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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “sharp” is unclear as to whether it is interpreted as a structural angle. For clarity, the Examiner suggest alternate wording such as –square—or –rectangular--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1,7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023034985 A1 to L’Henaff et al in view of KR 20160051518 A to Mabe.
Regarding claim 1, L’Henaff discloses a water sink (fig 1A-B) body 100, at least one groove 102,104; a through hole 122; a platform 110 integrally formed and the at least one groove 104 positioned at one side of the sink body (fig 1), and at least a portion of an inner wall of at least one of said at least one groove corresponding to said one side of the sink body (fig 1B); an upper surface of the platform is flush with the upper surface of the sink body (fig. 1B). L’Henaff is silent as to at least a portion of an inner wall of at least one groove corresponding to one side of the sink body is recessed into an interior of a respective groove to define an outer boundary of the platform; and the platform is configured to function as a cutting board. Instead, L’Henaff indicates a water sink (fig 1A-B), comprising a sink body 100, wherein an upper surface of the sink body is provided with at least one groove 102,104; a through hole 122 is opened at a bottom surface of each groove; a platform 106,110 integrally formed ([para 0109]) with the sink body (fig 1A-C) and said at least one groove 104 is positioned at one side of the sink body, and at least a portion of an inner wall of at least one of said at least one groove corresponding to said one side of the sink body is adjacent the outer boundary of the platform (fig below); an upper surface of the platform 110 is flush with the upper surface of the sink body, and is configured as a tray and capable to function as a cutting board (fig 1A; [para 109]). Mabe discloses a water sink 100 provided with at least one groove 160 (bottom surface 110, wall 140); a through hole 120; a platform 150a-b integrally formed with the sink body (fig 1) and said at least one groove is positioned at one side of the sink body, and at least a portion of an inner wall of at least one of said at least one groove corresponding to said one side of the sink body is recessed into an interior of a respective groove to define an outer boundary of the platform (fig 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify L’Henaff as taught by Mabe such that when at least a portion of an inner wall of the groove is recessed at an interior part in order to define an outer boundary of the platform, it facilitates the preparation of food in close proximity to the sink, drain and faucet particularly for rinsing and prevention of food or water elevating beyond the surface of the sink body.
L'Henaff/Mabe:
PNG
media_image1.png
386
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, L’Henaff is silent as to the sink body has round corners. Mabe teaches the sink body has round corners (fig d). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to round the sink corners because Applicant has not disclosed that rounding the corners provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the L’Henaff’ sink, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either shape corners because both shapes would perform the same function of preventing water from exiting the sink body and the sink maintaining structural integrity. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify L’Henaff in view of Mabe to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Nash. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
PNG
media_image3.png
283
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, L’Henaff discloses the sink body has sharp corners (fig. 1B; Mabe shows sharp corners (fig c)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
More specifically, WO 2026009216 A1 to Ben is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of water sink opening 102 including an in-sink dishwasher 100 having a secondary top sink 200 in sliding relationship which also serves as a dishwasher lid or the lid of the main sink box 101.
PNG
media_image4.png
258
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. 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 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.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights