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 were received on 04/29/2026. These drawings are accepted; however, the new drawings are objected to for the issues discussed below.
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 rubber ring in claim 21 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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: an embodiment having a rubber ring extending upward away from said body was not previously presented.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-22 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to communication filed on 04/29/2026. Claims 1-8, 11-22 remain pending, with claims 1, 5, and 6 currently amended and claims 21-22 newly added and currently withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected species by original presentation.
The amendment filed 04/29/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the pattern of hooks shown in newly submitted fig. 6 is not adequately supported by the description. The original disclosure mentions the hooks may be J or T shaped but does not go into sufficient detail such that support for some hooks being J shaped and some hooks being T shaped in the manner and pattern shown in new fig. 6 can be found.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are 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. Support for the strip being removably adhered by an adhesive was not found in the specification. The specification provides generic support for adhesion but does not specify that the means for adhesion is an adhesive. To adhere or a method of adhesion does not inherently include an adhesive.
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) 1-3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2016/0040412 (hereinafter Fetkovich) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2003/0044569 (hereinafter Kacher).
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). Fetkovich fails to show one or more continuous strips disposed on one or more of said legs; wherein each of said one or more continuous strips further comprises the plurality of hook elements; and wherein each of said one or more continuous strips is removably adhered by an adhesive to 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). Kacher furthermore teaches the strips may be a base on which an adhesive tape or adhesive material is utilized to attach the base to the cleaning body (par. 106). 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 adhered to the legs via an adhesive to allow a user to throw away and replace spent hook elements while still reusing the body as evidenced by the teachings of Kacher.
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).
Regarding claim 18, under the modification of Fetkovich in view of Kacher, a portion of said plurality of hooks (210) of Fetkovich would be disposed on a continuous strip (Kacher, par. 41).
Claim(s) 4, 7-8, 11-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkovich and Kacher as applied to claims 1-3 and 18 above, and further 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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkovich and Kacher as applied to claims 1-3 and 18 above, and further 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kacher fails to show a strip attached via adhesive. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the new grounds of rejection above, Kacher presents an embodiment that relies upon a continuous strip that is attached via adhesive to a cleaning base (par. 106).
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 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
Prosecution Insights