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 5 May 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 lower edge of the extremity resting surface transitioning to an annular intermediate trough through a second sloping surface of claim 1, at least one transition through a sloping surface being between the lower edge of the extremity resting surface and the annular intermediate trough of claim 9 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “330” has been used to designate cross-hatched surface and first bottom outer surface.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “332” has been used to designate cross-hatched surface and second bottom outer surface.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “326” has been used to designate cross-hatched surface and outer surface.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “122” has been used to designate downward sloping ramp and extremity resting surface.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “120” has been used to designate lower edge and upper edge.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: first sloping surface, second sloping surface, third sloping surface, fourth sloping surface, first edge, second edge, first platform, intermediate platform, bottom trough.
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 1-7, 9-17, 21, and 22 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.
The limitation of claim 1 that “the lower edge of the extremity resting surface transitions to an annular intermediate trough through a second sloping surface” fails to comply with the written description requirement. From the original disclosure “[t]he lower portion of extremity resting surface 122 transitions to trough 134 through sloping surfaces 123, 125” and “lower edge 146 where the bottom portion of extremity resting surface 122 transitions to intermediate trough 134”. The disclosed lower portion encompasses a greater amount of the extremity resting surface than the claimed lower edge does. From the original figures the lower edge itself transitions to the intermediate trough. There is no disclosed second sloping surface that transitions the lower edge of the extremity resting surface to the annular intermediate trough.
The limitation of claim 9 that “at least one transition through a sloping surface is between the lower edge of the extremity resting surface and the annular intermediate trough” fails to comply with the written description requirement. From the original disclosure “[t]he lower portion of extremity resting surface 122 transitions to trough 134 through sloping surfaces 123, 125” and “lower edge 146 where the bottom portion of extremity resting surface 122 transitions to intermediate trough 134”. The disclosed lower portion encompasses a greater amount of the extremity resting surface than the claimed lower edge does. From the original figures the lower edge itself transitions to the intermediate trough. There is no disclosed second sloping surface that transitions the lower edge of the extremity resting surface to the annular intermediate trough.
The limitations of claim 9 of “wherein at least one transition through a sloping surface is between the upper edge of the extremity resting surface and the first side platform, wherein at least one transition through a sloping side surface is between the first side platform and the annular intermediate trough” fail to comply with the written description requirement. The original specification and figures only disclose a single sloping surface between the claimed respective surfaces. There is no support for greater than one transition existing at either of these locations.
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 1-7, 9-17, 21, and 22 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 limitation of claim 1 of “an upper edge” of line 10 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if this is a newly recited structure or refers back to “an upper edge” of line 7. In light of the original disclosure and for the purposes of applying art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 1 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the “annular intermediate trough” and “lower trough” are distinct from the “series of troughs” or subsets of the “series of troughs”. In light of the original disclosure and for the purposes of applying art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
The limitation of claim 2 that “the annular intermediate trough and the lower trough comprises a sloped surface” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear if there is a single sloped surface shared by the annular intermediate trough and the lower trough or if each of the annular intermediate trough and the lower trough has its own sloped surface. In light of the original disclosure and for the purposes of applying art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
The limitation of claim 9 that “the plurality of troughs have a plurality of levels and a plurality of sloping surfaces” and “wherein at least one transition through a sloping surface is between the upper edge of the extremity resting surface and the first side platform, wherein at least one transition through a sloping side surface is between the first side platform and the annular intermediate trough, wherein at least one transition through a sloping surface is between the lower edge of the extremity resting surface and the annular intermediate trough” are led to be indefinite. Initially it is unclear if “a sloping surface” of line 15 and “a sloping side surface” of line 19 are directed to the same or distinct sloping surfaces. In light of the original disclosure and for the purposes of applying art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter. Further, it is unclear if “a sloping surface” of line 15 and “a sloping side surface” are newly recited structures or refer back to the plurality of sloping surfaces of the plurality of troughs. As both instances of “a sloping surface” form transitions between troughs and other structures they do not appear to be part of the troughs.
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, 6-7, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holloway (US 5381562).
Claim 1: Holloway discloses a basin 10 (article) for irrigating extremities, comprising: a bottom 14 comprising an adapter 82 (suction port) and a sump 44 and channel 40 (series of troughs); a plurality of sidewalls extending from the bottom 14 to define a basin and an open top, wherein at least one sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls defines a notch 38 (entry channel) configured to receive an extremity; and an extremity resting surface extending from the notch 38 (entry channel) and into the basin, the extremity resting surface having an upper edge opposite a lower edge, such that the extremity resting surface slopes downward from the upper edge to the lower edge, wherein: an upper edge of the extremity resting surface transitions to a first side platform though a first sloping surface, wherein the first side platform is located adjacent to the upper edge of the extremity resting surface, the lower edge of the extremity resting surface transitions to an annular intermediate trough through a second sloping surface, the annular intermediate trough transitions to a sump 44 (lower trough) through a third sloping surface, and the sump 44 (lower trough) is configured to transport one or both of: materials or fluids to the adapter 82 (suction port) (see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Under a second interpretation Holloway discloses an upper edge of the extremity resting surface transitioning to a first side platform through a first sloping surface, wherein the first side platform is located adjacent to the upper edge of the extremity resting surface (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
517
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Holloway discloses wherein the annular intermediate trough and the sump 44 (lower trough) each comprise a sloped surface (see annotated fig. 2 above). Examiner notes that as the annular intermediate trough and the sump 44 (lower trough) each have a surface that surface must necessarily be sloped in relation to something.
Claim 3: Holloway discloses wherein adjacent sidewalls of the plurality of sidewalls are joined by a curved section (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 6: Holloway discloses wherein an outer surface of the bottom 14, underneath the first platform, defines a groove configured to engage with an edged platform and enable drainage of fluids in a downhill manner into the sump 44, channel 40, and top surface 22 (series of troughs) (see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
252
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: Holloway discloses wherein at least a portion of the outer surface of the bottom 14 has a textured surface as all physical structures must necessarily have a texture (see annotated fig. 3 above).
Claim 21: Holloway discloses wherein the upper edge of the extremity resting surface transitions to a second side platform through a fourth sloping surface (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Under a second interpretation Holloway discloses wherein the upper edge of the extremity resting surface transitions to a second side platform through a fourth sloping surface (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 19: Holloway discloses a basin 10 (article) for irrigating extremities, comprising: a bottom 14; a plurality of sidewalls [see annotated sidewalls of figure. 2 above] extending from the bottom 14 to define a basin and an open top, wherein at least one sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls defines a notch 38 (entry channel) configured to receive an extremity; an extremity resting surface extending from the notch 38 (entry channel) and into the basin, the extremity resting surface having an upper edge opposite a lower edge, wherein the extremity resting surface slopes downward from the upper edge to the lower edge; and a sump 44, channel 40, and top surface 22 (plurality of troughs) within the bottom 14, wherein the sump 44, channel 40, and top surface 22 (plurality of troughs) have a plurality of levels and a plurality of sloping surfaces such that fluids are configured to flow off the extremity resting surface to the bottom, wherein the sump 44, channel 40, and top surface 22 (plurality of troughs) comprises a top surface 22 (at least one side platform), a channel 40 (annular intermediate trough), and a sump 44 (lower trough) (see annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
386
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 20: Holloway discloses an adapter 82 (suction port) fluidly connected to the basin, wherein the sump 44, channel 40, and top surface 22 (plurality of troughs) are configured to transport one or both of: materials or fluids to the adapter 82 (suction port) (see annotated fig. 5 and fig. 1).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway (US 5381562) further in view of Tapadiya (US 20040225265).
Claim 5: Holloway does not disclose wherein the lower trough is fluidly connected to the suction port through a passageway through a sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls.
Tapadiya teaches a basin 10 for irrigation of a wound having a base 11 and wall 12 defining a cavity 13, the basin 10 further having a unitarily formed convertible portion 19 along the periphery of the basin 10 or on the base 11 where the convertible portion 19 defines a channel 19b extending therethrough (see P. 0106 and fig. 2E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have to have modified the drainage system 80 to have replaced the adapter 82, washer ring 84, and nut 86 with a threaded portion 82a unitarily formed with panel 72 akin to the formation of the unitarily formed convertible portion 19, as taught by Tapadiya, in order to reduce assembly steps and associated costs.
The combination results in the sump 44 (lower trough) being fluidly connected to the threaded portion 82a (suction port) through a passageway through a sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls which extends through panel 72.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway (US 5381562) further in view of Stephens (US 20190175432).
Claim 4: The combination discloses the claimed invention except for at least a portion of a sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls defining a semi-circular sidewall surrounding the suction port.
Stephens teaches a limb irrigation pan device 10 having a nozzle 52 that extends through an end panel 14, wherein the end panel 14 has a drain slot 56 defining a semi-circular sidewall surrounding the nozzle 52 (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sidewall to have a drain slot 56 defining a semi-circular sidewall surrounding the drainage system 80 (suction port), as taught by Stephens, in order to provide some protection from impacts around the now recessed drainage system 80 (suction port).
Claim(s) 9, 12-17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway (US 5381562) further in view of Dominguez (US 20110225726).
Claim 9: Holloway discloses a basin 10 (article) for irrigating extremities, comprising: a bottom 14 fluidly connected to an adapter 82 (suction port); a plurality of sidewalls extending from the bottom 14 to define a basin and an open top, wherein at least one sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls defines a notch 38 (entry channel) configured to receive an extremity; an extremity resting surface extending from the notch 38 (entry channel) and into the basin, the extremity resting surface having an upper edge opposite a lower edge, wherein the extremity resting surface slopes downward from the upper edge to the lower edge; and a sump 44 and channel 40 (plurality of troughs) within the bottom 14, wherein the sump 44 and channel 40 (plurality of troughs) have a plurality of levels and a plurality of sloping surfaces such that fluids are configured to flow off the extremity resting surface to the adapter 82 (suction port), wherein the sump 44 and channel 40 (plurality of troughs) comprises a channel 40 (annular intermediate trough), and a sump 44 (lower trough), wherein at least one transition through a sloping surface is between the lower edge of the extremity resting surface and the channel 40 (annular intermediate trough) (see annotated fig. 2 below).
Holloway does not disclose wherein the plurality of troughs comprises a first side platform, wherein at least one transition through a sloping surface is between the upper edge of the extremity resting surface and the first side platform, or wherein at least one transition through a sloping side surface is between the first side platform and the annular intermediate trough.
Dominguez teaches a basin 10 having an end wall 22 having an inner wall 21 and a first appendage contour 42, the basin 10 having a bottom 32 with a first platform that extends along the entire inner wall 21, includes baffles 34, and that transitions to an intermediate trough (see annotated fig. 1 below and fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the bottom 14 to have the first platform including baffles 34, as taught by Dominguez, in order to slow the flow of fluids and aid in allowing items to precipitate out from the flowing fluids.
The combination discloses wherein the plurality of troughs includes a first side platform formed by the portion of the first platform that extends along the inner wall of the at least one sidewall that the notch 38 (entry channel) is in, wherein at least one transition through a sloping surface is between the upper edge of the extremity resting surface and the first side platform, and wherein at least one transition through a sloping side surface is between the first side platform and the channel 40 (annular intermediate trough).
PNG
media_image5.png
705
641
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
430
475
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 12: Holloway discloses wherein the sump 44, channel 40, first platform, and top surface 22 (plurality of troughs) surround the extremity resting surface (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 13: Holloway discloses wherein the sump 44, channel 40, first platform, and top surface 22 (plurality of troughs) are configured to transport one or both of: materials or fluids to the adapter 82 (suction port) (see annotated fig. 2 above and fig. 1).
Claim 14: Holloway discloses wherein the channel 40 (annular intermediate trough) and a sump 44 (lower trough) comprises a sloped surface (see annotated fig. 2 above). Examiner notes that as the annular intermediate trough and the sump 44 (lower trough) each have a surface that surface must necessarily be sloped in relation to something.
Claim 15: Holloway discloses wherein an outer surface of the bottom 14, underneath the first side platform, defines a groove configured to engage with an edged platform and enable drainage of fluids in a downhill manner into the sump 44, channel 40, and top surface 22 (plurality of troughs) (see annotated fig. 1 ‘726 above and annotated fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
344
734
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 16: Holloway discloses wherein at least a portion of the outer surface of the bottom 14 has a textured surface as all physical structures must necessarily have a texture (see annotated fig. 3 above).
Claim 17: Holloway discloses wherein adjacent sidewalls of the plurality of sidewalls are joined by a curved section (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Claim 22: Holloway discloses wherein the sump 44, channel 40, first platform, and top surface 22 (plurality of troughs) comprises a second side platform formed by the portion of the first platform that extends along the inner wall of the at least one sidewall that the notch 38 (entry channel) is in and that is on the opposite side of the extremity resting surface from the first side platform, wherein the second side platform has a transition to the channel 40 (annular intermediate trough) through a sloping side surface.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway (US 5381562) and Dominguez (US 20110225726) further in view of Tapadiya (US 20040225265).
Claim 10: The combination does not disclose wherein the bottom is fluidly connected to the suction port through a passageway, such that the fluids are configured to flow off of the extremity resting surface through the passageway to the suction port.
Tapadiya teaches a basin 10 for irrigation of a wound having a base 11 and wall 12 defining a cavity 13, the basin 10 further having a unitarily formed convertible portion 19 along the periphery of the basin 10 or on the base 11 where the convertible portion 19 defines a channel 19b extending therethrough (see P. 0106 and fig. 2E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have to have modified the drainage system 80 to have replaced the adapter 82, washer ring 84, and nut 86 with a threaded portion 82a unitarily formed with panel 72 akin to the formation of the unitarily formed convertible portion 19, as taught by Tapadiya, in order to reduce assembly steps and associated costs.
The combination results in the bottom 14 being fluidly connected to the threaded portion 82a (suction port) through a passageway through a sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls which extends through panel 72, such that the fluids are configured to flow off of the extremity resting surface through the passageway to the threaded portion 82a (suction port).
Claim 11: The combination does not disclose the suction port is separated from the bottom by an upwardly extending sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls.
Tapadiya teaches a basin 10 for irrigation of a wound having a base 11 and wall 12 defining a cavity 13, the basin 10 further having a unitarily formed convertible portion 19 along the periphery of the basin 10 or on the base 11 where the convertible portion 19 defines a channel 19b extending therethrough (see P. 0106 and fig. 2E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have to have modified the drainage system 80 to have replaced the adapter 82, washer ring 84, and nut 86 with a threaded portion 82a unitarily formed with panel 72 akin to the formation of the unitarily formed convertible portion 19, as taught by Tapadiya, in order to reduce assembly steps and associated costs.
The combination results in the threaded portion 82a (suction port) being separated from the bottom 14 by an upwardly extending sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls at panel 72.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 2-3 of office action dated 5 January 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 5 May 2026.
The specification objections in paragraphs 7 and 9 of office action dated 5 January 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 5 May 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 11-18 of office action dated 5 January 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 5 May 2026.
In response to applicant’s argument that P. 0023 was amended to overcome the spec. objections relating to reference characters 330, 332, and 326, the Examiner replies that no amendment to these reference characters was made.
In response to applicant’s argument that P. 0019 was amended to overcome the spec. objection relating to reference character 122, the Examiner replies that the amendment does not remedy the objection.
In response to applicant’s argument that Holloway’s platform is an isolated support feature, not part of a continuous, multi-stage transition system as claimed by the Applicant, the Examiner replies that the platform 20 is not isolated, but rather is uniform with the remaining structures of the basin 10.
In response to applicant’s argument that Halloway does not disclose an “annular intermediate trough” as the claimed intermediate trough is structurally defined as annular, meaning it extends circumferentially around a region whereas Holloway’s channel 40 is merely a localized fluid conduit that neither exhibits an annular geometry nor surrounds or intermediates between upper and lower regions as required by the claims, the Examiner replies that no special definition was provided for annular. As such, the broadest most reasonably interpretation is the plain meaning. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines annular as “of, relating to, or forming a ring”. As the channel 40 extends circumferentially around the elevated platform 20 and forms a partial ring it meets the claimed limitation of annular.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an annular intermediate trough that intermediates between upper and lower regions, sequential connection of an extremity resting surface to a side platform then to an annular intermediate trough and then to a lower trough (not in at least claims 1 or 19)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that Holloway does not disclose the claimed ordered sequence of transitions of claim 1 as Holloway merely teaches that “at least a section of the channel 40 is sloped toward the outlet 42” which describes a single-direction drainage slope rather than a multi-stage transition between structural regions, that there is no teaching of multiple sloping surfaces connecting platforms and troughs, and because Holloway fails to disclose “an upper edge of the extremity resting surface transitions to a first side platform through ha first sloping surface, wherein the first side platform is located adjacent to the upper edge of the extremity resting surface”, “the lower edge of the extremity resting surface transitions to an annular intermediate trough through a second sloping surface”, and “the annular intermediate trough transitions to a lower trough through a third sloping surface” such that Holloway cannot anticipated independent claim 1, the Examiner responds that drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). Each limitation of claim 1 is found in annotated fig. 3 above.
In response to applicant’s argument that Holloway lacks any disclosure of a first side platform located adjacent to an upper edge of an extremity resting surface as platform 20 is centrally located and spaced above the base and is not adjacent to nor continuous with a sloped extremity resting surface as claimed and is not connected via a defined sloping surface, the Examiner replies that under two different interpretations Holloway discloses a first side platform located adjacent to an upper edge of an extremity resting surface, where those first side platforms are connected via a sloping surface (see annotated fig. 1 and 2 above).
In response to applicant’s argument that Jones is directed to a support surface that is variably connected, disconnected, or spanning across a trough rather than being integrated into a structured, sequential transition system as recited in Applicant’s amended claim 1, the Examiner initially replies that this argument is a piecemeal analysis of the references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the support surface 12 is uniform with the remaining structures of the basin 10.
In response to applicant’s argument that the support surface of Jones is either laterally joined to a trough wall, isolated as an island, or positioned to bridge across a trough, the Examiner replies that the annotated support surface of Jones is not isolated, but rather uniform with the remaining structures of the basin 10.
In response to applicant’s argument that Jones does not disclose an annular intermediate trough but instead describes a U-shaped trough that only partially surrounds the support surface and is not circumferential or intermediate between defined upper and lower regions in a staged progression, the Examiner responds that in light of the BRI above a “U-shaped trough” meets the limitation of annular as it extends circumferentially around the support surface 12 and forms a partial ring.
In response to applicant’s argument that claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 103 and as each claim depends on an allowable independent claim and Tapadiya, Holloway, Dominguez, Gathers, and Stephens cannot cure the deficiencies of the primary references of Holloway and Jones, it is respectfully asserted that each of the above-listed claims is directed to patentable subject matter by virtue of their dependency, the Examiner replies that claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Applicant must discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Arguments directed to only the primary reference are piecemeal.
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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
