DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final Office Action for application number 18/360,782 - DUAL-SINK ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE, filed on 7/27/23. Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are pending. Claims 8 and 18 have been cancelled. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant’s reply dated 10/29/25. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downs (US D 298,163) in view of Maxwell (GB 2 267 639 A) in view of Sterling (US 2,026,804).
Regarding Claim 1 Downs shows a dual-sink assembly capable of installation in a diagonal corner cabinet, the dual-sink assembly comprising: a first sink (Fig. 2, large sink at the top) comprising a first basin (Fig. 2), the first sink having a first length, a first width, a first depth (Figs. 1-5), and a first center point disposed within a first volume defined by the first basin (at drain opening/aperture), the first length being greater than the first width (Fig. 2 length is across the top dimension; Width is from top down along large sink; depth is seen in Fig. 3); and a second sink (smaller sink in middle between large sink and drain board) coupled to the first sink, the second sink comprising a second basin (Fig. 2) and having a second length (across from left to right on the page), a second width (from top to bottom on the page of the smaller sink), a second depth (Fig. 3), and a second center point disposed within a second volume defined by the second basin (at drain opening/aperture), the second length being less than the first length and greater than the second width (Fig. 2), but Downs fails to show wherein a diagonal corner cabinet comprises a countertop, the countertop comprising: a working edge; a first rear edge, disposed at a first angle to the working edge; and a second rear edge, disposed at a second angle to the working edge, intersecting the first rear edge at a rear corner point, and wherein the dual-sink assembly is configured to be installed in the diagonal corner cabinet such that the first sink is located closer to the working edge than the second sink, the first center point and the second center point being disposed along a transverse axis extending from the working edge toward the rear corner point. However, Maxwell shows a corner sink assembly (Fig. 3) with a diagonal corner cabinet (at 26) comprises a countertop (at 16), the countertop comprising: a working edge (26); a first rear edge (15), disposed at a first angle to the working edge (Fig. 3); and a second rear edge (top left 16 on the page), disposed at a second angle to the working edge (Fig. 3), intersecting the first rear edge at a rear corner point (90 degree intersection at the back; Fig. 3), and wherein the sink assembly is configured to be installed in the diagonal corner cabinet (Figs. 2-5) such that the sink is located close to the working edge (Figs. 2-5). Maxwell shows many different configurations of existing sinks (Fig. 2) and their arrangement in corner cabinets and preferred sinks configurations (Fig. 5) and their arrangement in corner cabinets. In particular Maxwell shows an existing dual-sink assembly positioned in a corner cabinet (Fig. 2. Top left figure) and suggests many different possible arrangements of sinks in corner cabinets (see Fig. 5 bottom center and bottom right, with sink close to working edge and shelf and strainer basket positions in line). Turning attention now to Sterling. Sterling shows a dual sink positioned “in line” from front to back. Therefore because Maxwell suggests using dual sinks in a diagonal corner cabinet and suggests many different arrangements including a larger sink close to the working edge and a shelf or strainer basket in line from front to back and Sterling suggests using dual sinks “in-line” from front to back, 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 Downs such that it is arranged in an in line orientation in a diagonal corner cabinet for the purpose of saving kitchen counter space as suggested by Maxwell and Sterling.
As combined Downs shows the first center point and the second center point being disposed along a transverse axis extending from the working edge toward the rear corner point (in-line).
Finally Downs fails to specifically show that the dual sinks are connected by welding, however, this claim limitation is considered a product by process claim limitation. “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. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP § 2113). The product of Downs is the same as or obvious as the product of the instant invention and therefore the manner of connecting is not considered critical or novel as the resulting product is the connected sinks. Downs shows the sinks as connected (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2 Downs as combined shows the dual-sink assembly of claim 1, wherein the first sink is formed from a first material, the second sink is formed from a second material that is the same as or different from the first material (the sink appears to be integral; i.e. the same material for both sinks), but fails to show the countertop is formed from a third material that is different from the first material and the second material. However, conventionally, countertops are often a different material than the sink, but this is a design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is determined by the user of the sink and counter that does not affect the placement or use of the sink or corner cabinet, that is the results are predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the materials of both the sink and the counter as desired by the user.
Regarding Claim 3 Downs as combined shows the dual-sink assembly of claim 1, wherein a first lip of the first sink is disposed an offset length from a second lip of the second sink, relative to the transverse axis (Fig. 2), to accommodate at least a portion of a faucet or a soap dispenser for installation on the countertop within an area defined by the offset length and the second width (see aperture for faucet, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4 Downs as combined shows the dual-sink assembly of claim 1, wherein a first wall of the first basin is disposed an offset width, along the transverse axis, from a second wall of the second basin (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5 Downs as combined shows the dual-sink assembly of claim 4, but fails to show wherein the offset width is between 2 and 4 inches. However, optimizing the range of the offset width is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and is determined by the specific installation dimensions in the diagonal corner cabinet. This recitation appears to be nothing more than an optimum or workable range. In this regard, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the offset width dimension of both sinks to be optimized for the sinks purpose of being placed in the diagonal corner cabinet and the dimensions available in the particular installation.
Regarding Claim 6 Downs as combined shows the dual-sink assembly of claim 4, but fails to show wherein the offset width is based on a yield strength of a material from which the countertop is formed. However, this is a design consideration and a matter of ordinary skill in the art to provide the appropriate structural capacity of the countertop and sink lip to install the sink as desired, so that the sink and countertop function properly. This recitation appears to be nothing more than an optimum or workable range. In this regard, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an appropriate structure for the sink and countertop to function as desired.
Regarding Claim 7 Downs shows the dual-sink assembly of claim 1, wherein the first depth is greater than the second depth (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9 Downs shows the dual-sink assembly of claim 1, wherein the dual-sink assembly is a drop-in sink assembly, the first sink is a first single bowl drop-in sink comprising a first lip surrounding the first basin, and the second sink is a second single bowl drop-in sink comprising a second lip surrounding the second basin, and wherein the first lip and the second lip are configured to form fluid-tight seals against a work surface of the countertop when the dual-sink assembly is installed in the diagonal corner cabinet (Fig. 1; as is conventional).
Regarding Claim 10 Downs shows the dual-sink assembly of claim 1, and fails to show wherein the dual-sink assembly is an undermount sink assembly, the first sink is a first single bowl undermount sink comprising a first lip surrounding the first basin, and the second sink is a second single bowl undermount sink comprising a second lip surrounding the second basin, and wherein the first lip and the second lip are configured to form fluid-tight seals against an underside of the countertop when the dual-sink assembly is installed in the diagonal corner cabinet. However, Maxwell details the inset or drop in way of fixing and also a flush mounted fixing (undermount). Sealing to the lip of the sink is conventional is both types of mounting. 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 Downs to include being able to be undermounted or flush mounted as shown by Maxwell.
Claim(s) 11-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downs (US D 298,163) in view of Maxwell (GB 2 267 639 A) in view of Sterling (US 2,026,804) in further view of Bohacik et al. (US Pub. 2004/0181870).
Regarding Claim 11 Downs shows a method of manufacturing a dual-sink assembly for installation in a diagonal corner cabinet, the method comprising: providing a first sink (Fig. 2, large sink at the top) comprising a first basin (Fig. 2), the first sink having a first length, a first width, a first depth (Figs. 1-5), and a first center point disposed within a first volume defined by the first basin (at drain opening/aperture), the first length being greater than the first width (Fig. 2 length is across the top dimension; Width is from top down along large sink; depth is seen in Fig. 3); and a second sink (smaller sink in middle between large sink and drain board) coupled to the first sink, the second sink comprising a second basin (Fig. 2) and having a second length (across from left to right on the page), a second width (from top to bottom on the page of the smaller sink), a second depth (Fig. 3), and a second center point disposed within a second volume defined by the second basin (at drain opening/aperture), the second length being less than the first length and greater than the second width (Fig. 2), but Downs fails to show wherein a diagonal corner cabinet comprises a countertop, the countertop comprising: a working edge; a first rear edge, disposed at a first angle to the working edge; and a second rear edge, disposed at a second angle to the working edge, intersecting the first rear edge at a rear corner point, and wherein the dual-sink assembly is configured to be installed in the diagonal corner cabinet such that the first sink is located closer to the working edge than the second sink, the first center point and the second center point being disposed along a transverse axis extending from the working edge toward the rear corner point. However, Maxwell shows a corner sink assembly (Fig. 3) with a diagonal corner cabinet (at 26) comprises a countertop (at 16), the countertop comprising: a working edge (26); a first rear edge (15), disposed at a first angle to the working edge (Fig. 3); and a second rear edge (top left 16 on the page), disposed at a second angle to the working edge (Fig. 3), intersecting the first rear edge at a rear corner point (90 degree intersection at the back; Fig. 3), and wherein the sink assembly is configured to be installed in the diagonal corner cabinet (Figs. 2-5) such that the sink is located close to the working edge (Figs. 2-5). Maxwell shows many different configurations of existing sinks (Fig. 2) and their arrangement in corner cabinets and preferred sinks configurations (Fig. 5) and their arrangement in corner cabinets. In particular Maxwell shows an existing dual-sink assembly positioned in a corner cabinet (Fig. 2. Top left figure) and suggests many different possible arrangements of sinks in corner cabinets (see Fig. 5 bottom center and bottom right, with sink close to working edge and shelf and strainer basket positions in line). Turning attention now to Sterling. Sterling shows a dual sink positioned “in line” from front to back. Therefore because Maxwell suggests using dual sinks in a diagonal corner cabinet and suggests many different arrangements including a larger sink close to the working edge and a shelf or strainer basket in line from front to back and Sterling suggests using dual sinks “in-line” from front to back, 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 Downs such that it is arranged in an in line orientation in a diagonal corner cabinet for the purpose of saving kitchen counter space as suggested by Maxwell and Sterling.
As combined Downs shows the first center point and the second center point being disposed along a transverse axis extending from the working edge toward the rear corner point (in-line).
Finally Downs fails to specifically show that the dual sinks are connected by welding. However, Bohacik shows welding is a known process for connecting sink components (¶ [0002, 0022, 0046]). 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 Downs to include using welding to connect sink components for the purpose of using a known process of connecting sink components as shown by Bohacik. It would have been obvious when welding is used as a manufacturing process to align the first sink with the second sink such that the first center point and the second center point are disposable along an axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12 Downs as combined shows the method of claim 11, wherein the first sink is formed from a first material, the second sink is formed from a second material that is the same as or different from the first material (the sink appears to be integral; i.e. the same material for both sinks), but fails to show the countertop is formed from a third material that is different from the first material and the second material. However, conventionally, countertops are often a different material than the sink, but this is a design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is determined by the user of the sink and counter that does not affect the placement or use of the sink or corner cabinet, that is the results are predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the materials of both the sink and the counter as desired by the user.
Regarding Claim 13 Downs as combined shows the method of claim 11, wherein aligning the first sink with the second sink comprises offsetting a first lip of the first sink an offset length from a second lip of the second sink, relative to the transverse axis (Fig. 2), to accommodate at least a portion of a faucet or a soap dispenser for installation on the countertop within an area defined by the offset length and the second width (see aperture for faucet, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14 Downs as combined shows the method of claim 11, wherein aligning the first sink with the second sink comprises offsetting a first wall of the first basin an offset width, along the transverse axis, from a second wall of the second basin (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15 Downs as combined shows the method of claim 14, but fails to show wherein the offset width is between 2 and 4 inches. However, optimizing the range of the offset width is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and is determined by the specific installation dimensions in the diagonal corner cabinet. This recitation appears to be nothing more than an optimum or workable range. In this regard, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the offset width dimension of both sinks to be optimized for the sinks purpose of being placed in the diagonal corner cabinet and the dimensions available in the particular installation.
Regarding Claim 16 Downs as combined shows the method of claim 14, but fails to show wherein the offset width is based on a yield strength of a material from which the countertop is formed. However, this is a design consideration and a matter of ordinary skill in the art to provide the appropriate structural capacity of the countertop and sink lip to install the sink as desired, so that the sink and countertop function properly. This recitation appears to be nothing more than an optimum or workable range. In this regard, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an appropriate structure for the sink and countertop to function as desired.
Regarding Claim 17 Downs shows the method of claim 11, wherein the first depth is greater than the second depth (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 19 Downs shows the method of claim 11, wherein the dual-sink assembly is a drop-in sink assembly, the first sink is a first single bowl drop-in sink comprising a first lip surrounding the first basin, and the second sink is a second single bowl drop-in sink comprising a second lip surrounding the second basin, and wherein the first lip and the second lip are configured to form fluid-tight seals against a work surface of the countertop when the dual-sink assembly is installed in the diagonal corner cabinet (Fig. 1; as is conventional).
Regarding Claim 20 Downs shows the method of claim 11, and fails to show wherein the dual-sink assembly is an undermount sink assembly, the first sink is a first single bowl undermount sink comprising a first lip surrounding the first basin, and the second sink is a second single bowl undermount sink comprising a second lip surrounding the second basin, and wherein the first lip and the second lip are configured to form fluid-tight seals against an underside of the countertop when the dual-sink assembly is installed in the diagonal corner cabinet. However, Maxwell details the inset or drop in way of fixing and also a flush mounted fixing (undermount). Sealing to the lip of the sink is conventional is both types of mounting. 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 Downs to include being able to be undermounted or flush mounted as shown by Maxwell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed10/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that in modifying Downs with Maxwell both Downs and Maxwell are modified such that they become unsatisfactory for their intended purpose. Applicant further argues that the modification would omit nearly 40 percent of the claimed design of Down by changing the washing and preparing surface of Downs.
The Office however, respectfully disagrees. Downs is not listed as being to scale, surmising that a certain percentage of the design would be eliminated is not within the bounds of information provided by Downs. Further, it is clear from the many different options and configurations shown by Maxwell that including a draining surface in a corner design sink has been considered and detailed (Maxwell shows options in which draining surfaces are provided in different orientations including with sinks that have a front to back corner sink orientation (see figures reproduced below; see also Maxwell Fig. 3 at 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
194
206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
176
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant has assumed that the drainage surface shown in Downs is also used as a preparing surface and then argues that putting that surface in the ‘back’ where a user has to reach over the sinks renders the surface and sink unusable for its intended purpose. However, there is no disclosure in Downs that provides that the drainage surface is used for prep or anything other than the drainage attributes that are shown. Maxwell shows that drainage surfaces that require the user to reach over the in line sinks to access those areas are still very usable for the intended purpose (see again figures as shown above). Therefore Applicant’s arguments to the unusable nature of the surface after combination is not within the scope of the disclosure of Downs or Maxwell, or to the device Downs device as combined with the teachings of Maxwell and Sterling.
Applicant argues that Maxwell would be modified beyond its intended purpose in the combination of Downs, Maxwell and Sterling. However, Maxwell is not modified in the combination and is used as a teaching reference.
As such the rejection of record meets the claim language in full and has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chia (US Pub. 2019/0048568) shows a dual sink; Sather et al. (US Pub. 2008/0087778) shows a corner sink installation; Reed et al. (US 2,206,952) shows a corner installation of a sink.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 on Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 1/24/2026