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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21-48 are currently pending on the application, of which claims 40-48 are newly added and claims 24, 29-31, & 33 are amended.
The previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn in light of the terminal disclaimer.
The previous rejection is maintained as applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
A new ground of rejection is supplied to meet the newly added claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Licata and Inch already provide downwardly angled nozzles, and thus a skilled artisan would not apply the teachings of Bigott which provide a manner of downwardly angles an ejected flow by angling the wall.
This argument is not persuasive because the references merely indicate alternative manners of providing a flow of liquid in a downward direction, and it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner of implementing a downward direction of fluid spray in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. The operation of the Licata and Inch reference would not change as a skilled artisan recognizes that in performing such a modification, the wall can angled instead of provided such angling due to nozzle outlet construction (i.e., angling of the wall vs angling of a nozzle). Rather such a modification would still allow for the downward flow of fluid as is desired.
Applicant also argues that adding the angled tank would result in a reduced total space inside the wash area and would hurt the performance of Licata and/or Inch.
This argument is also not persuasive as there is no indication that such a modification would result in any reduction of performance of Licata or Inch, as the modification would merely provided an alternative manner for implementing downwardly angled flow of fluid. Secondly, although the modification would results in a reduced amount of space within the tank, the modification also comes with a further benefit that one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes would further improve splash protection. In this respect, a skilled artisan would also recognize that by providing the angled walls, rather than angled nozzles, further splash reduction to nearby individuals can be observed due to the fact that the angled walls reduce top opening size of the tank. Thus, any errant or eccentric splashing which occurs near the wall at a lower side of the tank during starting of the fluid flow, in which the collision of fluid ejected from nozzle breaks surface tension of fluid in the tank, can be prevented from escaping the tank due to contacting the inwardly extending wall. A given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages and this does not necessarily obviate a motivation to combine the references. See, e.g., Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8 “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification is devoid of any mention of the downwardly facing surface being vertically narrower than the inlet opening. The drawings do not depict such a feature as the angled views of the concerned components do not clearly and unambiguously show such a feature due to their angled views.
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.
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.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the second surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 28, 33, & 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1).
As to claim 21, Licata discloses a sink (Figs.2A-2C) capable of soaking items, comprising: a basin (Figs.2A-2C ref 110) defined by a plurality of wall portions including rear and front wall portions (Figs.2A-2C refs 116) at a rear of the basin; an inlet opening (see Fig.2C ref 3A and Fig.3A or Fig.2A ref 120) at least partly defined by the rear wall (e.g., rear wall defines one boundary surface of the opening); a plurality of outlets disposed above the inlet opening, spaced along the rear wall portion (Figs.2A & 7A-7D refs 222, see also [0059]; the height of the outlets defining a first heigh and the height of the inlet opening defining a second height); a vertical surface defined at the rear of the basin at a height between the intake opening and the plurality of outlets (see Fig.2A portion between ref 200 and ref 120 on wall ref 116). Licata does not disclose the plurality of outlets being on a downwardly facing. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Bigott.
Bigott discloses an art related sink for washing items (abstract & Fig.1), having a portion which discharges fluid (Fig.9 ref 148) into the tank (see Figs.3-6). Bigott further discloses downwardly angling a wall portion (i.e., planar surface) with such discharging portions in order to prevent splashing and circulate water in the sink [0062]. Bigott also discloses the possibility for an intake (i.e., inlet) opening to be located at any wall location including the rear wall [0053].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing, to modify Licata to make the rear wall portion where the outlets are provided in a downward angle in order to avoid splashing (Bigott [0049 & 0062]). Such a modification would provide a portion of the rear wall with the outlets having an angled portion (see Licata Figs.2A-2C portion where ref 200 is located). As Licata showcases that a vertical section is provided between the inlet opening and the discharging area (e.g., at a third height), a skilled artisan would find it simple to retain such a feature when providing the modification. As both Licata and Bigott showcase different known alternative manners for ensuring a downwardly directed spray of fluid (i.e., angling the nozzle downwardly vs. angling the wall downwardly), a skilled artisan understands that such features are alternative to one another. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that instead of angling the nozzles downwardly, the wall can be downwardly angled instead such that the nozzles may be provided with a straightened disposition. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner of achieving a downwardly directed spray of fluid in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Assuming arguendo that the inlet opening of Licata is not defined partly by the rear wall merely by its function as a boundary surface to the said opening, the following alternative rejection is provided. The location and positioning of the inlet opening is a mere rearrangement of part, and it is known that such an inlet opening can be alternatively defined at the rear wall with a reasonable expectation of success (Bigott [0053]). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to define the inlet opening on any wall, including the rear wall, with a reasonable expectation of success including as seen by Bigott (see Figs.3-4).
As to claims 22-23, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein a screen (Licata Fig.2A ref 120) covers the inlet opening. Further, Bigott indicates that an inlet opening can be rectangular in shape (see Fig.4 ref 140) with a screen that covers the opening (Fig.3 ref 142). Since both Licata and Bigott showcase different shaped inlet openings which still allow operation of the sink, a skilled artisan would find the provision of making the inlet opening rectangular to be a mere change in the shape of the opening, absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, such a modification merely amounts to utilizing a known inlet opening shape for a sink utilized for cleaning, and it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one inlet opening shape in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 28, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein the difference between the claimed invention and Modified Licata lies in the dimensions of the downwardly facing surface with respect to the inlet opening such that the inlet opening is larger. However, a skilled artisan understands that enlarging a vertical size of the inlet opening would not cause the sink of Modified Licata to operate differently (see MPEP 2144.04). Thus, such a change in the size does not make the invention of claim 28 patentably distinct from Modified Licata.
As to claim 33, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein Bigott showcases that a vertical surface (i.e., second surface) is provided above the downwardly angled wall portion on which the spraying portion is provided (see Fig.3). Thus, a skilled artisan would find such a configuration obvious when modifying the rear wall to provide the downwardly facing surface.
As to claim 39, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, further comprising a manifold body (Licata Figs.2A & 6A ref 160) disposed along the rear wall portion of the basin, wherein the manifold body is configured to permit the fluid to flow towards the plurality of outlets.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Eilmus (US20220364343A1) and Snyder (US1995331A).
As to claims 24-25, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein Bigott showcases that a vertical surface (i.e., second surface) is provided above the downwardly angled wall portion on which the spraying portion is provided (see Fig.3). The intersecting plane of the downwardly facing portion and the vertical portion above define a partial triangular prism. Thus, a skilled artisan would find such a configuration obvious when modifying the rear wall to provide the downwardly facing surface. Modified Licata does not explicitly disclose the downwardly facing portion and the second surface being made of a piece of sheet metal which is bent. However, the use of sheet metal for the formation of sink components is well-known in the art, as seen by Eilmus and Snyder.
Eilmus discloses an art related sink system (abstract), wherein it is known that a piece of sheet metal can be utilized and bent into shape in order to form the walls and top surface of a sink [0053-0054].
Snyder discloses an art related sink type (Fig.1) washing apparatus, wherein it is known that a sink may be formed of sheet metal (Page 2 lines 20-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Licata to form the basin and its walls by bending a piece of sheet metal, as is known in the art (Eilmus [0053-0054] & Snyder page 2 lines 20-35). It is in the purview to utilize a known material for the formation of the basin and its walls when one is not explicitly disclosed. Such a modification would provide a linear bend connecting the vertical surface and the downwardly facing surface such that they face into and are exposed to the interior of the basin.
Claim(s) 26 & 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hoover (US5810036A).
As to claim 26, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, but does not disclose an upper edge of the partially downwardly facing surface defining an upper extent of a recess. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Hoover.
Hoover discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein Hoover indicates that nozzles should be provided in a recessed area for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Col.2 lines 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Licata to provide the downwardly facing surface as a recessed surface so that the nozzles may be located within the recess for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Hoover Col.2 lines 45-53). Accordingly, since the downwardly facing surface will be recessed, the upper edge of said surface will define an upper extent of the recess.
As to claim 34, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein the inlet opening may be provided such that a vertical surface may exist below the inlet opening (Bigott Figs.3-4 & [0053]), thereby defining a lower vertical surface. Further Bigott showcases that a vertical surface (i.e., upper vertical surface) is provided above the downwardly angled wall portion on which the spraying portion is provided (see Fig.3). Thus, a skilled artisan would find such a configuration obvious when modifying the rear wall to provide the downwardly facing surface. Modified Licata does not disclose a recess comprising at least the downwardly facing surface. However, providing a wall portion with a recess such that the nozzles are disposed in the recessed area is known in the art, as seen by Hoover.
