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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the substantially “T” shaped hook elements in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 6 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.
The term “substantially T-shaped” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The written disclosure does not mention the parameters required to be considered “substantially” T-shaped, and the drawings do not show any T-shaped hook elements. Accordingly, the term “substantially” as it pertains to claim 6 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2016/0040412 (hereinafter Fetkovich).
Regarding claim 1, Fetkovich discloses a hair catching device (200) for drains comprising a body (205) having an upper portion (upper surface), a lower portion (lower surface), and a central aperture (108) extending through said body; one or more legs (210) disposed on said lower portion of said body (205), and a plurality of hook elements (230) positioned on said legs (fig. 2A-2D).
Regarding claim 2, Fetkovich discloses further comprising one or more feet (215) disposed on a terminal end of each of said one or more legs (210), wherein said one or more feet (215) extend laterally from said one or more legs (fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 3, Fetkovich discloses further comprising one or more pegs disposed on said one or more feet (fig. 2A-2D show each foot has 3 pegs, i.e. elongated projections from which articles may hang).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 4, 7-8, and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkovich in view of US Patent 9,752,306 (hereinafter Scamuffa).
Regarding claim 4, Fetkovich fails to show further comprising one or more laterally facing apertures disposed in said upper portion of said body. Attention is turned to Scamuffa in the same field of endeavor of hair/debris traps which shows configuring a body to comprise an upper portion with a plurality of laterally facing apertures (206) to allow fluid to flow through the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the hair catching device of Fetkovich to include an upper portion with one or more laterally facing apertures to allow fluid to flow through the device while still trapping debris as evidenced by the teachings of Scamuffa.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Fetkovich fails to show wherein said body is conical in shape with said upper portion having a smaller diameter than said lower portion and said lower portion is wider than said upper portion. Attention is turned to Scamuffa in the same field of endeavor of hair/debris traps which shows configuring a body of strainer to be conical in shape with an upper portion having a smaller diameter than a lower portion, and the lower portion is wider than the upper portion (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the body of Fetkovich to be shaped in the same manner as Scamuffa described above to allow fluid to flow over the body and better trap hair and debris as evidenced by the teachings of Scamuffa.
Regarding claim 11, Fetkovich fails to show said lower portion is removably secured to said upper portion. Attention is turned to Scamuffa in the same field of endeavor of hair/debris traps which shows configuring an upper portion (204) to be removably secured to a lower portion (208) to allow the strainer to be manufactured from different materials (col. 6, ln. 1-17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fetkovich such that said lower portion is removably secured to said upper portion to allow the strainer to be manufactured from different materials as evidenced by the teachings of Scamuffa.
Regarding claim 12, Fetkovich discloses further comprising one or more feet (215) disposed on a terminal end of each of said one or more legs (210), wherein said one or more feet (215) extend laterally from said one or more legs (fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 13, Fetkovich discloses further comprising one or more pegs disposed on said one or more feet (fig. 2A-2D show each foot has 3 pegs, i.e. elongated projections from which articles may hang).
Regarding claim 14, Fetkovich fails to show said lower portion is wider than said upper portion. Attention is turned to Scamuffa in the same field of endeavor of hair/debris traps which shows configuring a body of strainer to be conical in shape with an upper portion having a smaller diameter than a lower portion, and the lower portion is wider than the upper portion (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the body of Fetkovich to be shaped in the same manner as Scamuffa described above to allow fluid to flow over the body and better trap hair and debris as evidenced by the teachings of Scamuffa.
Regarding claim 15, Fetkovich discloses further comprising one or more feet (215) disposed on a terminal end of each of said one or more legs (210), wherein said one or more feet (215) extend laterally from said one or more legs (fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 16, Fetkovich discloses further comprising one or more pegs disposed on said one or more feet (fig. 2A-2D show each foot has 3 pegs, i.e. elongated projections from which articles may hang).
Regarding claim 17, Fetkovich fails to show said lower portion is removably secured to said upper portion. Attention is turned to Scamuffa in the same field of endeavor of hair/debris traps which shows configuring an upper portion (204) to be removably secured to a lower portion (208) to allow the strainer to be manufactured from different materials (col. 6, ln. 1-17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fetkovich such that said lower portion is removably secured to said upper portion to allow the strainer to be manufactured from different materials as evidenced by the teachings of Scamuffa.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkovich in view of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0014336 (hereinafter Berstein).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Fetkovich fails to show wherein a portion of said plurality of hook elements are substantially “J” shaped or “T” shaped. Attention is turned to Bernstein, in the same field of endeavor of preventing hair and debris from forming clogs in a drainpipe, which teaches configuring hair grabbing hooks as substantially “J” or “T” shaped (fig. 1, 2) depending on a user’s needs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to shape the hooks of Fetkovich as either substantially J or T shaped to better grasp and trap the hair as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings of Berstein.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkovich in view of US Patent Application Publication 2003/0044569 (hereinafter Kacher).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 18, Fetkovich fails to show a portion of said plurality of hooks are disposed on a continuous strip, and said continuous strip is removably secured to at least one of said one or more legs. Attention is turned to Kacher, analogous through solving the same problem of trapping hair and debris using hook elements, which teaches attaching hook elements to a removable strip to reuse a body once the hooks are no longer usable (par. 41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the plurality of hooks of Fetkovich to be disposed on a removable continuous strip to allows a user to throw away and replace spent hook elements while still reusing the body as evidenced by the teachings of Kacher.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkovich and Kacher as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Scamuffa.
Regarding claim 19, Fetkovich fails to show wherein said body is conical in shape with said upper portion having a smaller diameter than said lower portion. Attention is turned to Scamuffa in the same field of endeavor of hair/debris traps which shows configuring a body of strainer to be conical in shape with an upper portion having a smaller diameter than a lower portion, and the lower portion is wider than the upper portion (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the body of Fetkovich to be shaped in the same manner as Scamuffa described above to allow fluid to flow over the body and better trap hair and debris as evidenced by the teachings of Scamuffa.
Regarding claim 20, Fetkovich fails to show further comprising one or more laterally facing apertures disposed in said upper portion of said body. Attention is turned to Scamuffa in the same field of endeavor of hair/debris traps which shows configuring a body to comprise an upper portion with a plurality of laterally facing apertures (206) to allow fluid to flow through the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the hair catching device of Fetkovich to include an upper portion with one or more laterally facing apertures to allow fluid to flow through the device while still trapping debris as evidenced by the teachings of Scamuffa.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 10,344,460 is directed to the state of the art of strainers.
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754