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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments filed on 08/18/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2017/0314245 (hereinafter Beck et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Beck et al. discloses a popup drain stopper (30) comprising: a stem (38) configured to be movable vertically within a drainpipe (via threads), the stem having a top end (38a), a bottom end (38b), a length extending therebetween (38); a cylindrically shaped strainer basket (40) having a closed bottom end (40a), an open top end (40c), and a sidewall (40b) extending between the closed bottom end and the open top end (see fig. 3), a plurality of first apertures formed therethrough about a circumference of the sidewall and between the closed bottom end and the open top end (“The side wall 40b and the base 40a of the strainer 40 have a plurality of openings through which water can pass” par. 21), and a plurality of second apertures formed therethrough through the closed bottom end (“The side wall 40b and the base 40a of the strainer 40 have a plurality of openings through which water can pass” par. 21); wherein the sidewall has a tapered portion that tapers from narrow to wide in a direction toward the open top end such that a first diameter of the sidewall at the open top end is greater than a second diameter of the sidewall at the closed bottom end (“The open upper end 40c has a diameter that is greater than the diameter of the base 40a. Consequently, the side wall 40b of the strainer basket 40 flares outwardly from the base 40a to the upper end 40c, which gives the side wall 40b a conical shape.” Par. 21; fig. 3); wherein the strainer basket has an edge that circumscribes the open top end, and a plurality of slots spaced circumferentially around the sidewall, the slots extending through the edge and along a length of the tapered portion of the sidewall (“The upper end has V-shaped notches made in and pointing into the side wall 40b. The side wall 40b and the base 40a of the strainer 40 have a plurality of openings through which water can pass. A strainer basket can also be used with the drain stopper 10 in FIG. 1.” Par. 21), wherein the slots permit the tapered portion to flex to form a friction fit (fig. 3) against an inner surface of the drain pipe to prevent debris from flowing past the basket when the strainer basket is inserted into the drainpipe; and the strainer basket (40) disposed at the top end (38a) of the stem (38) (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Beck et al. discloses a cap (36) disposed approximate the open top end of the strainer basket.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. in view of US Patent 9,499,962 (hereinafter Joseph).
Regarding claim 3, Beck et al. discloses the strainer basket has a post (36e) that is centrally disposed within an interior of the strainer basket (fig. 3) and extends from the closed bottom end (40a) of the strainer basket and terminates at a free end approximate the top end of the strainer basket (fig. 3), a first threaded stud (note annotated fig. below) is disposed at the free end of the post and a bottom end of the cap (36) has a first threaded aperture to which the first threaded stud is threadedly received to removably attach the cap to the post (“a push mechanism 36e and a lock nut 36f as shown in FIG. 1, but not visible in FIG. 3. The push mechanism 36e has the same male threads on an upper end and is threaded info the cap for adjusting height in the same manner as described for the stopper 10 in FIG. 1.” par. 19; fig. 1) and a second threaded stud (at 38a; note annotated fig. below) is disposed at the top of the stem (38) but fails to show the closed bottom end of the strainer basket has a second threaded aperture to which the second threaded stud is threadedly received to removably attach the strainer basket to the stem.
Attention is turned to Joseph in the same field of endeavor of pop-up stoppers with strainer baskets which shows the strainer basket has a post (155) that is centrally disposed within an interior of the strainer basket and extends from the closed bottom end of the strainer basket and a second threaded stud (350) is disposed at the top of the stem (300) and the closed bottom end of the strainer basket has a second threaded aperture (260) to which the second threaded stud is threadedly received to removably attach the strainer basket. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have a threaded aperture on the strainer bottom end to ensure the strainer body is secured to the stem to prevent unwanted movement as evidenced by the teachings of Joseph mentioned above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. and Joseph as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US Patent 3,453,667 (hereinafter Politz).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Beck et al. and Joseph fails to show the lower length of the stem as required by claim 4. Attention is turned to Politz which teaches configuring the lower end of a popup drain closure with a lower length of the stem (19) is bifurcated into a pair of coextending tangs (26, 27) that are separated by a slot (28) that extends from the bottom end of the stem in a direction toward the upper end of the stem (fig. 2); the slot being configured to removably receive a lever rod (22) in a sliding engagement between the tangs in a direction upwardly from the bottom end of the stem (fig. 2); and a lower end of each tang has a winglet (26a, 27a) that extends in opposite directions of one another and provide a fishtail-shaped notch therebetween at the bottom end of the stem (fig. 3), the fish-shaped notch narrows in a direction from the bottom end of the stopper toward the top end of the stopper (fig. 3), the winglets combined with the fishtail-shaped notch guide the lever rod toward the open end of the slot when the lever rod is slid into engagement with the slot (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the lower length of the stem of Beck et al. to be configured in the same manner as taught by Politz mentioned above to allow a user to more easily connect the pop-up stopper to the rod as evidenced by the teachings of Politz.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, David Angwin can be reached on (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754