DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to communication filed on 03/05/2026. Claims 1-22 remain pending, with claims 8 and 11 currently amended and claim 22 newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 5,489,163 (hereinafter Thomann).
Regarding claim 1, Thomann discloses a drainage channel (fig. 1) for sanitary facilities, with a channel body (1) extending in a longitudinal direction (fig. 2), comprising: at least one first channel portion (2, 4) having a bottom (2) and at least two side walls (4) arranged opposite one another on the bottom (2), wherein the first channel portion (2, 4) is adapted to accommodate at least one heat exchanger unit for heat recovery (the interior space defined by sidewalls 4 and bottom 2 is open and thus adapted to accommodate a heat exchanger unit if a user so desired since a user could install a heat exchanger in the open space defined by the sidewalls and bottom); and at least one second channel portion (5, 6, 7) with a receiving region (note annotated fig. below) for receiving a channel cover element (col. 1, ln. 23-25), which adjoins the first channel portion (2, 4) from above, wherein the channel body (1) has at least one undercut ((5); examiner’s note: the term “undercut” in light of the specification is taken to be a “an indentation running towards the center of the channel and formed between the first and second channel sections”) through which the receiving region of the second channel portion (5, 6, 7) is arranged transversely to the longitudinal direction within at least one of the side walls (4) of the first channel portion (2, 4) (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Thomann discloses the undercut (5) is an indentation of the channel body (1) that extends towards the center of the channel and is formed between the first and second channel portions (see fig. 1: undercut 5 extends towards center of channel and is formed between (4) of first channel portion and (6) of second channel portion).
Regarding claim 4, Thomann discloses the receiving region (note annotated fig. above regarding claim 1) of the second channel portion (5, 6, 7) comprises at least one shoulder (5) extending towards the center of the channel for supporting the channel cover element (col. 1, ln. 23-25).
Regarding claim 22, Thomann discloses the receiving region of the second channel portion is arranged transversely to the longitudinal direction within at least two of the side walls (2, 4) of the first channel portion (note annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
418
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomann in view of US Patent 8,347,424 (hereinafter Wroblewski).
Regarding claim 5, Thomann shows the shoulder is formed by the undercut (5) and has at least one support surface but fails to show the support surface is oriented obliquely towards the center of the channel. Attention is turned to Wroblewski in the same field of endeavor of floor drains which teaches orienting a support surface (130) for supporting a drain cover element (110) obliquely (fig. 12). Wroblewski teaches this assists with leveling the drain cover with the surrounding surface (col. 1, ln. 47-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the support surface of Thomann to be oriented obliquely to ensure the cover is level with the surrounding surface as evidenced by the teachings of Wroblewski mentioned above.
Claim(s) 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomann in view of EP 2,273,223 (hereinafter Heidemans).
Regarding claim 10, Thomann shows the receiving region is for accommodating at least one channel cover element (col. 1, ln. 23-25) but fails to explicitly disclose at least one channel cover element which is accommodated in the receiving region of the second channel portion and has a channel which is fluidically connected to the first channel portion. Attention is turned to Heidemans in the same field of endeavor of linear drain channels which teaches including a channel cover element (5) accommodated in a receiving region of a second channel portion of a drain body (7)(see fig. 3) with a channel (11) fluidically connected to a first channel portion (8) (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include at least one channel cover element which is accommodated in the receiving region of the second channel portion and has a channel which is fluidically connected to the first channel portion to effectively cover a drain trough and direct fluid flow into the drain trough as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings of Heidemans mentioned above.
Regarding claim 11, under the modification set forth above, Heidemans shows the channel cover element (5) has at least one edge (note annotated fig. below) which runs obliquely towards the center of the channel and which rests on the shoulder/support surface (note annotated fig. below), in the receiving region of the second channel portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
425
897
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, under the modification set forth above, Heidemans shows the oblique edge is designed to complement the shoulder of the second channel portion (the horizontally extending portion of the edge and the support surface are complementary).
Regarding claim 13, under the modification set forth above, Heidemans shows the channel cover element (5) has at least one recess above the channel (11), in which at least one sieve element (15) is inserted.
Regarding claim 14, under the modification set forth above, Heidemans shows at least one sealing element (16) is arranged between the edge of the second channel portion and the shoulder of the second channel portion (fig. 3; par. 25).
Regarding claim 15, under the modification set forth above, Heidemans shows the channel cover element (5) can be or is braced by at least one locking device against the shoulder of the second channel portion for compressing the/a sealing element (16) (examiner’s note: this claim contains features presented in the alternative: (a) the channel cover element is either configured to be (i.e. can be) braced by at least one locking device or (b) is braced by at least one locking device; accordingly, the channel cover element of Heidemans is configured to be braced by a locking device since a user could add a locking device to the cover element if so desired; the locking device is only positively required when option (b) is relied upon).
Regarding claim 16, under the modification set forth above, Heidemans shows at least one siphon unit with a siphon pot (11), wherein the channel cover element (5) protrudes into the siphon pot to form a siphon (note fluid flow directional arrow2 that enters top of cover element 5 through the center channel, exits into pot 11, and flows upward toward flange 9 and then out over the flange 9 an through drain 12 in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Thomann fails to show at least one heat exchanger unit (100) which is arranged in the channel body (11) in such a way that, during operation, a liquid to be drained flows at least in portions around the heat exchanger unit (100). Attention is turned to Heidemans in the same field of endeavor of linear drain channels which teaches including at least one heat exchanger unit (1) arranged in a channel body (5) in such a way that during operation liquid to be drained (3) flows at least in portions around the heat exchanger unit (par. 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include at least one heat exchanger unit which is arranged in the channel body in such a way that, during operation, a liquid to be drained flows at least in portions around the heat exchanger unit to save energy on water heating for a shower as evidenced by the teachings of Heidemans mentioned above.
Regarding claim 18, under the modification set forth above, Heidemans shows the heat exchanger unit (1) has at least one heat transfer portion (22) which portion runs at least in portions in the longitudinal direction along at least one of the side walls of the channel body (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, under the modification set forth above, Heidemans shows the heat exchanger unit (1) comprises at least one feed connection (bottom inlet in fig. 8) and at least one return connection (upper outlet in fig. 8), wherein the feed connection and/or the return connection is/are arranged on an end wall of the channel body (fig. 8 shows the feed and return connections at end walls) or on one of the side walls of the channel body (fig. 3, 4 show along the side walls of the channel body).
Regarding claim 20, Thomann fails to show the channel body has at least one outlet nozzle for the liquid to be drained, which outlet nozzle is arranged on an end wall of the channel body or on one of the side walls of the channel body or on the bottom of the channel body. Attention is turned to Heidemans in the same field of endeavor of linear drain channels which teaches including an outlet nozzle (12) arranged on the bottom of the channel body of a linear drain channel (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include an outlet nozzle arranged on the bottom of the channel body of Thomann to allow the water to drain out of the drain channel as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings of Heidemans mentioned above.
Regarding claim 21, Thomann shows a use of a drainage channel according to claim 1 (see rejection above regarding claim 1), but fails to show in a sanitary facility, wherein the drainage channel is inserted into a shower bottom in such a way that liquids to be drained away during use of the sanitary facility run off through the drainage channel, wherein heat recovery takes place through at least one heat exchanger unit. Attention is turned to Heidemans in the same field of endeavor of linear drain channels that teaches a use of a drainage channel in a shower with heat recovery taking place through at least one heat exchanger unit (par. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to use the drainage channel of Thomann for a user in a shower and heat recovery to provide an easy to assemble and transport drainage channel that is usable in a variety of environments such as that taught by Heidemans above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 2, the recitation requiring the receiving region of the second channel portion has an outer width transversely to the longitudinal direction, which is smaller than a width of the first channel portion would not be an obvious modification to the most relevant prior art of Thomann as set forth above. A key feature of Thomann is having the receiving region having an outer width be larger than the width of the first channel portion in order to nest/stack the channel bodies together (see Thomann col. 2, ln. 56-65).
Regarding claim 6, the recitation requiring at least one third channel portion which adjoins the second channel portion from above, wherein the second channel portion is arranged between the first and third channel portions would not be an obvious modification to the most relevant prior art of Thomann as set forth above. A key feature of Thomann is having the channels nest/stack the channel together, and a third channel portion as claimed would prevent such nesting/stacking (see Thomann col. 2, ln. 56-65). Claims 7-9 depend from claim 6 and thus inherit the allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Thomann fails to show the receiving region is arranged transversely to the longitudinal direction within at least one of the side wall of the first channel portion as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using Applicant’s specification for guidance as to how the side walls (14) of the first channel define a boundary that the receiving region (16) fits within (see fig. 2 for example), when looking at the prior art of Thomann in the plane transverse to the longitudinal direction of the channel, it can be seen that the side walls of the first channel portion define a boundary that the receiving region is at least partially within (note annotated fig. above regarding claim 22). The rejection is deemed proper and maintained.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754