Hoover discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein Hoover indicates that nozzles should be provided in a recessed area for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Col.2 lines 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Licata to provide the downwardly facing surface as a recessed surface so that the nozzles may be located within the recess for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Hoover Col.2 lines 45-53). Accordingly, as the recess is provided within the wall portion defined by the downwardly facing surface, the recess comprises the downwardly facing surface and is between the upper and lower vertical surfaces.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jarvis (US20060196528A1).
As to claim 27, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, but does not disclose the outlets being disposed within a recess at the rear of the basin. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Jarvis.
Jarvis discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to recess nozzles into a wall so that they do not become caught on pots [0017 & 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Licata to provide the outlets within a recess at the rear of the basin to prevent the pots/pan from being caught on the nozzle (Jarvis [0017 & 0020]).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of L’Henaff (US20240426088A1) and Eilmus (US20220025620A1).
As to claim 32, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, but does not disclose the specific angle of the downwardly facing surface relative to a horizontal axis. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of L’Henaff and Eilmus.
L’Henaff discloses an art related sink system (abstract), wherein a dispensing degree from a nozzle downwardly into a sink relative to a vertical axis. The dispensing degree can be about less than or equal to 70 degrees or greater than or equal to 60 degrees relative to a vertical axis (see [0088], i.e., when taken with respect to a horizontal axis such an angle is greater than or equal to 20 degrees or less than or equal to 30 degrees).
Eilmus discloses an art related sink system (abstract), wherein an angle of a downward spray into the basin to avoid splashing can be any amount from 0 to 90 degrees relative to a horizontal [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Licata to provide the downwardly facing surface with an angle between 0 to 90 degrees relative to a horizontal to avoid splashing (Eilmus [0064]), such as 20-30 degrees as is known in the art (L’Henaff [0088]).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cantrell (US4773436A).
As to claim 36, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the rear wall portion laterally being wider than either of the two side wall portions and a lateral width of the basin being greater than a depth of the basin and a front-to-rear length of the basin. However, such sized sink basin are known in the art, as seen by Cantrell.
Cantrell discloses an art related sink apparatus for cleaning (abstract), wherein a size of a tank may be size for the washing of pots and pans. Cantrell further indicates that such sizing includes dimensions of the lateral width of the rear wall being four feet whereas a front to rear length and lateral width of the sidewall is 28 inches and a depth is 20 inches (Col.6 lines 8-13). Cantrell also indicates that a rear wall height may be taller than the other walls (Col.6 lines 20-25). Further, other examples of sink size are indicated wherein the rear wall dimension is greater than the side wall and depth dimension (Col.10 lines 23-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Licata to utilize sink dimensions as disclosed by Cantrell in order to allow for cleaning of pots and pans or a certain size. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize known dimension for the sink, when explicit dimensions are not disclosed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 21-23, 28, 33, & 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1).
As to claim 21, Inch discloses a sink (Fig.1) comprising: a basin (Fig.2 ref 110) defined by a plurality of wall portions [0046] including a rear wall portion (Fig.2 ref 116) and a front wall portion (Fig.2 ref 118); an inlet opening (Fig.4) defined at a sidewall [0047]; a plurality of outlets (Fig.2 portion where ref 120 are provided) disposed above the intake opening and spaced along the rear wall portion, the plurality of outlets being configured to receive fluid therethrough [0047]; a vertical surface is defined at the rear wall portion at a height between the inlet opening and the plurality of outlets (see Fig.4 vertical wall portion exists between ref 152 and ref 160). Inch does not disclose the inlet opening being defined at least in part by the rear wall portion or the plurality of outlets being on a downwardly facing. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Bigott. Further, the presence of the inlet opening on the rear wall is also known in the art, as seen by B1.
Bigott discloses an art related sink for washing items (abstract & Fig.1), having a portion which discharges fluid (Fig.9 ref 148) into the tank (see Figs.3-6). Bigott further discloses downwardly angling a wall portion (i.e., planar surface) with such discharging portions in order to prevent splashing and circulate water in the sink [0062]. Bigott also discloses the possibility for an intake (i.e., inlet) opening to be located at any wall location including the rear wall [0053].
