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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 1/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. See MPEP § 1.84. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes legal phraseology (e.g. “said” in lines 3-4). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12-13, and 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, “male hose adapter” should read --a male hose adapter--.
In claim 1, line 4, “female house adapter” should read --a female hose adapter--.
In claim 3, line 1, “on/off lever” should read --an on/off lever--.
In claim 6, line 2, “lower portion” should read --a lower portion--.
In claim 6, line 2, “tapered middle portion” should read --a tapered middle portion--.
In claim 9, line 4, “and9” should read --and--.
In claim 10, lines 1-2, “female house adapter” should read --a female hose adapter--.
In claim 12, line 2, “male hose adapter” should read --said male hose adapter--.
In claim 13, line 1, “on/off lever” should read --an on/off lever--.
In claim 16, line 2, “lower portion” should read --a lower portion--.
In claim 16, line 2, “tapered middle portion” should read --a tapered middle portion--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a water source hose” in line 6. Claim 1 recites “a hose” in line 5. It is unclear if “a water source hose” in line 6 is referring to the hose recited in line 5, or an additional hose. For examination purposes, “a water source hose” in line 6 is interpreted to refer to the hose recited in line 5.
Claim 1 recites “a hose” in line 6. Claim 1 recites “a hose” in line 5. It is unclear if the hose in line 6 is referring to the hose recited in line 5, or an additional hose. For examination purposes, “a hose” in line 6 is interpreted to refer to an additional hose.
The term “wide” in claim 5, line 1, claim 6, line 1, claim 7, line 1, claim 9, line 3, claim 15, line 1, claim 16, line 1, and claim 17, line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 recites “said straight pipe” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “said straight pipe” is interpreted to read --said pipe--.
Claim 11 recites “a water source hose” in line 2. Claim 9 recites “a hose” in line 5. It is unclear if “a water source hose” in claim 11 is referring to the hose recited in claim 9, or an additional hose. For examination purposes, “a water source hose” in claim 11 is interpreted to refer to the hose recited in claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “a hose” in line 2. Claim 9 recites “a hose” in line 5. It is unclear if the hose in claim 11 is referring to the hose recited in claim 9, or an additional hose. For examination purposes, “a hose” in claim 11is interpreted to refer to an additional hose.
Claim 15 recites “a wide opening fixture configured to fit into an opening of said bucket” in lines 1-2. Claim 9 recites “a wide opening fixture configured to fit into an opening of said bucket” in line 3. It is unclear if the “wide opening fixture configured to fit into an opening of said bucket” of claim 15 is referring to the wide opening fixture and opening of claim 9, or an additional wide opening fixture and opening. For examination purposes, the “wide opening fixture configured to fit into an opening of said bucket” in claim 15 is interpreted to refer to the wide opening fixture and opening of claim 9.
Any remaining dependent claim(s) are indefinite insofar as they depend on a rejected base claim.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habostad (US 3075534) in view of Carlson (US 7073547).
Regarding claim 1, Habostad discloses a sink cleanout system comprising:
a bucket (12);
a drain (32) in a bottom (28) of said bucket, said drain configured to receive and secure a pipe (32 is capable of receiving and securing a pipe, col. 2, ll. 54-67);
a water spigot (24), male hose adapter (male hose adapter of 74) and female house adapter (female hose adapter of 26) each adjacent to a top (42) of said bucket, said water spigot for directing water (71) from a hose (22) into said bucket, said female hose adapter for receiving a water source hose (22) and said male hose adapter for receiving a hose (76) with a spray nozzle (68).
However, Habostad does not disclose one or more cleanout adapters configured to attach said pipe to a cleanout as claimed.
Carlson discloses a latex paint clean-up liquid disposal device including one or more cleanout adapters (12, 14, 16, 44) configured to attach said pipe (40) to a cleanout (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cleaner system of Habostad, to include one or more cleanout adapters as claimed, as taught by Carlson, in order to dispose of clean-up liquid into a sewer line (col. 1, ll. 53-58).
Regarding claim 8, the combination above, and specifically Carlson further discloses said pipe is a straight pipe (40) or elbow pipe.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habostad (US 3075534) in view of Carlson (US 7073547) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Wall (US 5186195).
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Habostad does not disclose a tee fitting between said water spigot and male hose adapter as claimed.
Wall discloses an apparatus for rinsing chemical containers including a tee fitting (34, 40) between said water spigot (24, 26) and male hose adapter (adapter near 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cleaner system of Habostad, to include a tee fitting as claimed, as taught by Wall, in order to provide another flexible hose with a hand-operated spray nozzle (col. 3, ll. 50-57) that may used to direct water under pressure into the interior of the vessel in rinsing out smaller containers or in flushing out the vessel itself (col. 4, ll. 3-7).
Regarding claim 3, the combination above and specifically Wall further discloses on/off lever (42) integral with said tee fitting (see Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Habostad does not disclose a drain hose as claimed.
Wall discloses an apparatus for rinsing chemical containers including a drain hose (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cleaner system of Habostad, to include a drain hose as claimed, as taught by Wall, in order to remove contents of the drum after thorough flushing (Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 8.
However, Habostad does not disclose a drain hose as claimed.
Wall discloses an apparatus for rinsing chemical containers including a drain hose (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cleaner system of Habostad, to include a drain hose as claimed, as taught by Wall, in order to remove contents of the drum after thorough flushing (Abstract).
Claim(s) 5-7, 9-11, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habostad (US 3075534) in view of Carlson (US 7073547) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woodhouse (US 20070228054).
Regarding claim 5, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
Habostad further discloses a wide opening fixture (16); however, Habostad does not disclose a wide opening fixture configured to fit into an opening of said bucket as claimed.
Woodhouse discloses spillage containment including a wide opening fixture (1) configured to fit into an opening (opening of 7) of said bucket (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cleaner system of Habostad, to include a wide opening fixture configured to fit into an opening of said bucket as claimed, as taught by Woodhouse, in order to ensure that if the assembly is toppled, liquid is not released (¶ 0021, 0032).
Regarding claim 6, the combination above and specifically Woodhouse further discloses wherein said wide opening fixture includes an upper portion (3), lower portion (4) and tapered middle portion (5).
Regarding claim 7, the combination above and specifically Woodhouse further discloses said wide opening fixture includes a notch (6) to accommodate said water spigot.
Regarding claim 9, Habostad discloses a sink cleanout system comprising:
a bucket (12);
a drain (32) in a bottom (28) of said bucket, said drain configured to receive and secure a pipe (32 is capable of receiving and securing a pipe, col. 2, ll. 54-67);
a water spigot (24) for directing water from a hose (22) into said bucket.
However, Habostad does not disclose one or more cleanout adapters configured to attach said straight pipe to a cleanout as claimed.
Carlson discloses a latex paint clean-up liquid disposal device including one or more cleanout adapters (12, 14, 16, 44) configured to attach said straight pipe (40) to a cleanout (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cleaner system of Habostad, to include one or more cleanout adapters as claimed, as taught by Carlson, in order to dispose of clean-up liquid into a sewer line (col. 1, ll. 53-58).
Habostad further discloses a wide opening fixture (16); however, Habostad does not disclose a wide opening fixture configured to fit into an opening of said bucket as claimed.
Woodhouse discloses spillage containment including a wide opening fixture (1) configured to fit into an opening (opening of 7) of said bucket (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cleaner system of Habostad, to include a wide opening fixture configured to fit into an opening of said bucket as claimed, as taught by Woodhouse, in order to ensure that if the assembly is toppled, liquid is not released (¶ 0021, 0032).
Regarding claim 10, the combination above and specifically Habostad further discloses a male hose adapter (male hose adapter of 74) and female house adapter (female hose adapter of 26) each adjacent to said spigot (see Fig. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 11, the combination above and specifically Habostad further discloses said female hose adapter is for receiving a water source hose (22) and said male hose adapter is for receiving a hose (76) with a spray nozzle (68).
Regarding claim 15, the combination above and specifically Woodhouse further discloses a wide opening fixture (1) configured to fit into an opening (opening of 7) of said bucket (2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination above and specifically Woodhouse further discloses wherein said wide opening fixture includes an upper portion (3), lower portion (4) and tapered middle portion (5).
Regarding claim 17, the combination above and specifically Woodhouse further discloses wherein said wide opening fixture includes a notch (6) to accommodate said water spigot.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habostad (US 3075534) in view of Carlson (US 7073547) and Woodhouse (US 20070228054) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wall (US 5186195).
Regarding claim 12, the combination discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 10.
However, Habostad does not disclose a tee fitting between said water spigot and male hose adapter as claimed.
Wall discloses an apparatus for rinsing chemical containers including a tee fitting (34, 40) between said water spigot (24, 26) and male hose adapter (adapter near 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cleaner system of Habostad, to include a tee fitting as claimed, as taught by Wall, in order to provide another flexible hose with a hand-operated spray nozzle (col. 3, ll. 50-57) that may used to direct water under pressure into the interior of the vessel in rinsing out smaller containers or in flushing out the vessel itself (col. 4, ll. 3-7).
Regarding claim 13, the combination above and specifically Wall further discloses on/off lever (42) integral with said tee fitting (see Fig. 1-2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colletti (US 20210080031) is directed to the state of the art as disclosing a bucket mounted hose support including a bucket (10), an upper opening (15), a hose (20), and a hose nozzle (21).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KLOTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11AM-5PM.
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 P 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.
WILLIAM R. KLOTZ
Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754