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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, the phrase “flexible layer” renders the claims indefinite. All materials are both flexible and rigid to a degree. It is unclear what specific level of flexibility is being claimed.
Claim 3, the phrase “substantially rigid” renders the claims indefinite. All materials are both flexible and rigid to a degree. It is unclear what specific level of rigidity is being claimed.
Claim 7, the phrase “the substantially rigid absorption layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 7 and 8, the phrase “substantially rigid panels” renders the claims indefinite. All materials are both flexible and rigid to a degree. It is unclear what specific level of rigidity is being claimed.
Claim 9, the phrase “the substantially flexible layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10, the phrase “flexible joints” renders the claims indefinite. All materials are both flexible and rigid to a degree. It is unclear what specific level of flexibility is being claimed.
Claim 12, the phrase “the substantially flexible layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12, the limitation wherein the apertures are sized so as to be smaller than the object being dried renders the claim indefinite. The claim is subjective rather than definitive because the specific size of the object is undefined.
Claim 20, the phrase “rigid absorption panels” renders the claims indefinite. All materials are both flexible and rigid to a degree. It is unclear what specific level of rigidity is being claimed.
Claim 20, the phrase “flexibly connecting” renders the claims indefinite. All materials are both flexible and rigid to a degree. It is unclear what specific level of flexibility is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPN 9,907,453 to Green or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPN 9,907,453 to Green in view of JP3204281 to Ash, USPAP 2016/0206176 to Eilmus, USPAP 2009/0211994 to Yang, and/or USPAP 2007/0131629 to Sullivan.
Claim 1, Green discloses a drying implement, comprising: a flexible layer (rack) for supporting an object while the object is drying, the flexible layer including a series of apertures through the flexible layer allowing for liquid to drain from the object and through the flexible layer; and an absorption layer (mat) disposed under the flexible layer, the absorption layer absorbing the liquid drained from the object, through the apertures of the flexible layer and onto the absorption layer (see entire document including the Figures, column 1, line 49 through column 2, line 52 and column 3, line 58 through column 6, line 50).
Regarding the rack of Green having apertures, Green discloses that there is a long-felt need for a combination drying mat and rack wherein the rack includes apertures to allow water runoff to flow through the rack and be absorbed by the mat (column 1, lines 49-60). Therefore, Green either teaches the claimed apertures with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include apertures as claimed to allow water runoff to flow through the rack and be absorbed by the mat.
Regarding the rack of Green being flexible, Green discloses that the rack is preferably substantially rigid (column 6, lines 42-50). Therefore, Green discloses that the rack may alternatively not be substantially rigid. All the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art even though the art teachings relied upon are phased in terms of a non-preferred embodiment or even as being unsatisfactory for the intended purpose. Plus, Green discloses that the rack material may be a layer of plastic (column 6, lines 42-50) which is considered a flexible layer of material. Further, Eilmus discloses that it is known in the art to use silicone (an inherently flexible material) to construct a drying surface to provide a material that is soft and resists movement of the object(s) to be dried (see entire document including [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the rack of Green with silicone to provide a rack that is soft and resists movement of the object(s) to be dried.
Claims 2 and 20, Green does not appear to mention the absorption layer including diatomaceous earth but Ash discloses that it is known in the art to construct a mat with diatomaceous earth to provide a mat with excellent absorption and release characteristics (see entire document including translation page 1, lines 10-34 and page 4, lines 156-159). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the mat of Green with diatomaceous earth to provide a mat with excellent absorption and release characteristics.
Claims 3 and 20, the absorption layer is at least partially substantially rigid (Figures and column 6, lines 4-50).
Claims 4 and 20, the absorption layer includes a plurality of panels (Figures and column 4, lines 19-47).
Claim 5, the flexible layer is formed from a polymer material (column 6, lines 42-50). Regarding the polymer being molded, it is the examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter.
Claims 6 and 20, Green does not appear to specifically mention the polymer material being silicone but Eilmus discloses that it is known in the art to use silicone to construct a drying surface to provide a material that is soft and resists movement of the object(s) to be dried (see entire document including [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the rack of Green with silicone to provide a rack that is soft and resists movement of the object(s) to be dried.
Claim 7, the substantially rigid absorption layer includes at least two substantially rigid panels (Figure 6 and column 6, lines 4-29).
Claim 8, the substantially rigid absorption layer includes at least three substantially rigid panels (Figure 6 and column 6, lines 4-29).
Claim 9, the substantially flexible layer includes a plurality of sections corresponding to a plurality of panels of the absorption layer (Figure 1 and the paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2).
Claim 10, the sections of the substantially flexible layer are connected by one or more flexible joints (Figure 1, the paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2 and column 6, lines 42-50).
Claims 11 and 20, sections of the drying implement are foldable or collapsible (column 6, lines 4-29).
Claim 12, the apertures of the substantially flexible layer include voids through a width thereof, the apertures of the flexible layer being sized so as to be smaller than the object being dried so as to support the object thereon (column 1, lines 36-60).
Claims 13 and 20, the flexible layer including one or more peripheral lips for securing the absorption layer thereto (Figures including Figure 1).
Claims 14 and 15, one or more straps may be present to secure the rack and mat (column 2, lines 18-26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach the straps to the rack or mat based on the desired design choice as either arrangement results in attachment. Green also discloses that any suitable known attachment means may be used (column 2, lines 18-26). The examiner takes official notice that end pockets are a known attachment means in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach the rack and mat by straps or end pockets.
Claims 16 and 18, Green does not appear to specifically mention a bottom surface of the absorptive layer being exposed, so as to allow evaporation from opposing surfaces of the absorptive layer, but Yang and Sullivan each disclose that it is known in the art to suspend a mat off a countertop surface by using corner located feet (see entire documents including Figures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to suspend the mat of Green off a countertop surface, such as with corner located feet, to allow for increased drying and/or easier cleanup.
Claims 17 and 20, Green does not appear to specifically mention the flexible layer partially extending around the top, sides, and bottom absorptive layer but Yang and Sullivan each disclose that it is known in the art to construct a rack as big as or bigger than a mat (see Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art construct the rack as claimed based on the desired amount of rack area.
Claim 19, a joint between sections of the flexible layer includes an upwardly extending lip (rib) to retain water on the joint as opposed to allowing the water to spill onto a countertop when disposed thereon (Figure 1).
Claim 20, Green discloses a method of manufacturing a foldable drying implement, comprising; forming a plurality of ridged absorption panels; forming a polymer covering, the covering having an array of voids there through allowing for water to drain through the covering; wrapping the covering around the plurality of ridged absorption panels; the covering flexibly connecting the ridged absorption panels such that the ridged absorption panels may be laid flat or folded so as to rest upon an adjacent panel (see entire document including the Figures, column 1, line 49 through column 2, line 52 and column 3, line 58 through column 6, lines 4-50). The examiner takes official notice that molding is a conventional method of forming a polymer to a desired shape and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the covering by any suitable method, such as molding, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known shaping method on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7am-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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights