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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the gaps and spacers of claims 10 and 11; the butt joint of claim 7must 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 - 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: applicant’s use of terms such as “which” and “its” throughout the claims is informal. Applicant is requested to use proper antecedent terms such as “the” or “said.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 4:
The recitation of “optionally” renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear if the limitations are required by the claim.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the conical outer shape” in line 2.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1 - 6, 8, 10 - 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammel et al. (US 11,268,269 hereinafter Stammel) in view of Arets (US D616,971).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Stammel discloses a sanitary device (1), comprising a wash basin or a washstand (2) made of ceramic, porcelain (abstract) and a vanity unit (3, 20, 21) which bears the wash basin or the washstand (col. 4, ln. 51-54), which wash basin or washstand has a rim protruding laterally from a basin region and having a planar upper face (see annotated figure below), wherein the vanity unit has an outer shape which circulates in a curved manner over at least 1800 at least in the upper region bearing the wash basin or the washstand (see figs. 1 and 2; 14, 13, 8 are rounded and the vanity extends 270 degrees around 3 sides) and which has a first laminate layer (16, 17) forming a first visible surface, wherein the rim of the wash basin or the washstand has rim shape which also circulates in a curved manner over at least 1800 (see fig. 6, the sink is rim is rounded and extends 270 degrees around 3 sides) and which has a second laminate layer (15), wherein the lower outer edge of the rim and the upper outer edge of the vanity unit are located on the same radius (col. 4, ln. 58-64).
Stammel does not show that the rim of the sink and the vanity unit have a conical shape, instead showing that the sink rim and the vanity unit have a rounded rectangular shape. Attention is turned to Arets which teaches a sink and vanity (fig. 7) which has a conical shape (see also fig. 4, showing the conical cross section)(note also that a cone is a three-dimensional figure that tapers from a flat base to an apex or vertex and the base need not be a circle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the sink and vanity of Stammel in a conical shape, depending on user preference, the space in which the sanitary unit is to be installed, or the design aesthetics of the bathroom. Under the proposed modification, the rim of the sink would have a conical angle to match the conical shape of the vanity, since the sink of Stammel is intended to have each face of the vanity and sink merge seamlessly into each other in vertical view (col. 11, ln. 61-64).
Regarding claim 3, Stammel as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides the vanity unit has a conical outer shape as discussed with respect to claim 2 above, characterized in that the angle which the first laminate layer or the first paint coating and the second laminate layer or paint coating adopt relative to the horizontal are equal, such that the first laminate layer or first paint coating and the second laminate layer or second paint coating are aligned with one another (col. 11, ln. 61-64). Note that this claim language is met by the combination of Stammel and Arets The laminate layers are all of the same geometry so that the sides merge smoothly -- in the course of making the vanity and sink conical, they will accordingly have the same angle relative to the horizontal.
Regarding claim 4, Stammel as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but is silent as to the angle of the conical rim and cone outer shape being between 60 - 85 degrees relative to the planar upper face. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed angular configuration presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the vanity of Stammel to perform equally well as applicant's. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Stammel to be angled as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Stammel as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and as shown in figures 1 and 5, further shows that the region bearing the wash basin and the rim circulates less than 360 degrees and has a straight rear face that bears against a wall in the installed position. See also all figures of Arets.
Regarding claim 6, Stammel as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the second laminate layer (15) is adhesively bonded to the rim surface with an adhesive (col. 5, ln. 5-7).
Regarding claim 8, Stammel as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the upper edge of the second laminate layer terminates flush with the planar upper face of the rim of the basin (col. 5, ln. 12-13).
Regarding claims 10 - 11, Stammel as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows a gap (see annotated figure below) between an outer lower edge of the rim is spaced apart form an outer upper edge of the vanity unit via a gap and one or more spacers (26) are provided on the unit for setting the gap.
Regarding claim 12, Stammel shows that the vanity unit has at least one drawer (4, 5).
Regarding claim 14, Stammel shows that the first and second laminate layers have a wooden appearance (col. 5, ln. 8-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammel and Arets, as applied to claim 1, in view of Gevaert et al (US 5,173,348 hereinafter ).
Regarding claim 7, Stammel shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but is silent as to the second laminate being butt-joined in the region of the rear face of the wash basin or stand. Attention is turned to Gevaert which teaches that it is known to use butt joints (16a to 30, 30 to 16b, 30 to 16c to 30, 30 to16d, etc.) over the circumference of the rim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the second laminate around the circumference of the sink rim in order to allow for different mounting configurations. It would have been obvious to use a butt joint in the rear face region, since that is a common way to connect corners in the joining arts.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammel and Arets, as applied to claim 1, in view of Stammel et al. (US 9,516,976 hereinafter Stammel ‘976).
Regarding claim 9, Stammel as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not explicitly show that a lower edge of the second laminate layer terminates flush with a lower edge of the rim, although the drawings are highly suggestive of such an arrangement. Attention is turned to Stammel ‘976 which teaches that it is known to extend a laminate (9) such that it is flush with a bottom surface (see 9 extending to bottom of 2, figure 2) of a structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the laminate flush with the lower edge of the rim so that the veneer/laminate covers all of the visible surfaces completely for an enhanced aesthetic appearance.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammel and Arets, as applied to claim 1, in view of Lowe (US 2005/00999101).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Stammel as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a door which opens to an interior of the vanity unit which has at least one receiving device for depositing an external object, instead showing two drawers. Attention is turned to Lowe which teaches a cabinet having a drawer (90) and a door (fig. 6, near leader line 100), where the door opens to an interior that includes a receiving device (82, 84) that is a shelf and is able to receive an external object. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a door/shelf combination in place of one of the drawers of Stammel, similar to that taught by Lowe in order to provide a different means of internal storage in the vanity
Conclusion
Pajetta (US D354,120) shows a sink and vanity with a round conical sink of interest to the instant invention, and similar to the circular cone of the instant invention that is not specifically claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights