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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the shading of greyscale figures 1A-1D and 3A-3B decreases legibility of the figures. See MPEP 608.02(V)(m). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 13-15 and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, the applicant states “the exterior wall having a top edge around the circumference thereof”. Since “a circumference” wasn’t previously introduced, examiner recommends changing “the circumference” to “a circumference”.
Regarding claims 6-8, 13-15 and 18-20, the applicant includes numerical values in parenthesis. Applicant is reminded that this practice is only to be used when referencing reference characters from the specification and drawings. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). However, in this case, the numbers in the parenthesis are not reference characters from the disclosure, but are values following the written form of the number. This may cause confusion and should be omitted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant states “The drain pan of claim 6 wherein the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between zero (10) and twenty (20) degrees”. However, claim 6 from which claim 7 depends, states “wherein the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between one (1) and twenty (20) degrees”. Dependent claim 7 has a larger range (zero to twenty degrees) then claim 6, from which claim 7 depends (one to twenty degrees). In the case of claim 7, it appears “zero” should actually be “ten” and will be treated as such for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 14, the applicant states “The drain pan of claim 13 wherein the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between zero (10) and twenty (20) degrees”. However, claim 13 from which claim 14 depends, states “wherein the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between one (1) and twenty (20) degrees”. Dependent claim 14 has a larger range (zero to twenty degrees) then claim 13, from which claim 14 depends (one to twenty degrees). In the case of claim 14, it appears “zero” should actually be “ten” and will be treated as such for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 19, the applicant states “The drain pan of claim 18 wherein the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between zero (10) and twenty (20) degrees”. However, claim 18 from which claim 19 depends, states “wherein the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between one (1) and twenty (20) degrees”. Dependent claim 19 has a larger range (zero to twenty degrees) then claim 18, from which claim 19 depends (one to twenty degrees). In the case of claim 19, it appears “zero” should actually be “ten” and will be treated as such for purposes of examination.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as depending from rejected base claims since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drawbaugh (US 5,562,131).
Regarding claim 1, Drawbaugh teaches a drain pan (figures 1-8, reference 10) comprising: an exterior wall (figure 1 and 2, reference 26) surrounding a base (figure 1, reference 12) and defining a fluid reservoir (figure 1, reference 16) therein, the exterior wall having a top edge around a circumference thereof (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below); a spout (figure 1, reference 40) defined in the exterior wall (figure 2) and angled downwardly from a plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below), the spout further defining a spout opening (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below); and a base of the spout positioned below a midline of the exterior wall (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
653
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Drawbaugh teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches at least one wall extension defined in the top edge of the exterior wall next to the spout opening (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
531
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Drawbaugh teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches a ridge (figures 7 and 8, as shown in the annotated figure below) defined in the exterior wall (figure 8) and extending into the reservoir (figure 8) operable to direct oil from the reservoir towards the base of the spout (figure 8: This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Drawbaugh is capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image3.png
564
806
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drawbaugh (US 5,562,131).
Regarding claim 6, Drawbaugh teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: the spout is angled downward at an angle).
Drawbaugh discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of “the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between one and twenty degrees”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the spout angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between one and twenty degrees, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Drawbaugh teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 6, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: the spout is angled downward at an angle).
Drawbaugh discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of “the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between ten and twenty degrees”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the spout angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between ten and twenty degrees, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Drawbaugh teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 7, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: the spout is angled downward at an angle).
Drawbaugh discloses the claimed invention except for “the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall by approximately fifteen degrees”. The spout downward angle is a results effective variable with the results being a smoother pouting of the fluid out of the drain pan. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall by approximately fifteen degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drawbaugh (US 5,562,131), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ewald (US 5,489,042).
Regarding claim 3, Drawbaugh teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches a shelf (figure 1, reference 32).
Drawbaugh does not teach an oil filter support post. However, Ewald does teach an oil filter support post (figures 2, 3 and 5, reference 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drain pan of Drawbaugh to include an oil filter support post, as disclosed by Ewald, because including the oil filter support post allows for further stability of the oil filter when placed on the oil filter support post, as explained by Ewald (column 6, lines 13-16). Furthermore, including an oil filter support post allows for supporting oil filters that may be smaller/larger than the steps 32 provided by Drawbaugh giving the drain pan of Drawbaugh increased range of use.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drawbaugh (US 5,562,131), in view of Ewald (US 5,489,042), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Aston et al. (US 10,694,731).
Regarding claim 4, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Furthermore, Ewald teaches the oil filter support post further comprises: a top (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure below); a base (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure below). Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches a channel (figure 1, reference 36) extending from the top surface to the base (figure 1) wherein the channel is operable to allow oil to flow therethrough when an oil filter is on the oil filter support post (column 4, lines 50-55).
PNG
media_image4.png
348
356
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, do not teach a first channel extending between the top and the base; and a second channel extending between the top and the base; wherein the first and second channels are operable to allow oil to flow therethrough when an oil filter is on the oil filter support post. However, Aston does teach a post (figure 1 and 2, reference 14) with a first channel extending between the top and the base (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below); and a second channel extending between the top and the base (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below); wherein the first and second channels are operable to allow fluid to flow therethrough when an item is on the post (figure 1: This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of modified Drawbaugh is capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image5.png
573
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drain pan of modified Drawbaugh to include a first channel extending between the top and the base; and a second channel extending between the top and the base, as disclosed by Aston, because including the channels allows for drainage of the item being held and further allows airflow to air out the space within the item being held.
Regarding claim 5, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald and Aston, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 4, as shown above. Furthermore, Ewald teaches the base of the oil filter support post is wider than the top of the oil filter support post (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure above in claim 4).
Claims 10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drawbaugh (US 5,562,131), in view of Ewald (US 5,489,042).
Regarding claim 10, Drawbaugh teaches a drain pan (figures 1-8, reference 10) comprising: an exterior wall (figure 1 and 2, reference 26) surrounding a base (figure 1, reference 12) and defining a fluid reservoir (figure 1, reference 16) therein, the exterior wall having a top edge around a circumference thereof (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below); a spout (figure 1, reference 40) defined in the exterior wall (figure 2) and angled downwardly from a plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below), the spout further defining a spout opening (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below); and a base of the spout positioned below a midline of the exterior wall (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below) and a shelf (figure 1, reference 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
653
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawbaugh does not teach an oil filter support post. However, Ewald does teach an oil filter support post (figures 2, 3 and 5, reference 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drain pan of Drawbaugh to include an oil filter support post, as disclosed by Ewald, because including the oil filter support post allows for further stability of the oil filter when placed on the oil filter support post, as explained by Ewald (column 6, lines 13-16). Furthermore, including an oil filter support post allows for supporting oil filters that may be smaller/larger than the steps 32 provided by Drawbaugh giving the drain pan of Drawbaugh increased range of use.
Regarding claim 13, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: the spout is angled downward at an angle).
Modified Drawbaugh discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of “the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between one and twenty degrees”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the spout angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between one and twenty degrees, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: the spout is angled downward at an angle).
Modified Drawbaugh discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of “the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between ten and twenty degrees”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the spout angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between ten and twenty degrees, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: the spout is angled downward at an angle).
Modified Drawbaugh discloses the claimed invention except for “the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall by approximately fifteen degrees”. The spout downward angle is a results effective variable with the results being a smoother pouting of the fluid out of the drain pan. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall by approximately fifteen degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 16, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches a ridge (figures 7 and 8, as shown in the annotated figure below) defined in the exterior wall (figure 8) and extending into the reservoir (figure 8) operable to direct oil from the reservoir towards the base of the spout (figure 8: This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Drawbaugh is capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image3.png
564
806
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Drawbaugh teaches a drain pan (figures 1-8, reference 10) comprising: an exterior wall (figure 1 and 2, reference 26) surrounding a base (figure 1, reference 12) and defining a fluid reservoir (figure 1, reference 16) therein, the exterior wall having a top edge around a circumference thereof (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below); a spout (figure 1, reference 40) defined in the exterior wall (figure 2) and angled downwardly from a plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below), the spout further defining a spout opening (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure below); and a base of the spout positioned below a midline of the exterior wall (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below); a shelf (figure 1, reference 32) and a ridge (figures 7 and 8, as shown in the annotated figure below) defined in the exterior wall (figure 8) and extending into the reservoir (figure 8) operable to direct oil from the reservoir towards the base of the spout (figure 8: This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Drawbaugh is capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image1.png
653
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
564
806
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Drawbaugh does not teach an oil filter support post. However, Ewald does teach an oil filter support post (figures 2, 3 and 5, reference 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drain pan of Drawbaugh to include an oil filter support post, as disclosed by Ewald, because including the oil filter support post allows for further stability of the oil filter when placed on the oil filter support post, as explained by Ewald (column 6, lines 13-16). Furthermore, including an oil filter support post allows for supporting oil filters that may be smaller/larger than the steps 32 provided by Drawbaugh giving the drain pan of Drawbaugh increased range of use.
Regarding claim 18, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 17, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: the spout is angled downward at an angle).
Modified Drawbaugh discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of “the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between one and twenty degrees”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the spout angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between one and twenty degrees, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 18, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: the spout is angled downward at an angle).
Modified Drawbaugh discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of “the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between ten and twenty degrees”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the spout angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall in a range between ten and twenty degrees, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 19, as shown above. Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall (figure 1, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1: the spout is angled downward at an angle).
Modified Drawbaugh discloses the claimed invention except for “the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall by approximately fifteen degrees”. The spout downward angle is a results effective variable with the results being a smoother pouting of the fluid out of the drain pan. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the spout is angled downward from the plane defined by the top edge of the exterior wall by approximately fifteen degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drawbaugh (US 5,562,131), in view of Ewald (US 5,489,042), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Aston et al. (US 10,694,731).
Regarding claim 11, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Furthermore, Ewald teaches the oil filter support post further comprises: a top (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure below); a base (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure below). Furthermore, Drawbaugh teaches a channel (figure 1, reference 36) extending from the top surface to the base (figure 1) wherein the channel is operable to allow oil to flow therethrough when an oil filter is on the oil filter support post (column 4, lines 50-55).
PNG
media_image4.png
348
356
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald, do not teach a first channel extending between the top and the base; and a second channel extending between the top and the base; wherein the first and second channels are operable to allow oil to flow therethrough when an oil filter is on the oil filter support post. However, Aston does teach a post (figure 1 and 2, reference 14) with a first channel extending between the top and the base (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below); and a second channel extending between the top and the base (figure 2, as shown in the annotated figure below); wherein the first and second channels are operable to allow fluid to flow therethrough when an item is on the post (figure 1: This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of modified Drawbaugh is capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image5.png
573
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drain pan of modified Drawbaugh to include a first channel extending between the top and the base; and a second channel extending between the top and the base, as disclosed by Aston, because including the channels allows for drainage of the item being held and further allows airflow to air out the space within the item being held.
Regarding claim 12, Drawbaugh, in view of Ewald and Aston, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Furthermore, Ewald teaches the base of the oil filter support post is wider than the top of the oil filter support post (figure 3, as shown in the annotated figure above in claim 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US 8,646,609) discloses a drain pan with spout.
Korda (US 20100175408) discloses a drain pan with spout.
Kurtz et al. (US 20080169293) discloses a drain pan with spout.
Bloch (US 4,991,345) discloses a drain pan with spout.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735