DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to application number 18/750,474 - LAYERED SINK BAFFLE, filed on 6/21/24.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/28/26 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-16 remain for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the annular ring" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it depends from claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 3,641,231).
Regarding Claim 1 Smith shows a layered sink baffle (30) comprising: an outer rim (flange at 30; Fig. 2) that extends circumferentially about a central axis (center of Fig. 2); a first baffle layer (at 35), the first baffle layer including a plurality of upper flaps (35) and a plurality of gaps between the upper flaps (at 36; also shown at 38; Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of upper flaps are attached to the outer rim (via an annular ring at 30) and spaced apart from each other such that one of the gaps is located between each set of two upper flaps (Figs. 2-4); and a second baffle layer (at 36) attached to the outer rim below the first baffle layer (via an annular ring at 30; Fig. 4), the second baffle layer including a plurality of lower flaps (36), wherein the plurality of lower flaps are circumferentially offset compared to the plurality of upper flaps such that a portion of each lower flap is directly beneath at least one of the gaps of the plurality of gaps between the upper flaps (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding Claim 6 Smith shows the layered sink baffle of claim 1, wherein the second baffle layer includes an annular ring (at 30; Fig. 3) that is attached to the outer rim, and each of the lower flaps is attached to the annular ring (Figs. 3).
Regarding Claim 12 Smith shows a food waste disposer system comprising: a food waste disposer (13); and a mounting assembly (at 17) configured to attach the food waste disposer to a sink (Fig. 1), the mounting assembly including a layered sink baffle (30), a sink flange (shown near 14), and an upper mounting flange (19, 20); wherein the sink flange is configured to be attached to the sink (Fig. 1), and the upper mounting flange is configured to couple the food waste disposer to the sink flange (Fig. 1); and wherein the layered sink baffle includes: an outer rim (at 30; Fig. 3) that extends circumferentially about a central axis; a first baffle layer (at 35), the first baffle layer including a plurality of upper flaps (35) and a plurality of gaps between the upper flaps (at 36; also shown at 38; Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of upper flaps are attached to the outer rim (via an annular ring at 30) and spaced apart from each other such that one of the gaps is located between each set of two upper flaps (Figs. 2-4); and a second baffle layer (at 36) attached to the outer rim below the first baffle layer (via an annular ring at 30; Fig. 4), the second baffle layer including a plurality of lower flaps (36), wherein the plurality of lower flaps are circumferentially offset compared to the plurality of upper flaps such that a portion of each lower flap is directly beneath at least one of the gaps of the plurality of gaps between the upper flaps (Figs. 2-4).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 3,641,231) in view of Berger et al. (US Pub. 2020/0347584).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13 Smith shows the layered sink baffle of claim 1 and 12 respectively, wherein each upper flap includes a first
Regarding Claim 4 Smith shows the layered sink baffle of claim 2, wherein the first hinge end (as combined) of each upper flap has a width that is greater than a width of the first radially inward end of the upper flap (Fig. 2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,454,817 in view of Smith (US 3,641,231). US Patent 12,454,817 claims a similar in scope device but fails to show a second baffle layer attached to the outer rim below the first baffle layer, the second baffle layer including a plurality of lower flaps, wherein the plurality of lower flaps are circumferentially offset compared to the plurality of upper flaps such that a portion of each lower flap is directly beneath at least one of the gaps of the plurality of gaps between the upper flaps. However, Smith shows a similar baffle device with a second baffle layer (at 36) attached to the outer rim below the first baffle layer (via an annular ring at 30; Fig. 4), the second baffle layer including a plurality of lower flaps (36), wherein the plurality of lower flaps are circumferentially offset compared to the plurality of upper flaps such that a portion of each lower flap is directly beneath at least one of the gaps of the plurality of gaps between the upper flaps (Figs. 2-4). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of US Patent 12,454,817 to include a second baffle layer for additional safety and splash shield properties (Smith, note, col. 1, lines 55-70).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7-11 and 14-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith (US 3,524,596) shows a second baffle layer that is offset; Gladwin (US 3,987,972) shows a second baffle layer that is offset; Greene (US 2,980,351) shows a second baffle layer that is offset.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5163. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM 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, DAVID ANGWIN can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights