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
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micek et al., US 20140263111 A1 in view of Klug et al., US 11272829 B2
The published patent application issued to Micek et al., teach a dish rack comprising a flexible base layer that can be made with silicone and a drying support. Said flexible base layer is configured to have ribs and channels designed to catch water from the dishes. The Examiner is of the position that the flexible base layer is equivalent to the claimed absorbent layer (e.g., designed to catch water) and the drying support is equivalent to the claimed base layer (title and abstract). With regard to the claimed apertures in the claimed absorbent layer, Micek et al., teach that the flexible base layer comprise a plurality slots (17) (see figure 5a). The Examiner is of the position that the plurality of slots is sufficient to meet the claimed apertures. With regard to the claimed base layer, Micek et al., teach that the drying support includes a frame having the claimed top and bottom, length and width and connecting rails (see figure 6a-6b, 7a-7b and paragraphs 0039-0040). Said rails include parallel and perpendicular rails as set forth in claim 4. With regard to the claimed retention nubs, Micek et al., teach that the drying support frame includes clips (18) that are inserted/configured to extend into the plurality of slots (17) such that the flexible base layer and drying support frame and firmly connected (see figures 6a-6b and 7a-7b and paragraphs 0032-0038). In this instance, the Examiner is of the position that the clips of Micek et al., meet the claimed “retention nubs”. With regard to the claimed feet located on the claimed base layer, Micek et al., does not expressly teach that the drying frame comprises the claimed plurality of feet; however, Micek et al., does teach providing the flexible base layer with a plurality of suction cups (24) such that the dish rack can be secured to a horizontal surface such as a countertop (paragraph 0035 and figure 3). Though the placement of the feet (suction cups) is not located on the base (e.g., drying frame) as claimed the Examiner is of the position that since the plurality of claimed feet and the plurality of suction cups are intended for the same purpose (e.g., to secure the dish rack to a horizontal surface such as a countertop). Thus, the Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to place the plurality of feet on one or both of the flexible base layer and the drying support of the Micek et al., dish rack as a matter of design and/or functionality choice. Applicants have not evidenced the criticality of the location on the plurality of claimed feet.
Micek et al., does not teach the base layer comprises diatomaceous earth.
Klug et al., teach a drying rack apparatus that includes an absorbent base made from diatomaceous earth (title, abstract, figure 3 and 4 and column 3, 5-20). Klug et al., teach that the diatomaceous earth rapidly wicks and absorbs water away from the dishes (column 3, 40-55). Therefore, motivated by the desire to provide a dish rack with an absorbent base layer that can rapidly wick and absorbs water away from dishes it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to form the flexible base layer of Micek et al., with diatomaceous earth as taught by Klug et al.
With regard to claim 2, both Micek et al., and klug et al., illustrate the claimed channels (see figure 5a of Micek et al., and figure 11 and column 9, 5-20 of Klug et al.). Klug et al., specifically teach carving channels (160) into the absorbent base (figure 11 and column 9, 5-20).
With regard to claim 3, both Micek et al., and klug et al., illustrate a base that is considered concave with channels that direct water.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Micek et al., does not teach claimed shape of the clips (retention nubs). However, absent unexpected results it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the clips (retention nubs) in a variety of designs. It does not appear that the shape of the clips (retention nubs) provides any specific functionality other than securing the base (e.g., to secure the base layer to the drying support). As such, the Examiner is of the position that the shape of the retention nubs is a matter of design choice that would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art.
With regard to claim 7, Micek et al., teach that the base layer can be made with silicone (paragraph 0031). Micek et al., does not teach the claimed shore A durometer of 45, but does teach that base layer is flexible. Silicone with a shore A durometer of 45 is considered flexible. https://www.siliconeab.com/solutions/shore-hardness-guide.html As such, the Examiner is of the position that absent evidence to the contrary the silicone used by Micek et al., would exhibit the claimed Shore A durometer of 45. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789