DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 22, 24-27, 29, 31, and 33 were filed on 04/27/2026. Claims 6, 13-21, 23, 28, 30, and 32 have been canceled.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 30 removes the 35 USC 112a rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 5, 7, 9-12, 22, and 24-29 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0096806 (“Salzer”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Salzer in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0028956 (“Pangramuyen”). Pangramuyen discloses a drain cleaning apparatus that includes a nozzle with a nozzle inlet and a plurality of nozzle-outlets (22”, 21”). Fluid is redirected out of the plurality of nozzle-outlets (22”, 21”) into the drain trap to impinge on the drain trap in a plurality of directions (see Fig 5 and paras [0039] [0040] [0033]).
Applicant argues that because Salzer discloses that the nozzle releases liquid into a pipe (102), the fluid would still arrive at the drain trap in a single direction (“that of flow through pipe segment 102”) (see Remarks at page 9). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fluid may flow through pipe 102 into drain trap 104, but fluid that is directed in a plurality of directions can still end up within drain trap 104 in different directions).
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8-12, 22, 24-31 as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0127963 (“Breton”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections over Breton have been withdrawn.
In view of the claim amendments, this rejection is made FINAL.
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 1-5, 7, 9-12, 22, 24-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0096806 (“Salzer”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0028956 (“Pangramuyen”).
With regard to claim 1, Salzer discloses a drain cleaning and maintenance system (Figs 1-4B), comprising: (a) a drain trap (104), having a first inlet (top of 104) in fluid communication with a drain of a plumbing fixture (sink 142, para [0042]); (b) a second inlet (103), in fluid communication with the drain trap (104) (see Figs 1, 2, and 4A); and (c) a cleaning and maintenance assembly (300), in fluid communication with the second inlet (103) (see Figs 3-4B), the cleaning and maintenance assembly comprising:(i) a maintenance-assembly inlet (inlet from 116 into 138), in fluid communication with a source of pressurized liquid (114, para [0050]);(ii) a maintenance-assembly outlet (outlet of 118 into 134) in fluid communication with an interior of the drain trap (104) (134 leads into 102, which leads into 104);(iii) a pipe (138) disposed between the maintenance-assembly inlet (inlet of 138 from 116) and the maintenance-assembly outlet (outlet of 118 into 134);(iv) an electronic valve (133; solenoid valve, para [[051]) having an open state allowing flow of liquid, from the maintenance-assembly inlet (inlet from 116 into 138) to the maintenance-assembly outlet (outlet of 118 into 134), through the pipe (138), and a closed state blocking flow of liquid from the maintenance- assembly inlet (inlet into 138 from 116) to the maintenance-assembly outlet (outlet from 118 into 134) (valve 133 would block flow);(v) an electronic controller (150, paras [0054] [0055]) adapted to transition the electronic valve (solenoid valve 133) between the open state and the closed state; and (vi) a power source adapted to power the electronic controller (150) and the electronic valve (solenoid valve 13) (inherently there must be a power source for the electronically driven controller and solenoid valve; both the controller and solenoid must have power), a nozzle (330) including a nozzle inlet (inlet into 330/312) and a plurality of nozzle-outlets (333), the nozzle being disposed within a flow-path from the maintenance-assembly outlet (outlet of 118 into 134) to the drain trap (104) (see Figs 1 and 4B), wherein, when the electronic valve (133) is in the open state, liquid flows from the source of pressurized liquid (114) to the drain trap (104) via the electronic valve (133) (see Fig 1) and through the nozzle inlet and redirected out of the plurality of nozzle-outlets (333).
PNG
media_image1.png
603
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
629
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Salzer discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the plurality of nozzle-outlets are oriented in a plurality of directions relative to the nozzle inlet.
Pangramuyen discloses a drain cleaning apparatus that includes a nozzle (19”) and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a nozzle for a drain cleaning apparatus to include a nozzle inlet (25’) and a plurality of nozzle-outlets (22”, 21”) that are oriented in a plurality of directions relative to the nozzle inlet (25’) (see Fig 5). Fluid is redirected out of the plurality of nozzle-outlets (22”, 21”) into the drain trap to impinge on the drain trap in a plurality of directions (see Fig 5 and paras [0039] [0040] [0033]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle of Salzer to include a plurality of nozzle-outlets that are oriented in a plurality of directions relative to the nozzle inlet, such as taught by Pangramuyen, for the purpose of providing a wider dispersion of turbulent flow for cleaning as taught by Pangramuyen (see paras [0033]: “employing auxiliary oblique forwardly directed air-outlets effectively producing a wider dispersion of turbulent air-jetstream;”, [0040]). The provision of plurality of nozzle-outlets in different direction would cause fluid flow in different directions, thus causing fluid flow to impinge on the drain trap in a plurality of directions.