B1 discloses an art related sink for washing items (abstract & Fig.1), wherein a known alternative configuration for an inlet opening is located at a rear of the washing tank with a chamber (see Figs.1-2 refs 140/142, also [0020]) for receiving fluid from within the tank and sending it to the pump. It is noted that such a location for an inlet opening/chamber also allows for function with a parallel flow pump located at a side of the sink.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing, to modify Inch to make the rear wall portion where the outlets are provided in a downward angle in order to avoid splashing (Bigott [0049 & 0062]). Such a modification would provide a portion of the rear wall with the outlets having an angled portion (see Licata Figs.2A-2C portion where ref 200 is located). As Inch showcases that a vertical section exists at a height between the inlet opening and the discharging area (e.g., at a third height), a skilled artisan would find it simple to retain such a feature when providing the modification. As both Inch and Bigott showcase different known alternative manners for ensuring a downwardly directed spray of fluid (i.e., angling the nozzle outlet downwardly vs. angling the wall downwardly), a skilled artisan understands that such features are alternative to one another. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that instead of angling the nozzles downwardly, the wall can be downwardly angled instead such that the nozzles may be provided with a straightened disposition. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner of achieving a downwardly directed spray of fluid in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to supply the inlet opening on the rear wall of the basin, as a known alternative location for accomplishing the same function (see Bigott [0053] & B1 Figs.1-2 & [0020]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known location for an inlet opening in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 22-23, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein the inlet opening has a rectangular shaped opening (Inch Fig.5 ref 152) and a screen (Inch Fig.2 ref 130) covers the said opening (Inch [0058]). However, assuming arguendo that Inch does not showcase the opening being rectangular, merely the pump inlet portion connecting to the inlet being rectangular, the following alternative rejection is provided. The shape of the inlet opening being rectangular is merely a known shape for an inlet opening (see Bigott Fig.4 ref 140), and a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize a known inlet opening shape when one is not explicitly disclosed with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent evidence to the contrary a skilled artisan would recognize such a modification would merely amount to a change in the shape of the opening (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 28, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein the difference between the claimed invention and Modified Inch lies in the dimensions of the downwardly facing surface with respect to the inlet opening such that the inlet opening is larger. However, a skilled artisan understands that enlarging a vertical size of the inlet opening would not cause the sink of Modified Inch to operate differently (see MPEP 2144.04). Thus, such a change in the size does not make the invention of claim 28 patentably distinct from Modified Inch.
As to claim 33, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein Bigott showcases that a vertical surface (i.e., second surface) is provided above the downwardly angled wall portion on which the spraying portion is provided (see Fig.3). Thus, a skilled artisan would find such a configuration obvious when modifying the rear wall to provide the downwardly facing surface. It is also noted that Inch also provides a vertical surface above the nozzles which is bent rearwardly (see Fig.2 ref 116) to create a backsplash like structure.
As to claim 37, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, further comprising a plurality of nozzle bodies each protruding from one of the plurality of outlets (see Inch Fig.7 ref 126 & ref 120).
As to claim 38, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein the plurality of outlets are integral (see Inch Figs.2 & 7 holes in which ref 120 are provided are integral holes formed in the wall) the with the at least partially downwardly facing surface.
As to claim 39, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, further comprising a manifold body (Inch Figs.3-4 & 7 ref 160) disposed along the rear wall portion of the basin, wherein the manifold body is configured to permit the fluid to flow towards the plurality of outlets.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Eilmus (US20220364343A1) and Snyder (US1995331A).
As to claims 24-25, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein Bigott showcases that a vertical surface (i.e., second surface) is provided above the downwardly angled wall portion on which the spraying portion is provided (see Fig.3). The intersecting plane of the downwardly facing portion and the vertical portion above define a partial triangular prism. Thus, a skilled artisan would find such a configuration obvious when modifying the rear wall to provide the downwardly facing surface. Modified Inch does not explicitly disclose the downwardly facing portion and the second surface being made of a piece of sheet metal which is bent. However, the use of sheet metal for the formation of sink components is well-known in the art, as seen by Eilmus and Snyder.
Eilmus discloses an art related sink system (abstract), wherein it is known that a piece of sheet metal can be utilized and bent into shape in order to form the walls and top surface of a sink [0053-0054].
Snyder discloses an art related sink type (Fig.1) washing apparatus, wherein it is known that a sink may be formed of sheet metal (Page 2 lines 20-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Inch to form the basin and its walls by bending a piece of sheet metal, as is known in the art (Eilmus [0053-0054] & Snyder page 2 lines 20-35). It is in the purview to utilize a known material for the formation of the basin and its walls when one is not explicitly disclosed. Such a modification would provide a linear bend connecting the vertical surface and the downwardly facing surface such that they face into and are exposed to the interior of the basin.
Claim(s) 26 & 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hoover (US5810036A).
As to claim 26, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, but does not disclose an upper edge of the partially downwardly facing surface defining an upper extent of a recess. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Hoover.
Hoover discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein Hoover indicates that nozzles should be provided in a recessed area for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Col.2 lines 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Inch to provide the downwardly facing surface as a recessed surface so that the nozzles may be located within the recess for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Hoover Col.2 lines 45-53). Accordingly, since the downwardly facing surface will be recessed, the upper edge of said surface will define an upper extent of the recess.
As to claim 34, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, wherein the inlet opening may be provided such that a vertical surface may exist below the inlet opening (Bigott Figs.3-4 & [0053]), thereby defining a lower vertical surface. Further Bigott showcases that a vertical surface (i.e., upper vertical surface) is provided above the downwardly angled wall portion on which the spraying portion is provided (see Fig.3). Thus, a skilled artisan would find such a configuration obvious when modifying the rear wall to provide the downwardly facing surface. Modified Inch does not disclose a recess comprising at least the downwardly facing surface. However, providing a wall portion with a recess such that the nozzles are disposed in the recessed area is known in the art, as seen by Hoover.
Hoover discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein Hoover indicates that nozzles should be provided in a recessed area for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Col.2 lines 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Inch to provide the downwardly facing surface as a recessed surface so that the nozzles may be located within the recess for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Hoover Col.2 lines 45-53). Accordingly, as the recess is provided within the wall portion defined by the downwardly facing surface, the recess comprises the downwardly facing surface and is between the upper and lower vertical surfaces.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jarvis (US20060196528A1).
As to claim 27, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, but does not disclose the outlets being disposed within a recess at the rear of the basin. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Jarvis.
Jarvis discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to recess nozzles into a wall so that they do not become caught on pots [0017 & 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Inch to provide the outlets within a recess at the rear of the basin to prevent the pots/pan from being caught on the nozzle (Jarvis [0017 & 0020]).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of L’Henaff (US20240426088A1) and Eilmus (US20220025620A1).
As to claim 32, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, but does not disclose the specific angle of the downwardly facing surface relative to a horizontal axis. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of L’Henaff and Eilmus.
L’Henaff discloses an art related sink system (abstract), wherein a dispensing degree from a nozzle downwardly into a sink relative to a vertical axis. The dispensing degree can be about less than or equal to 70 degrees or greater than or equal to 60 degrees relative to a vertical axis (see [0088], i.e., when taken with respect to a horizontal axis such an angle is greater than or equal to 20 degrees or less than or equal to 30 degrees).
Eilmus discloses an art related sink system (abstract), wherein an angle of a downward spray into the basin to avoid splashing can be any amount from 0 to 90 degrees relative to a horizontal [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Inch to provide the downwardly facing surface with an angle between 0 to 90 degrees relative to a horizontal to avoid splashing (Eilmus [0064]), such as 20-30 degrees as is known in the art (L’Henaff [0088]).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cantrell (US4773436A).
As to claim 36, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the rear wall portion laterally being wider than either of the two side wall portions and a lateral width of the basin being greater than a depth of the basin and a front-to-rear length of the basin. However, such sized sink basin are known in the art, as seen by Cantrell.
Cantrell discloses an art related sink apparatus for cleaning (abstract), wherein a size of a tank may be size for the washing of pots and pans. Cantrell further indicates that such sizing includes dimensions of the lateral width of the rear wall being four feet whereas a front to rear length and lateral width of the sidewall is 28 inches and a depth is 20 inches (Col.6 lines 8-13). Cantrell also indicates that a rear wall height may be taller than the other walls (Col.6 lines 20-25). Further, other examples of sink size are indicated wherein the rear wall dimension is greater than the side wall and depth dimension (Col.10 lines 23-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Inch to utilize sink dimensions as disclosed by Cantrell in order to allow for cleaning of pots and pans or a certain size. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize known dimension for the sink, when explicit dimensions are not disclosed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 40 & 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1).
As to claim 40, Licata discloses a sink (Figs.2A-2C) capable of soaking items, comprising: a basin (Figs.2A-2C ref 110) defined by a plurality of wall portions including rear and front wall portions (Figs.2A-2C refs 116) at a rear of the basin; an inlet opening (see Fig.2C ref 3A and Fig.3A or Fig.2A ref 120) at least partly defined by the rear wall (e.g., rear wall defines one boundary surface of the opening); a plurality of outlets disposed above the inlet opening, spaced along the rear wall portion (Figs.2A & 7A-7D refs 222, see also [0059]; the height of the outlets defining a first heigh and the height of the inlet opening defining a second height); the rear wall portion also has upper and lower vertical surfaces that are coplanar (see Figs.2A-2C upper and lower portions of the rear wall portion are vertical and coplanar). Licata does not disclose the plurality of outlets being on a downwardly facing. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Bigott.
Bigott discloses an art related sink for washing items (abstract & Fig.1), having a portion which discharges fluid (Fig.9 ref 148) into the tank (see Figs.3-6). Bigott further discloses downwardly angling a wall portion (i.e., planar surface) with such discharging portions in order to prevent splashing and circulate water in the sink [0062]. Bigott also discloses the possibility for an intake (i.e., inlet) opening to be located at any wall location including the rear wall [0053]. Bigott also showcases coplanar vertical surfaces (see Fig.3) either portion above the downwardly angled surface or the portion above it, where the upper and lower vertical surfaces are merely upper portions and lower portions of the surfaces. Specifically, each vertical wall portion (either the above or below) can be cited to have an upper portion and a lower portion which are coplanar since they are present on the same wall.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing, to modify Licata to make the rear wall portion where the outlets are provided in a downward angle in order to avoid splashing (Bigott [0049 & 0062]). Such a modification would provide a portion of the rear wall with the outlets having an angled portion (see Licata Figs.2A-2C portion where ref 200 is located). As both Licata and Bigott showcase different known alternative manners for ensuring a downwardly directed spray of fluid (i.e., angling the nozzle downwardly vs. angling the wall downwardly), a skilled artisan understands that such features are alternative to one another. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that instead of angling the nozzles downwardly, the wall can be downwardly angled instead such that the nozzles may be provided with a straightened disposition. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner of achieving a downwardly directed spray of fluid in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Assuming arguendo that the inlet opening of Licata is not defined partly by the rear wall merely by its function as a boundary surface to the said opening, the following alternative rejection is provided. The location and positioning of the inlet opening is a mere rearrangement of part, and it is known that such an inlet opening can be alternatively defined at the rear wall with a reasonable expectation of success (Bigott [0053]). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to define the inlet opening on any wall, including the rear wall, with a reasonable expectation of success including as seen by Bigott (see Figs.3-4).
As to claim 43, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 40, but does not explicitly disclose the downwardly facing surface being vertically narrower than the inlet opening. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a sink with such a change in size and proportion of the would not perform differently and would thus, find such a difference in the height of each portion to merely be an obvious change in size (see MPEP 2144.04). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect that increasing or decreasing the height of the angled wall portion to be larger or smaller than the intake opening.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Hoover (US5810036A).
As to claim 41, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 40, but does not disclose an upper edge of the partially downwardly facing surface defining an upper extent of a recess. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Hoover.
Hoover discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein Hoover indicates that nozzles should be provided in a recessed area for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Col.2 lines 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Licata to provide the downwardly facing surface as a recessed surface so that the nozzles may be located within the recess for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Hoover Col.2 lines 45-53). Accordingly, since the downwardly facing surface will be recessed, the upper edge of said surface will define an upper extent of the recess.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Jarvis (US20060196528A1).
As to claim 42, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 40, but does not disclose the outlets being disposed within a recess at the rear of the basin. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Jarvis.
Jarvis discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to recess nozzles into a wall so that they do not become caught on pots [0017 & 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Licata to provide the outlets within a recess at the rear of the basin to prevent the pots/pan from being caught on the nozzle (Jarvis [0017 & 0020]).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licata (US20170224188A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Cantrell (US20030041886A1).
As to claim 44, Modified Licata teaches the sink of claim 40, but does not explicitly disclose the angle of the downwardly facing surface being between 27 and 33 degrees from the horizontal axis. However, Licata does disclose that a rolling wash motion provides exceptional cleaning performance [0003-0005], and the fluid spray is desired to create a washing action [0057 & 0068]. Further, it is known in the art that the angle of the fluid spray is dependent on the dimensions of the tank, as seen by Cantrell
Cantrell discloses an art related tank washing device (abstract), wherein a liquid jet is provided in order to effect a roll type cleaning (Fig.2). Cantrell also discloses that the spray angle is determined based on the dimensions of the tank in order to obtain the desired liquid motion for cleaning of items [0011]. Accordingly, a jet angle should be adjusted based on the size of the tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Licata to utilize any appropriate spray angle for the angled wall, and by consequence the fluid jet, in accordance with the size of the tank order to obtain desired wash motion (Cantrell [0011]). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize the claimed angle range, when a tank size requires such.
Claim(s) 21-23, 28, 33, & 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1).
As to claim 40, Inch discloses a sink (Fig.1) comprising: a basin (Fig.2 ref 110) defined by a plurality of wall portions [0046] including a rear wall portion (Fig.2 ref 116) and a front wall portion (Fig.2 ref 118); an inlet opening (Fig.4) defined at a sidewall [0047]; a plurality of outlets (Fig.2 portion where ref 120 are provided) disposed above the intake opening and spaced along the rear wall portion, the plurality of outlets being configured to receive fluid therethrough [0047]; the rear wall portion also has upper and lower vertical surfaces that are coplanar (see Figs.2 upper and lower portions of the rear wall portion can be defined such that they are vertical and coplanar). Inch does not disclose the inlet opening being defined at least in part by the rear wall portion or the plurality of outlets being on a downwardly facing. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Bigott. Further, the presence of the inlet opening on the rear wall is also known in the art, as seen by B1.
Bigott discloses an art related sink for washing items (abstract & Fig.1), having a portion which discharges fluid (Fig.9 ref 148) into the tank (see Figs.3-6). Bigott further discloses downwardly angling a wall portion (i.e., planar surface) with such discharging portions in order to prevent splashing and circulate water in the sink [0062]. Bigott also discloses the possibility for an intake (i.e., inlet) opening to be located at any wall location including the rear wall [0053]. Bigott also showcases coplanar vertical surfaces (see Fig.3) either portion above the downwardly angled surface or the portion above it, where the upper and lower vertical surfaces are merely upper portions and lower portions of the surfaces. Specifically, each vertical wall portion (either the above or below) can be cited to have an upper portion and a lower portion which are coplanar since they are present on the same wall.
B1 discloses an art related sink for washing items (abstract & Fig.1), wherein a known alternative configuration for an inlet opening is located at a rear of the washing tank with a chamber (see Figs.1-2 refs 140/142, also [0020]) for receiving fluid from within the tank and sending it to the pump. It is noted that such a location for an inlet opening/chamber also allows for function with a parallel flow pump located at a side of the sink.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing, to modify Inch to make the rear wall portion where the outlets are provided in a downward angle in order to avoid splashing (Bigott [0049 & 0062]). Such a modification would provide a portion of the rear wall with the outlets having an angled portion (see Licata Figs.2A-2C portion where ref 200 is located). As both Inch and Bigott showcase different known alternative manners for ensuring a downwardly directed spray of fluid (i.e., angling the nozzle outlet downwardly vs. angling the wall downwardly), a skilled artisan understands that such features are alternative to one another. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that instead of angling the nozzles downwardly, the wall can be downwardly angled instead such that the nozzles may be provided with a straightened disposition. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner of achieving a downwardly directed spray of fluid in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to supply the inlet opening on the rear wall of the basin, as a known alternative location for accomplishing the same function (see Bigott [0053] & B1 Figs.1-2 & [0020]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known location for an inlet opening in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 43, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 40, but does not explicitly disclose the downwardly facing surface being vertically narrower than the inlet opening. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a sink with such a change in size and proportion of the would not perform differently and would thus, find such a difference in the height of each portion to merely be an obvious change in size (see MPEP 2144.04). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect that increasing or decreasing the height of the angled wall portion to be larger or smaller than the intake opening.
As to claim 46, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 40, further comprising a plurality of nozzle bodies each protruding from one of the plurality of outlets (see Inch Fig.7 ref 126 & ref 120).
As to claim 47, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 40, wherein the plurality of outlets are integral (see Inch Figs.2 & 7 holes in which ref 120 are provided are integral holes formed in the wall) the with the at least partially downwardly facing surface.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Hoover (US5810036A).
As to claim 41, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 40, but does not disclose an upper edge of the partially downwardly facing surface defining an upper extent of a recess. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Hoover.
Hoover discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein Hoover indicates that nozzles should be provided in a recessed area for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Col.2 lines 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Inch to provide the downwardly facing surface as a recessed surface so that the nozzles may be located within the recess for safety reasons, as well as reducing the likelihood of the ejected wash fluid from being affected by articles in the tub (Hoover Col.2 lines 45-53). Accordingly, since the downwardly facing surface will be recessed, the upper edge of said surface will define an upper extent of the recess.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Jarvis (US20060196528A1).
As to claim 42, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 40, but does not disclose the outlets being disposed within a recess at the rear of the basin. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Jarvis.
Jarvis discloses an art related washing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to recess nozzles into a wall so that they do not become caught on pots [0017 & 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Inch to provide the outlets within a recess at the rear of the basin to prevent the pots/pan from being caught on the nozzle (Jarvis [0017 & 0020]).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inch (US20030041887A1) in view of Bigott (US20120318299A1) and Bigott (US20140261821A1, hereafter B1) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Cantrell (US20030041886A1).
As to claim 44, Modified Inch teaches the sink of claim 40, but does not explicitly disclose the angle of the downwardly facing surface being between 27 and 33 degrees from the horizontal axis. However, Inch does disclose that the fluid spray is desired to deflect to provide a roll type washing action [0058]. Further, it is known in the art that the angle of the fluid spray is dependent on the dimensions of the tank, as seen by Cantrell.
Cantrell discloses an art related tank washing device (abstract), wherein a liquid jet is provided in order to effect a roll type cleaning (Fig.2). Cantrell also discloses that the spray angle is determined based on the dimensions of the tank in order to obtain the desired liquid motion for cleaning of items [0011]. Accordingly, a jet angle should be adjusted based on the size of the tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Inch to utilize any appropriate spray angle for the angled wall, and by consequence the fluid jet, in accordance with the size of the tank order to obtain desired wash motion (Cantrell [0011]). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize the claimed angle range, when a tank size requires such.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-31, 35, 45, & 48 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 is that which is recited in this action (see rejection above). However, claims 29-31 and 35 are believed overcome the prior art of record.
Claim 29 requires that a second surface be present between the vertical surface and the inlet opening. Under the interpretation of Licata and Inch utilized in the reference, no such surface exists. Although Licata and Inch showcase and angled surface portion extending from the rear wall as part of the screen/intake manifold which could define a second surface. Such an interpretation would require the vertical portion of the screen/intake manifold to be recited as the inlet opening. However, claim 21 requires that the inlet opening be at least partially defined by the rear wall portion. Thus, the screen/intake manifold may only be construed to read on an inlet opening if the angled portion of the screen/intake manifold is also defined as the inlet opening. Accordingly, even in the interpretation where the screens/intake manifold of Licata and Inch are taken as inlet openings respectively, such elements can only be construed as the defined at least in part by the rear wall portion if their angled portion which connects to the rear wall is defined as part of the inlet opening. Under such an interpretation the same angled surface cannot be considered to be a second surface.
None of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests such a feature along with reasonable motivation to provide such a feature to the sinks of Licata or Inch. Thus, claim 29 and its dependents are considered allowable.
With respect to claim 35, the prior art of record showcases upper and lower vertical surfaces (see Bigott Fig.9 in conjunction with Licata Figs.2A-2C or Inch Fig.2). However, the provision of the downwardly facing wall, that allows for the nozzles to aim downwardly, does not allow for the upper and lower vertical to be coplanar. Rather, they are offset by the angle and distance of the planar surface. Such a configuration would require a specific construction of the basin in order to achieve coplanar upper and lower vertical surfaces. The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art any rationale as to why a basin shape should be complexified to the degree claimed. Thus, a skilled artisan would not find such a construction to be obvious without impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, claim 35 is considered allowable subject matter.
Claims 45 & 48 are also considered allowable for reasons as claim 35 as it encapsulates the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm 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, Michael Barr can be reached on (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights