DETAILED ACTION
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
1. The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of Claims 2, 14 and 20, change “a second” to -- a second end --
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.
Claims 6 and 13 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 6 recites the limitation “wherein the drain pan and the base are a unitary component made from a single piece of material” which is considered indefinite because this limitation makes it unclear as to whether each of the drain pan and the base are unitary components each made from a single piece of material respectively or if the drain pan and the base collectively form a unitary component made from a single piece of material. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 6 are consequently unclear.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the drain pan of the first drain assembly and the drain pan of the second drain assembly are a unitary component made from a single piece of material” which is considered indefinite because this limitation makes it unclear as to whether each of the drain pans are unitary components each made from a single piece of material respectively or if the drain pan of the first drain assembly and the drain pan of the second drain assembly collectively form a unitary component made from a single piece of material. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 13 are consequently unclear.
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gregg et al. (US 2010/0084303 A1) (hereinafter “Gregg”).
Regarding Claim 1, Gregg teaches of a drain assembly (Fig. 1b) for a heater assembly (20) (see at least [0021] and Fig. 1), the heater assembly comprising a tankless water heater (20) (see at least [0018] and Fig. 1), the drain assembly comprising:
a stand (stand comprising elements (12) and (13)) comprising a base (13) and a support portion (12) extending from the base (as is shown in Fig. 1), the support portion being configured to be coupled to the tankless water heater (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0021] and Fig. 1); and
a drain pan (11) provided at the base (as is shown in Figs. 1-2), the drain pan having an outlet (outlet comprising element (15)), wherein the drain pan is configured to direct liquid from the tankless water heater to the outlet (see at least [0023]-[0025] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 11, Gregg teaches of a heater assembly (Fig. 1a) comprising:
a tankless water heater (20) (see at least [0018] and Fig. 1); and
a drain assembly (Fig. 1b) comprising:
a stand (stand comprising elements (12) and (13)) comprising a base (13) and a support portion (12) extending from the base (as is shown in Fig. 1), the support portion being coupled to the tankless water heater (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0021] and Fig. 1), and
a drain pan (11) provided at the base (as is shown in Figs. 1-2), the drain pan having an outlet (outlet comprising element (15)), wherein the drain pan is configured to direct liquid from the tankless water heater to the outlet (see at least [0023]-[0025] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 18, Gregg teaches of a method of using a drain assembly (Fig. 1b) with a tankless water heater (20) (see at least [0018] and Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of:
providing the tankless water heater (20) (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0018] and Fig. 1);
providing the drain assembly with a stand (stand comprising elements (12) and (13)) and a drain pan (11), the stand comprising a base (13) and a support portion (12) extending from the base (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0021] and Fig. 1);
positioning the tankless water heater (20) on the support portion (12) (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0021] and Fig. 1);
positioning the drain pan (11) at the base of the stand (as is shown in Fig. 1) and providing the drain pan with an outlet (outlet comprising element (15)) (see at least [0023]-[0025] and Figs. 1-2); and
collecting liquid from the tankless water heater at the outlet (see at least [0023]-[0025] and Figs. 1-2).
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.
Claims 2-6, 10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg in view of Deng et al. (CN 114396720 A) (hereinafter “Deng”) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 2, Gregg teaches the drain assembly according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1 above) in addition to the drain pan (11) having a first end, a second end disposed opposite the first end and a body extending from the first end to the second end (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least [0023]-[0024] and Figs. 1-2).
Gregg fails to explicitly teach that the body is inclined at the first end, with respect to the second end and that the outlet is disposed at the second end. However, such configuration is well known in the art.
Deng discloses a relatable drain assembly (Fig. 1) that comprises a drain pan (100) with a first end (first end that comprises wall (114) as shown in Fig. 1), a second end disposed opposite the first end (second end that comprises wall (113) as shown in Fig. 1), and a body (101) extending from the first end to the second end (see at least [0024]-[0025], [0034]-[0035] and Fig. 1), wherein an outlet (110) is disposed at the second end (see at least [0029] and Fig. 1) and wherein the body is inclined at the first end with respect to the second end (via the “angle” as shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0024]-[0025], [0034]-[0035] and Fig. 1). Deng teaches that such configuration is advantageous because, inter alia, it contributes to the reduction of the “growth of bacteria” (see at least [0039]-[0040] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the assembly taught by Gregg by configuring the existing body to be inclined at the first end with respect to the second end and by disposing the outlet at the second end as is taught by Deng. Doing so would have, inter alia, contributed to the reduction of bacterial growth. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Deng also teaches that the body of the combined assembly would be inclined at the first end at an angle of between two and fifteen degrees, with respect to the second end (“4° angle” which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0025], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Gregg (in addition to Deng) also teaches that the outlet comprises a conduit (15) (see at least [0024] and Fig. 1 of Gregg) that would extend from the second end away from the first end in the combined assembly as is taught by Deng (see conduit (105) of Deng, [0029], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Gregg and Deng would have necessarily resulted in assembly of Claim 4 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5: Gregg and Deng teach the drain assembly according to Claim 4 (see the rejection for Claim 4) but fail to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the drain pan is removably coupled to the base.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have simply reconfigured the drain pan and base taught by Gregg from an integral configuration into a configuration wherein the drain pan is removably coupled to the base since it has been held that use of a one piece construction instead of a multi-piece construction (and vice versa) would be “merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)). In the instant case, the instant application fails to disclose that a removable drain pan is critical to the invention since the instant application also claims an exact opposite configuration “wherein the drain pan and the base are a unitary component made from a single piece of material” (see Claim 6). Moreover, the drain pan taught by Gregg would still be able to perform its function of fluid collection regardless of it being removably coupled to the base or not (as is evident from at least Figs. 1-2). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been readily capable of configuring the integral configuration taught by Gregg into a separable multi-piece construction as “a matter of obvious engineering choice” and doing so would have necessarily resulted in a configuration wherein “the drain pan is removably coupled to the base” as claimed.
(In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)(A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”)
Regarding Claim 6, to the extent that Claim 6 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Gregg also teaches that the drain pan and the base may collectively be a unitary component made from a single piece of material (as is evident from the disclosure that the drain pan and base may be “integrally formed”) (see at least [0024], [0027] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 10, Gregg also teaches that the conduit (15) is a pipe that may be made of a material selected from the group consisting of a monomer, a polymer, or a mixture thereof (“polymer”) (see at least [0027] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Gregg teaches the drain assembly according to Claim 11 (see the rejection for Claim 11 above) in addition to the drain pan (11) having a first end, a second end disposed opposite the first end and a body extending from the first end to the second end (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least [0023]-[0024] and Figs. 1-2).
Gregg fails to explicitly teach that the body is inclined at the first end, with respect to the second end and that the outlet is disposed at the second end. However, such configuration is well known in the art.
Deng discloses a relatable drain assembly (Fig. 1) that comprises a drain pan (100) with a first end (first end that comprises wall (114) as shown in Fig. 1), a second end disposed opposite the first end (second end that comprises wall (113) as shown in Fig. 1), and a body (101) extending from the first end to the second end (see at least [0024]-[0025], [0034]-[0035] and Fig. 1), wherein an outlet (110) is disposed at the second end (see at least [0029] and Fig. 1) and wherein the body is inclined at the first end with respect to the second end (via the “angle” as shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0024]-[0025], [0034]-[0035] and Fig. 1). Deng teaches that such configuration is advantageous because, inter alia, it contributes to the reduction of the “growth of bacteria” (see at least [0039]-[0040] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the assembly taught by Gregg by configuring the existing body to be inclined at the first end with respect to the second end and by disposing the outlet at the second end as is taught by Deng. Doing so would have, inter alia, contributed to the reduction of bacterial growth.
Furthermore, Gregg fails to explicitly teach of a second tankless water heater and a second drain assembly such that “the tankless water heater is a first tankless water heater, wherein the drain assembly is a first drain assembly, wherein the heater assembly further comprises a second tankless water heater and a second drain assembly each configured and coupled together the same as the first tankless water heater and the first drain assembly, respectively, wherein the first and second tankless water heaters are positioned adjacent one another, and wherein the first and second drain assemblies are positioned adjacent one another”. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts that does not produce a new and unexpected result has “no patentable significance” (see below). Therefore, merely duplicating parts in the prior art in a way that that would not have produced a new and unexpected would have constituted an obvious modification.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the instant case, duplicating the existing heater assembly and corresponding drain assembly such that two heater assemblies with corresponding drain assemblies would be present as opposed to only one would have produced the expected result of increasing hot water output capacity (see at least [0019] and Fig. 1a and note that two hot water outlets (22b) as opposed to only one would necessarily increase available hot water output capacity). Thus, it is clear that such duplication would not have produced a new and unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined assembly by duplicating the existing heater assembly and corresponding drain assembly such that two heater assemblies with corresponding drain assemblies would be present as claimed as opposed to only one since such modification would have constituted an obvious duplication of parts which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Deng also teaches that the body of the combined first drain assembly would be inclined at the first end at an angle of between two and fifteen degrees, with respect to the second end (“4° angle” which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0025], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 14 above) and it follows that, with the first drain assembly duplicated as presented above in the rejection for Claim 14, the body of the second drain assembly would necessarily also be inclined at the first end of the second drain assembly at the same angle of between two and fifteen degrees, with respect to the second end of the second drain assembly (“4° angle” which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0025], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 14 above).
Regarding Claim 16, Gregg (in addition to Deng) also teaches that the outlet of the first drain assembly comprises a conduit (15) (see at least [0024] and Fig. 1 of Gregg) that would extend from the second end away from the first end in the combined assembly as is taught by Deng (see conduit (105) of Deng, [0029], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Moreover, it follows that, with the first drain assembly duplicated as presented above in the rejection for Claim 14, the outlet of the second drain assembly would necessarily also comprise a second conduit extending from the second end of the second drain assembly away from the first end of the second drain assembly) (see at least [0029], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 1 of Deng and the rejection for Claim 14 above), wherein the first and second conduits would be disposed parallel to one another (by virtue of the obvious duplication as is presented above in Claim 14 that would have resulted in two identical side-by-side assemblies) (see at least [0029], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 1 of Deng and the rejection for Claim 14 above). Thus, the combination of Gregg and Deng would have necessarily resulted in assembly of Claim 16 as claimed.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg and Deng further in view of Fima (US 2010/0212752 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Gregg and Deng teach the drain assembly according to Claim 4 (see the rejection for Claim 4) but fail to explicitly teach of a controller and a leak detection sensor electrically connected to the controller, wherein the controller is associated with the tankless water heater, and wherein the leak detection sensor is configured to detect a leak in the tankless water heater.
Fima discloses a relatable tankless water heating assembly (Figs. 2A-2B) that comprises a controller (216) and a leak detection sensor (sensor comprising elements (212) and (214)) electrically connected to the controller (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B), wherein the controller is associated with the tankless water heater (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B), and wherein the leak detection sensor is configured to detect a leak in the tankless water heater (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B - “upon detecting a leak”). Fima teaches that such arrangement is advantageous because it provides means for easily detecting a leak and consequently shutting down operation of the water heater to avoid damage (see at least Abstract, [0007], [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined assembly by configuring the assembly to include a controller and a leak detection sensor electrically connected to the controller, wherein the controller is associated with the tankless water heater, and wherein the leak detection sensor is configured to detect a leak in the tankless water heater as is taught by Fima. Doing so would have provided means for easily detecting a leak and consequently shutting down operation of the water heater to avoid damage. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, Fima also teaches that the leak detection sensor (sensor comprising elements (212) and (214)) is disposed on the tankless water heater (as is shown in Figs. 2A-2B) (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg, Deng and Fima further in view of Clary (US 8,416,089 B1).
Regarding Claim 9, Gregg, Deng and Fima teach the drain assembly according to Claim 7 (see the rejection for Claim 7) but fail to explicitly teach that the leak detection sensor is disposed on the drain pan.
Clary discloses a relatable drip tray assembly (100) for home appliances (see at least Col. 2 lines 40-67 and Fig. 1). The drip tray assembly (100) comprises a drain pan (110) with a leak detection sensor (120) disposed on the drain pan directly that communicates with a controller (“microprocessor”) such that detection of a leak that makes its way to the drain pan will be detected and an “alarm” will be generated to inform the user (see at least Col. 2 lines 40-67 and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined assembly by configuring the existing drain pan to also have a leak detection sensor disposed directly on the drain pan that that communicates with the existing controller such that any leak that makes its way to the drain pan would be detected and a corresponding “alarm” would be generated to inform the user. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg.
Regarding Claim 12, Gregg teaches the heater assembly according to Claim 11 (see the rejection for Claim 11) but fails to explicitly teach of a second tankless water heater and a second drain assembly such that “the tankless water heater is a first tankless water heater, wherein the drain assembly is a first drain assembly, wherein the heater assembly further comprises a second tankless water heater and a second drain assembly each configured and coupled together the same as the first tankless water heater and the first drain assembly, respectively, wherein the first and second tankless water heaters are positioned adjacent one another, and wherein the first and second drain assemblies are positioned adjacent one another”. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts that does not produce a new and unexpected result has “no patentable significance” (see below). Therefore, merely duplicating parts in the prior art in a way that that would not have produced a new and unexpected would have constituted an obvious modification.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the instant case, duplicating the existing heater assembly and corresponding drain assembly such that two heater assemblies with corresponding drain assemblies would be present as opposed to only one would have produced the expected result of increasing hot water output capacity (see at least [0019] and Fig. 1a and note that two hot water outlets (22b) as opposed to only one would necessarily increase available hot water output capacity). Thus, it is clear that such duplication would not have produced a new and unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the assembly taught by Gregg by duplicating the existing heater assembly and corresponding drain assembly such that two heater assemblies with corresponding drain assemblies would be present as claimed as opposed to only one since such modification would have constituted an obvious duplication of parts which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 13, to the extent that Claim 13 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Gregg also teaches that all drain pans, which would necessarily include the drain pan of the first drain assembly and the drain pan of the second drain assembly, are each a unitary component made from a single piece of material respectively (as is evident from the disclosure that the drain pan may be an “integrally formed” component) (see at least [0024], [0027] and Figs. 1-2).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg in view of Fima.
Regarding Claim 17, Gregg teaches the heater assembly according to Claim 11 (see the rejection for Claim 11) but fails to explicitly teach that the drain assembly further comprises a controller and a leak detection sensor electrically connected to the controller, wherein the controller is associated with the tankless water heater, and wherein the leak detection sensor is configured to detect a leak in the tankless water heater.
Fima discloses a relatable tankless water heating assembly (Figs. 2A-2B) that comprises a controller (216) and a leak detection sensor (sensor comprising elements (212) and (214)) electrically connected to the controller (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B), wherein the controller is associated with the tankless water heater (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B), and wherein the leak detection sensor is configured to detect a leak in the tankless water heater (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B - “upon detecting a leak”). Fima teaches that such arrangement is advantageous because it provides means for easily detecting a leak and consequently shutting down operation of the water heater to avoid damage (see at least Abstract, [0007], [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined assembly by configuring the assembly to include a controller and a leak detection sensor electrically connected to the controller, wherein the controller is associated with the tankless water heater, and wherein the leak detection sensor is configured to detect a leak in the tankless water heater as is taught by Fima. Doing so would have provided means for easily detecting a leak and consequently shutting down operation of the water heater to avoid damage. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 19, Gregg teaches the heater assembly according to Claim 18 (see the rejection for Claim 18) but fails to explicitly teach that the drain assembly further comprises a controller and a leak detection sensor electrically connected to the controller, and wherein the method further comprises the steps of: associating the controller with the tankless water heater; and detecting a leak in the tankless water heater with the leak detection sensor.
Fima discloses a relatable tankless water heating assembly (Figs. 2A-2B) and method for using the same (see at least Abstract) wherein the assembly comprises a controller (216) and a leak detection sensor (sensor comprising elements (212) and (214)) electrically connected to the controller (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B), wherein the controller is associated with the tankless water heater (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B), and wherein the leak detection sensor is configured to detect a leak in the tankless water heater (see at least [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B - “upon detecting a leak”). Fima teaches that such arrangement is advantageous because it provides means for easily detecting a leak and consequently shutting down operation of the water heater to avoid damage (see at least Abstract, [0007], [0037] and Figs. 2A-2B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the method/assembly taught by Gregg by configuring the method and assembly to include a controller and a leak detection sensor electrically connected to the controller, wherein the controller is associated with the tankless water heater, and wherein the leak detection sensor is configured to detect a leak in the tankless water heater as is taught by Fima. Doing so would have provided means for easily detecting a leak and consequently shutting down operation of the water heater to avoid damage. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg and Fima further in view of Deng.
Regarding Claim 20, Gregg and Fima teach the heater assembly according to Claim 19 (see the rejection for Claim 19) and Gregg also teaches of the drain pan (11) having a first end, a second end disposed opposite the first end, a conduit (15) and a body extending from the first end to the second end (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least [0023]-[0024] and Figs. 1-2).
Gregg and Fima fail to explicitly teach that the body is inclined at the first end at an angle of between two and fifteen degrees, with respect to the second end, and that the outlet is disposed at the second end such that the conduit extends from the second end away from the first end.
Deng discloses a relatable drain assembly (Fig. 1) and method for using the same (see at least Abstract) wherein the assembly comprises a drain pan (100) with a first end (first end that comprises wall (114) as shown in Fig. 1), a second end disposed opposite the first end (second end that comprises wall (113) as shown in Fig. 1), and a body (101) extending from the first end to the second end (see at least [0024]-[0025], [0034]-[0035] and Fig. 1), wherein an outlet (110) is disposed at the second end with a conduit (105) that extends from the second end away from the first end (see at least [0029] and Fig. 1) and wherein the body is inclined at the first end with respect to the second end at an “angle” that may be a “4° angle” (see at least [0024]-[0025], [0034]-[0035] and Fig. 1 and note that a “4° angle” falls within the claimed range). Deng teaches that such configuration is advantageous because, inter alia, it contributes to the reduction of the “growth of bacteria” (see at least [0039]-[0040] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined method by configuring the existing body to be inclined at the first end with respect to the second end at a “4° angle” and by disposing the outlet at the second end as is taught by Deng such that the conduit extends from the second end away from the first end as is also taught by Deng. Doing so would have, inter alia, contributed to the reduction of bacterial growth. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Murphy (US 2013/0037129 A1)
Falk (US 5,641,007)
Johnson (US 5,339,676)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 3/4/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762