With regard to claim 2, Salzer (as modified above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing explicitly that when the maintenance-assembly inlet is connected to the source of pressurized liquid and the electronic valve is in the open state, an absolute output-pressure of liquid flowing out of the maintenance-assembly outlet is at least 70% of an absolute input- pressure of the liquid when it flows into the maintenance-assembly inlet.
Salzer does disclose that when the maintenance-assembly inlet (inlet from 116 into 138) is connected to the source of pressurized liquid (114) and the electronic valve (133) is in the open state, an output-pressure of liquid flowing out of the maintenance-assembly outlet (outlet from 118 into 134) is at least an amount of pressure of the liquid when it flows into the maintenance-assembly inlet. Salzer also discloses that the pressure of the fluid must be high enough to clear debris (see para [0072]).
Applicant has not disclosed that having the absolute output-pressure of liquid flowing out of the maintenance-assembly outlet is at least 70% of an absolute input- pressure of the liquid when it flows into the maintenance-assembly inlet is necessary or critical. Rather, the specification states that for some embodiments the pressure can be at least 70 percent (see Specification at page 11, lines 5-8). Furthermore, it is known that pressure will drop along a line/pipe, and that some minimum pressure will be needed in order to meet the necessary means of clearing debris.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an absolute output-pressure of liquid flowing out of the maintenance-assembly outlet of Salzer is at least 70% of an absolute input- pressure of the liquid when it flows into the maintenance-assembly inlet because the specific pressure amount does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 3, Salzer (as modified above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing explicitly that when the maintenance-assembly inlet is connected to the source of pressurized liquid and the electronic valve is in the open state, a pressure differential between an absolute pressure of liquid flowing into the maintenance-assembly inlet and an absolute pressure of liquid flowing out of the maintenance assembly outlet is at most 30%.
Salzer does disclose that when the maintenance-assembly inlet (inlet from 116 into 138) is connected to the source of pressurized liquid (114) and the electronic valve (133) is in the open state, an output-pressure of liquid flowing out of the maintenance-assembly outlet (outlet from 118 into 134) is at least an amount of pressure of the liquid when it flows into the maintenance-assembly inlet. Salzer also discloses that the pressure of the fluid must be high enough to clear debris (see para [0072]) (and, thus, a minimal pressure drop in order to achieve such a goal).
Applicant has not disclosed that having the pressure differential between an absolute pressure of liquid flowing into the maintenance-assembly inlet and an absolute pressure of liquid flowing out of the maintenance assembly outlet is at most 30% is necessary or critical. Furthermore, it is known that pressure will drop along a line/pipe, and that some minimum pressure will be needed in order to meet the necessary means of clearing debris.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a pressure differential between an absolute pressure of liquid flowing into the maintenance-assembly inlet and an absolute pressure of liquid flowing out of the maintenance assembly outlet is at most 30% because the specific pressure differential amount does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 4, Salzer (as modified above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing explicitly that when the maintenance-assembly inlet is connected to the source of pressurized liquid and the electronic valve is in the open state, an absolute pressure of liquid flowing into the maintenance-assembly inlet is at least 2 bar.
Salzer does disclose that when the maintenance-assembly inlet (inlet from 116 into 138) is connected to the source of pressurized liquid (114) and the electronic valve (133) is in the open state, an absolute pressure of liquid flowing into the maintenance-assembly inlet is sufficiently high to accomplish the goal of clearing debris (see para [0072]).
Applicant has not disclosed that having absolute pressure of liquid flowing into the maintenance-assembly inlet is at least 2 bar is necessary or critical.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make absolute pressure of liquid flowing into the maintenance-assembly inlet is at least 2 bar because the specific pressure amount does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 5, Salzer discloses that that controller (150) is adapted to maintain the electronic valve (133) in the open state for a duration sufficient for flow of the pressurized liquid flow from the source of pressurized fluid (114) to the drain trap (104) to replace at least a majority (fills drain trap 104 – see para [0048]) of liquid within the drain trap (para [0048]: “When the jet stops, the water in the p-fill canister drains into an associated p-trap to ensure that the trap is filled and to prevent sewer gasses from traveling up an open p-trap and into the building.”).
With regard to claim 7, Salzer discloses a linear pipe segment (102) disposed upstream of the drain trap (104) (see Fig 1), the linear pipe segment (102) having a pipe-inlet (top of 102) adapted to be in fluid communication with the drain of the plumbing fixture (142, see Fig 1 and para [0042]) and a pipe-outlet (bottom of 102) in fluid communication with the drain trap (104; see Fig 1), the linear pipe segment (102) including the second inlet (103) (shown in Fig 4B).
With regard to claim 9, Salzer discloses that the second inlet (103) is angled (perpendicular) relative to a flow-path (vertical along 102) from the drain (from outlet of 142) to the drain trap (104) (see Fig 1 and Fig 4B) or within the drain trap.
