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 of group I, claims 11-28, in the reply filed on 02 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02 December 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the instant specification recites the word “patrix-shaped” in ¶¶ 23-26, 42-46, 66, 71, 73, 77, 81, 84-85. It is unclear what is being defined as “patrix” is not a word nor is it defined in the instant specification. It appears to be related to “matrix.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 23-27 are objected to because of the following informalities: As in the instant specification discussion above, the claims recite the word “patrix-shaped” in ¶¶ 23-26, 42-46, 66, 71, 73, 77, 81, 84-85. It is unclear what is being defined as “patrix” is not a word nor is it defined in the instant specification. It appears to be related to “matrix.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoesch Metall + Kunststoffwerk GmbH & Co (DE 198 500 42 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hoesch discloses a forming device for producing a tub-shaped sanitary object made of plastic with a visible side and a bottom, comprising a frame arrangement having a first frame with a first frame-shaped bending structure and a second frame with a second frame-shaped bending structure, wherein the second frame can be inserted into the first frame while taking with it a plastic sheet which is fixed to the first frame and the plastic sheet can be formed by means of the bending structures of both frames while forming bends (FIG. 1; ¶¶ 15-18).
Regarding claim 12, Hoesch discloses the first frame comprises a first framework structure, on which the first bending structure is arranged, and the second frame comprises a second framework structure, on which the second bending structure is arranged (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Hoesch discloses the first bending structure is formed by means of flat struts which have a rectangular cross-section and are connected in a frame-shaped manner and the second bending structure is formed by means of round or oval struts which are connected in a frame-shaped manner (FIG. 1-2; ¶¶ 15-18).
Regarding claim 14, Hoesch discloses wherein the first bending structure comprises an outer first frame-shaped structural section and a second frame-shaped structural section which extends parallel thereto and is lying inside the first structural section (FIG. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Hoesch discloses the two structural sections extend in a common plane, or in that the first structural section which is lying further outside is higher than the second structural section which is lying inside (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Hoesch discloses a fixing device is provided for attaching the plastic sheet to the first frame (FIG. 1; ¶ 17).
Regarding claim 17, Hoesch discloses the fixing device is designed to clamp an edge section of the plastic sheet which is bent around the first bending structure, in particular the outer first structural section (FIG. 1; ¶ 17).
Regarding claim 18, Hoesch discloses the fixing device comprises clamping strips which can be placed laterally against the first bending structure or the first structural section and clamp the edge section thereto (FIG. 1; ¶ 17).
Regarding claim 19, Hoesch discloses a corresponding counter surface on the window frame 8, equated with the claimed stop, upon which a web-shaped projection 15 with a corresponding seal device 15.1 bears against, equated with the second frame or against which the plastic sheet can be moved during forming (FIG. 1; ¶ 16).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoesch Metall + Kunststoffwerk GmbH & Co (DE 198 500 42 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Thieschnieder et al. (DE 10 2006 030 481 B4).
Hoesch does not appear to expressly disclose a punch forming a drain geometry.
However, Thieschnieder discloses a similar device for forming a shower tray (title/abstract) which includes a punching tool 40 in a matching opening 42 of the stamp 36 (FIG. 4-5) for forming a drain in the shower tray (p. 4).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Hoesch to include the drain punch of Thieschnieder in order to integrally form the drain without further processing.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoesch Metall + Kunststoffwerk GmbH & Co (DE 198 500 42 A1) and Thieschnieder et al. (DE 10 2006 030 481 B4) as applied to claim 23 above, further in view of Bez (DE 20 2011 001 658 U1).
Modified Hoesch does not appear to expressly disclose that the drain punch can change positions.
However, Bez discloses a similar device for forming shower tubs (title/abstract) in which a punch for forming the drain is adjustable by displaceable carriers (FIG. 7; ¶ 55).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Hoesch to include the adjustable punch Bez, in order to form drains in different locations as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-22 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:
The closest prior art fails to disclose height adjustable stops on the first frame as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kott; John T. et al.
US 4750967 A
Prior art apparatus
Shuert; Lyle H.
US 5427732 A
CHELLIS LEROY N
US 2796634 A
BRYANT EDWARDS
US 3218379 A
KAIJI NEGORO
US 3291874 A
SMITH HARRY E
US 2531540 A
MATSUMOTO KAZUHIDE et al.
JP 2008254001 A
SHODA, MARIKO et al.
CN 113229580 B
Erfinder auf Antrag nicht genannt.
DE 102022114727 A1
XIE, Yue-rong et al.
CN 107521081 A
DONG, YAN
CN 111805878 B
DAHLHUES THOMAS et al.
EP 2295162 B1
VERREAUX ALEJANDRO D
EP 1004425 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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 A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742