the rack from one position to another.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle in Harr to have included a plurality of handles, since such a modification would have merely involved a duplication in part and would not have yielded any unpredictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 2,702,558 to Blanchard is directed to an efficient washing machine having a rotatable rack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-6817. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell Mckinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/ANITA M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 September 29, 2026