With regard to claim 10, Salzer discloses that the maintenance-assembly outlet (outlet of 118 into 134) of the cleaning and maintenance assembly is connected directly to the second inlet (134 connects to 103).
With regard to claim 11, Salzer discloses that the maintenance-assembly outlet (outlet of 118 into 134) of the cleaning and maintenance assembly is connected to the second inlet via a connector pipe segment (pipe segment of 134).
With regard to claim 12, Salzer discloses that the cleaning and maintenance assembly (300) is integrally formed with the drain trap (104) and with the second inlet (103) , as a unitary structure (the connection of 300 to 104 and 103 forms one structure that is integral and unitary – unitary because all connected together into one).
With regard to claim 22, Salzer discloses that the maintenance assembly (300) further includes a communication interface (195/165, para [0061]), functionally associated with the electronic controller (150) and adapted to enable delivery of control inputs in at least one direction between a remote control unit and the electronic controller (150) (para [0061]: “I/O devices 195 may include a console with an integrated keyboard and mouse to allow a user to input parameters associated with system 150. I/O devices 195 may also include a display including a text or graphical user interface (GUI) for outputting information on a monitor or screen. I/O devices 195 may also include peripheral devices, such as a user-accessible disk drive (e.g., a USB port, a floppy, CD-ROM, or DVD-ROM drive, etc.) to allow a user to input data stored on a portable media device, or any other suitable type of interface device.”).
With regard to claim 24, Salzer discloses that the electronic controller (150) is programmable (para [0056]: “Processor 155 may be configured to execute sequences of computer program instructions to perform various processes, which will be described in more detail below. The computer program instructions may be loaded into RAM 160 for execution by processor 155.”).
With regard to claim 25, Salzer discloses a user interface (195) including at least one of an input interface enabling a user to provide input to the electronic controller (150) (“I/O devices 195 may include a console with an integrated keyboard and mouse to allow a user to input parameters associated with system 150.” Para [0061]) and an output interface enabling a user to perceive output of the electronic controller (“I/O devices 195 may also include a display including a text or graphical user interface (GUI) for outputting information on a monitor or screen.” Para [0061]).
With regard to claim 26, Salzer discloses a timer (185), functionally associated with the electronic controller (150) (see Fig 15 and para [0059]).
With regard to claim 27, Salzer discloses at least one sensor (115) adapted to sense at least one condition (overflow 115) in the drain trap and to provide a sensor-input to the electronic controller, the sensor-input indicative of required maintenance of the drain trap (para [0133]).
With regard to claim 29, Salzer discloses that the drain cleaning and maintenance assembly (300) is devoid of a pumping mechanism (no pump is shown or disclosed).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0096806 (“Salzer”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0028956 (“Pangramuyen”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020/144603 (“Nahum”).
With regard to claim 33, Salzer (as modified above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing a unidirectional valve disposed upstream of the drain trap and adapted to be disposed, when the drain trap is installed, between the drain trap and a drain portal of a plumbing fixture drained by the drain trap, the unidirectional valve being adapted to be opened by pressure applied thereto by liquid draining into the unidirectional valve, and to be normally closed, wherein, when the unidirectional valve is closed, the unidirectional valve is sealed to fluid flow out of the drain trap, thereby preventing backflow of bacterial and/or contaminated aerosol from the drain trap.
Nahum teaches that it is known in the art to modify a drain pipe and drain cleaning apparatus to include a unidirectional valve (“unidirectional valve 240”) disposed upstream of the drain trap (220) (See Fig 2A) and adapted to be disposed, when the drain trap (220) is installed, between the drain trap (220) and a drain portal (202) of a plumbing fixture drained by the drain trap (220), the unidirectional valve (240) being adapted to be opened by pressure applied thereto by liquid draining into the unidirectional valve (240) (page 17, lines 28-31), and to be normally closed (page 17, line 24), wherein, when the unidirectional valve (240) is closed, the unidirectional valve (240) is sealed to fluid flow out of the drain trap (220), thereby preventing backflow of bacterial and/or contaminated aerosol from the drain trap (220) (page 17, lines 18-24).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a unidirectional valve, such as taught by Nahum, in the drain pipe apparatus of Salzer, for the purpose of allowing “water to flow from the fixture into the drainage system, and seals the passage between the fixture and the drain trap when no water is flowing, thereby preventing release of back-flowing bacteria and contaminated aerosol” as taught by Nahum (page 15, lines 16-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is allowed.
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the drain trap further includes the second inlet” (claim 8) or “a drain trap, having a first inlet, adapted to be in fluid communication with a drain of a plumbing fixture and a second inlet” (claim 31) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
Salzer is the closest prior art references of record. However, The drain trap of Salzer does not include the second inlet. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drain apparatus of Salzer to move the second inlet into the drain trap. Salzer discloses that the second inlet is adjacent the nozzle within an upstream pipe. It would not have been obvious to modify the location of the second inlet without improper hindsight reasoning.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights