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 communication filed on 10/22/2025. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: recommend reciting “the drain sleeve inner sealing surface” since the drain sleeve has two surfaces recited in the claim set. While claim 2 introduces the drain sleeve upper-facing surface and claims 9 and 16 do not depend from claim 2, using consistent terminology will avoid any clarity issues that might arise in future amendments. 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10-11, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2021/0395986 (hereinafter Ahuja).
Regarding claim 1, Ahuja discloses a pop-up drain assembly for a basin (fig. 5) comprising a stopper apparatus (30) comprising a push cap (34) coupled to an upper end of a post (34a), and a sealing diaphragm (36) coupled to a lower portion of the post (34a), a drain sleeve (40) having an inner sealing surface (40j), and a drain sieve (40i, 40g) configured to prevent hair from passing through the drain, wherein the stopper apparatus is configured to reversibly move between an extended open position (fig. 5) and an inserted closed position (fig. 8), in the extended open position, the sealing diaphragm is positioned above the drain sleeve sealing surface (40j) to allow water to pass through the drain (fig. 5), in the inserted closed position, the sealing diaphragm is in contact with the drain sleeve sealing surface (40j) to prevent water from passing through the drain (fig. 8), and the drain sieve (40i, 40g) encircles the push cap and/or post (fig. 5, 6), is rigid, and is in contact with a drain sleeve surface (40f).
Regarding claim 2, Ahuja discloses wherein the drain sleeve (40) comprises an upper-facing surface (40d) extending outward from the inner sealing surface (40j).
Regarding claim 3, Ahuja discloses a click mechanism (32).
Regarding claim 6, Ahuja discloses the click mechanism comprises a spring, plunger, and a cam surface (par. 1 incorporates by reference application 15/584032 – par. 1 having a push-type mechanism that is shown to have a spring, plunger, and a cam surface; US Patent 4,007,500 is the reference incorporated via application 15/584032 which shows the details of the push-type mechanism being incorporated by reference).
Regarding claim 10, Ahuja discloses wherein the sealing diaphragm (36) is configured to mate with an upper, inner surface of the drain sleeve (40j) in the stopper apparatus closed position (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Ahuja discloses wherein the push cap (34) comprises a gripping feature (the outer edge of the push cap forms a grip for a user; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Ahuja discloses comprising an anti-rotation feature (40f) configured to prevent the drain sieve from rotating (the drain sieve is integrally formed with the drain sleeve which prevents the drain sieve from rotating).
Regarding claim 18, Ahuja discloses wherein the post comprises one or more anti-rotation features (32c) configured to prevent the drain sieve from rotating (coupling the post to the hub 40g would assist in preventing rotation).
Regarding claim 20, Schuster discloses a sink, lavatory, bathtub, or shower base comprising a pop-up drain assembly according to claim 1 (col. 9, ln. 4-9).
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) 4-5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja in view of US Patent 11,142,897 (hereinafter Schuster).
Regarding claim 4, Ahuja fails to show the drain sieve comprises substantially perpendicular walls having a plurality of holes. Attention is turned to Schuster which shows configuring a drain sieve as a basket (106) having perpendicular walls with a plurality of holes to better trap debris from entering the drain. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the drain sieve of Ahuja to have substantially perpendicular walls having a plurality of holes to better trap debris as known in the art and evidenced by the teachings mentioned above.
Regarding claim 5, Ahuja is silent as to the material of the sealing diaphragm and thus fails to show it comprises an elastomer or silicone. Attention is turned to Schuster which teaches elastomers and silicones are suitable materials for flexible seals in sink drain systems (col. 7, ln. 43-46). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an elastomer or silicone for the sealing diaphragm of Ahuja as the selection of a known material based on the suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art as evidenced by the teachings above.
Regarding claim 19, Ahuja fails to show the post comprises one or more tabs and the drain sieve comprises one or more notches, wherein the tabs are configured to mate with the notches and to prevent rotation of the sieve. Attention is turned to Schuster which shows the post comprises one or more tabs and the drain sieve comprises one or more notches, wherein the tabs are configured to mate with the notches and to prevent rotation of the sieve (detents that engage projections 121 are considered an anti-rotation feature since when the detents and projections engage, relative rotation would be prevented; col. 3, ln. 36-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the post of Ahuja to include one or more tabs and the drain sieve comprises one or more notches, wherein the tabs are configured to mate with the notches and to prevent rotation of the sieve as evidenced by the teachings above.
Regarding claim 20, Ahuja shows a sink, lavatory, bathtub or shower base comprising a pop-up drain assembly according to claim 1 (sink; col. 1, ln. 19-20).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja in view of US Patent 10,273,671 (hereinafter Wisniewski).
Regarding claim 7, Ahuja fails to show the drain sieve is in contact with the drain sleeve upper-facing surface. Attention is turned to Wisniewski which shows configuring a drain sieve (105) to be positioned in contact with a drain sleeve upper-facing surface to make it simple to clean and replace (fig. 1, 2B) (col. 2, ln. 30-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to position a drain sieve such that it is in contact with the drain sleeve upper-facing surface to make it easier to clean as evidenced by the teachings mentioned above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja in view of GB 2,577,302 (hereinafter Adams).
Regarding claim 8, Ahuja fails to show wherein the sealing diaphragm comprises a C-shaped gasket. Attention is turned to Adams which shows it is beneficial to use a C-shaped gasket (28) for creating a seal between telescopic features (fig. 4a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select a suitable shape for the gasket based on a user’s needs, and to select a C-shaped gasket falls well within the purview of the invention as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings of Adams. Namely, Adams shows such an arrangement is known to produce the expected result of sealing features that have relative adjustability.
Claim(s) 12- 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja in view of WO 02063109 (hereinafter McMullen).
Regarding claims 12-15, Ahuja shows the push cap integrally formed with the post and thus fails to show it is removably coupled to the post. Attention is turned to McMullen which shows it is beneficial to removably couple a push cap (16) to a post (18) to allow for easy installation to remove and reattach the cap as needed (par. 22). McMullen shows an O-ring gasket (74) and notches/tabs (66)(also describes pin/slot connection; par. 22), or alternately that the push cap can be threaded to the post (par. 22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the push cap of Ahuja to be removably coupled to the post via an O-ring gasket, notches/tabs that engage one another, or using a threaded connection to allow for easy installation as evidenced by the teachings of McMullen mentioned above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 16 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. It would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to removably couple the drain sieve (40i, 40g) of Ahuja with fasteners to the drain sleeve sealing surface (40j).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754