DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to application number 18/252,192 - DRAINAGE SIEVE, filed on 12/8/23. Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 1 -19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of the claims should be “A method…” and “A drainage sieve…” The dependent claims 2-6 and 8-19, the preamble should be “The method…” and “The Drainage Sieve…” . Claim 1, line 4, “of a of a” needs deletion of one of the sets of “of a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 18, line 4, delete one of the occurrences of –the—in “the the”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first seal (13) intended to be inserted into the drain… but also sieve openings arranged above the first seal (13), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 1, Line 3, “a drainage sieve (100) is indefinite as it is unclear if it’s the same drainage sieve introduced in the preamble.
“the sieve” in line 3, lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Additionally, “the sieve (310)” needs to be clearly distinguished from “a drainage sieve (100)” in terminology.
Regarding claim 3, “a tubular closure part” and “a tubular sieve part” are indefinite as it is unclear if these are the same parts previously recited as “the closure part” and “the sieve part”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation, “the sieve openings arranged above the first seal (13) is indefinite as the claim previously establishes that the first seal (13) is intended to be inserted into the drain. The first seal cannot be both and therefore the limitation is indefinite. For the purposes of examination it will be assumed that the first seal is actually (40) and not (13).
Regarding Claim 10 the limitation “the tube wall” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding Claim 12, is indefinite as the second seal cannot be the same as the first seal.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation, “the tube” is indefinite as it is unclear if this is the same as “the tubular closure part” as introduced in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stafford (US 3,075,203).
Regarding Claim 1 Stafford shows a method for opening and/or closing a drainage sieve (Fig. 1) with the method steps:
Inserting a drainage sieve (Fig. 1) into a drain (10) of a water basin (11) or the sieve (10) of a of a water basin (11), wherein the drainage sieve comprises a closure part (14), a sieve part (13) and a guide (21) (note, col. 1, lines 53-60)
Carrying out a movement of the closure part guided by the guide of the drainage sieve to open or close the drainage sieve (opening and closing, by telescoping closure part, of openings 22 to direct flow from the sink, thereby closing the drainage sieve to sink liquid that doesn’t overcome the overflow/closure tube(14); note, col. 1 & 2; telescopic and separable, note, col. 1, lines 55-60; col 2, lines 0-3; to open to water in the sink below the top of the closure part, by separating upon intentional removal; note, col. 1, lines 20-21).
Regarding Claim 2 Stafford shows the for opening and/or closing a drainage sieve according to claim 1 characterised in that the guided movement of the closure part opens or closes an opening (22) between the closure part and the sieve part.
Regarding Claim 3 Stafford shows the method for opening and/or closing a drainage sieve according to claim 1, characterised in that the guided movement is achieved by bringing together a tubular closure part (14) and a tubular sieve part (13) (both are tubular; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5 Stafford shows the Method of opening and/or closing a drainage sieve according to claim 1, characterised in that the closure part is held by gravity in the end position, in which the drainage sieve is closed (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6 Stafford shows the Method of opening and/or closing a drainage sieve according to claim 1, characterised in that only a part of the sieve openings is opened or closed by the guided movement of the closure part (openings 26 are not closed only 22).
Regarding Claim 7 Stafford shows a Drainage sieve (Fig. 1) comprising:
a sieve part (13), a tubular closure part (14), a guide element (21) wherein the tubular closure part is movably arranged with respect to the sieve part (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8 Stafford shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 7 characterised in that the drainage sieve comprises a first seal (18 acts as a first seal in that it is inserted in the drain and retains the device in the drain; note, col. 2, lines 15-40) intended to be inserted into a drain (10) of a water basin (11), wherein, when the drain sieve is properly inserted into the drain of a water basin, sieve openings (22) are arranged above the first seal of the sieve part (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9 Stafford shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 7, characterised in that the sieve part forms the guide element (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10 Stafford shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 7, characterised in that the sieve part is designed as a tube (Fig. 2), wherein sieve openings are arranged on the tube wall (21) of the sieve part, wherein the tube wall of the sieve part forms the guide element (Fig. 1), and wherein the outer diameter of the closure part is smaller than the inner diameter of the sieve part or the outer diameter of the sieve part is smaller than the inner diameter of the closure part (Figs. 1-2), wherein the closure part can be guided in the sieve part or above the sieve part (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11 Stafford shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 7, characterised in that the guide element is suitable and intended for guiding a relative movement of the closure to the sieve part (note, col. 1, lines , wherein the guide element is designed such that it is suitable for guiding the relative movement of the closure part to the sieve part in the axial direction (Fig. 1) of the closure part, wherein in an end position of the relative movement, an opening (22) between the closure part and the sieve part is closed (closure of openings 22 to direct flow from the sink, thereby closing the drainage sieve to sink liquid that doesn’t overcome the overflow/closure tube(14) and also at 18 via plug; note, col. 1 & 2), wherein in the end position of the relative movement a first seal (18) is arranged between the closure part and the sieve part (Fig. 1 & 3), and wherein the first seal is connected to the closure part or the sieve part (at 18; 18 is connected to (13) the sieve part).
Regarding Claim 14 Stafford shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 7, characterised in that the guide element has a length of at least half the tube length of the closure part (Fig. 1; appears to be about half the length of the closure part).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford (US 3,075,203) in view of Hong (US Pub. 2009/0172870).
Regarding Claim 12 Stafford shows the drainage sieve according to claim 7, characterised in that a second seal (23) is arranged on the sieve part, wherein the second seal is suitable and intended to be inserted into the drain of a water basin but fails to seal between the drain and the sieve part. However, Hong shows a seal part (60) that is intended to be inserted into the drain of a water basin and to seal between the drain and the sieve part. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stafford by substituting the second seal (23) for the seal (60) as shown by Hong for the purpose of providing a sealed connection between the drain and the drainage sieve device.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford (US 3,075,203) in view of Schwarz et al. (US 10,358,804).
Regarding Claim 15 Stafford shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 7, but fails to show that the closure part has a locking seal. However, in another drain device Schwarz shows using a locking seal (28) for sealing and locking the sieve in the upper flange pipe (54)(Figs. 2, 3 & 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stafford to include a locking seal as shown by Schwarz for providing a water tight seal between the sieve and the sieve pipe.
Regarding Claim 16 Stafford as combined with Schwarz shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 15 characterised in that the locking seal is arranged circumferentially around the tube wall (Fig. 5 Schwarz as combined) of the closure part.
Regarding Claim 17 Stafford as combined with Schwarz shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 15, characterised in that the outer circumference of the locking seal is greater than or equal to the inner circumference of the tube wall (as combined; note, Fig. 3 Schwarz) of the sieve part and the outer circumference of the tube wall of the closure part is smaller than the inner circumference of the tube wall of the sieve part, or the inner circumference of the locking seal is smaller than the outer circumference of the tube wall of the sieve part and the inner circumference of the tube wall of the closure part is larger than the outer circumference of the tube wall of the sieve part (as combined; note, Fig. 3 Schwarz).
Regarding Claim 18 Stafford as combined with Schwarz shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 15, characterised in that the [[the]] locking seal by changing the local circumference of the wall of the closure part, or the locking seal is formed as a rubber seal (O-ring 28; O-rings are conventionally rubber), which is mounted in a groove (92; Fig. 8; Schwarz) of the closure part.
Regarding Claim 19 Stafford as combined with Schwarz shows the Drainage sieve according to claim 15, characterised in that the closure part can be locked to the sieve part by means of the locking seal (28; Figs.2, 3 and 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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. Saman et al. (US 6,276,000) shows a drainage sieve device; Walraven (US 3,895,401) shows a drainage sieve device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5163. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM EST.
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 at 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.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 1/26/2026