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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7-14, 16 and 17 are 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 phrase “rigid portion” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear what specific level of rigidity is being claimed. All materials are rigid/flexible to a degree.
The phrase “flexible portion” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear what specific level of flexibility is being claimed. All materials are rigid/flexible to a degree.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2020/0245845 to Klug in view of USDP D924,515 to Levi, USDP D773,142 to Green and QVC Total Rack 6-in-1 Multi-Function Expandable Kitchen Rack Webpage and You Tube Video (hereinafter referred to as QVC).
Claims 7 and 17, Klug discloses a rigid drying mat configured to be disposed on a counter adjacent a sink to facilitate drying of an article, comprising: a diatomaceous earth slab and a resilient slab covering, the resilient slab covering comprising a mesh of openings that allow water from the article placed on the resilient slab covering to drip through the mesh of openings, onto the diatomaceous earth slab (see entire document including [0007]-[0013], [0035], [0045] and the Figures).
Klug does not appear to mention coupling the rigid mat with a flexible rack wherein the rack comprises a plurality of rollable/unrollable cross pieces that are coated/overmolded with a resilient second covering, but Klug does disclose that the mat may be placed on a countertop adjacent a sink (Figure 2). Levi and QVC each disclose a flexible over-the-sink rack comprising a plurality of rollable/unrollable end coated/overmolded cross pieces configured to be unrolled over a sink (see entire documents including Figure 16 of Levi) and Green discloses that it is known in the art to combine a drying mat and rack (see entire document including the title and Figures 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to couple the countertop drying mat of Klug and the over-the-sink rollable/unrollable rack of Levi and/or QVC to provide a unitary product with the benefits of both a drying mat and sink rack.
Claims 4 and 5, QVC discloses that the plurality of cross pieces comprise stainless steel (item description and video).
Claim 8, the resilient slab covering is configured to at least partially and removably encase the diatomaceous earth slab; and has a top surface, side edges and at least one of a bottom lip, a pocket or a strap; and wherein the at least one of the bottom lip, the pocket or the strap is configured to secure the resilient slab covering to the diatomaceous earth slab ([0007]-[0013]).
Claim 9, the top surface comprises a mesh of ribs that form a plurality of apertures that are configured to allow liquid to drain from an object disposed on the resilient slab covering, through the apertures, to the diatomaceous earth slab ([0007]-[0013]).
Claim 10, Klug does not appear to mention the specific mesh opening size but does disclose that the size of the voids can be selected to allow moisture to drip onto the absorptive layer [0500]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the openings with any suitable size, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an opening size on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claims 11 and 12, the resilient slab covering of Klug is made of silicone [0009] and the resilient second covering of QVC is also made of silicone (item description and video).
Claims 13 and 14, Klug discloses that the molded silicone material may have a durometer of about 45 [0009].
Claims 16 and 17, the cross pieces of Levi have a rectangular cross-sectional profile (Figures).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the newly claimed two-part design. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Klug discloses a rigid drying mat configured to be disposed on a counter adjacent a sink to facilitate drying of an article, comprising: a diatomaceous earth slab and a resilient slab covering, the resilient slab covering comprising a mesh of openings that allow water from the article placed on the resilient slab covering to drip through the mesh of openings, onto the diatomaceous earth slab (see entire document including [0007]-[0013], [0035], [0045] and the Figures). Klug does not appear to mention coupling the rigid mat with a flexible rack wherein the rack comprises a plurality of rollable/unrollable cross pieces that are coated/overmolded with a resilient second covering, but Klug does disclose that the mat may be placed on a countertop adjacent a sink (Figure 2). Levi and QVC each disclose a flexible over-the-sink rack comprising a plurality of rollable/unrollable end coated/overmolded cross pieces configured to be unrolled over a sink (see entire documents including Figure 16 of Levi) and Green discloses that it is known in the art to combine a drying mat and rack (see entire document including the title and Figures 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to couple the countertop drying mat of Klug and the over-the-sink rollable/unrollable rack of Levi and/or QVC to provide a unitary product with the benefits of both a drying mat and sink rack.
The applicant also asserts that the QVC reference teaches away from modifying the QVC reference to have a two-part design. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the QVC reference is a secondary reference, Klug is the primary reference. Thus, the rejection does not modify the QVC reference.
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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights