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 § 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 1,275,719) in view of Cushman et al. (US 4,597,525).
With regard to claim 1, Miller discloses a water fountain comprising: a first bubbler (25) and a second bubbler (Fig. 3 and 4); except the first bubbler comprising an outlet having a lower spout height, and the second bubbler comprising an outlet having an upper spout height, and the lower spout height and upper spout height having a spout height difference therebetween of at least two inches.
Cushman teaches a water fountain comprising a first bubble (144) and a second spigot (170), the first bubbler (144) comprising an outlet having a lower spout height (Fig. 5), and the second spigot (170) comprising an outlet having an upper spout height, and the lower spout height and upper spout height having a spout height difference (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height difference between the first and second bubblers of Miller, by having the spout of the second bubbler as a higher position than the first bubbler as taught by Cushman, for the benefit of maximizing convenient use for persons with certain types of motion disabilities, as well as the general public, and the elevated orientation thereof is intended to provide for adequate head room for users drinking water (Col. 7 lines 12-18).
Furthermore, it is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any criticality on the height difference at least two inches (see para. [0006] in the instant application), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to arrange the first bubbler and the second bubbler having a spout height difference therebetween of at least two inches, since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 2, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Miller further discloses that a single drain line (10) and a single connection to a fresh water source (12).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Miller further discloses that comprising a single basin (11) and a single drain hole (between 11 and 10, see Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Miller further discloses that a first mounting point and a second mounting point; the first bubbler mounted to the first mounting point and the second bubbler mounted to the second mounting point (Fig. 2 shows different mounting points for first and second bubbler 25).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Cushman further discloses that said first mounting point having a first mounting point height and said second mounting point having a second mounting point height; wherein a mounting point height difference between the first mounting point height and said second mounting point height (Fig. 5 shows different mountain points for first bubbler and second spigot at different height).
Furthermore, it is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any criticality on the height difference is 2” or more (see para. [0006] in the instant application), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to arrange the first bubbler and the second bubbler having different mounting point height at 2” or more, since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 6, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Miller further discloses that said first bubbler having a first bubbler height and said second bubbler having a second bubbler height; wherein said first bubbler height and said second bubbler height are the same (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Miller further discloses that said first mounting point having a first mounting point height and said second mounting point having a second mounting point height; wherein said first mounting point height and said second mounting point height are the same (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. They are silent to disclose that said first bubbler having a first bubbler height and said second bubbler having a second bubbler height; wherein a bubbler height difference between the said first bubbler height and said second bubbler height is 2" or more.
It is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any criticality on the height difference is 2” or more (see para. [0006] in the instant application), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to arrange the first bubbler and the second bubbler having different height at 2” or more, since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 9, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Cushman further discloses that a basin (40); the basin comprising an extension extending upward by an extension height (Fig. 5); except the extension height is the same as the spout height difference.
It is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any criticality on the height difference (see para. [0006] in the instant application), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to arrange the basin with an extension height as same as the spout height difference, since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 10, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Miller further discloses that said first bubbler (25) having a first bubbler height and said second bubbler (25) having a second bubbler height; wherein said first bubbler height and said second bubbler height are the same (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 11, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Miller further discloses that said first bubbler having a first bubbler height and said second bubbler having a second bubbler height; wherein a bubbler height difference between the said first bubbler height and said second bubbler height is the same as the spout height difference (Miller shows in figure 1 that all bubblers are at the same height as its spouts).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. They are silent to disclose that said lower spout height being less than 36" and said upper spout height being more than 38".
It is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any criticality on the height difference (see para. [0006] in the instant application), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to arrange the lower spout height at less than 36” and the upper spout height at more than 38”, since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 13, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above.
With regard to claim 14, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 above.
With regard to claim 15, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 above.
With regard to claim 16, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 above.
With regard to claim 17, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 above.
With regard to claim 18, the device of Miller as modified by Cushman discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752