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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: garbage catching member in at least claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, applicant is advised to recite --an inner region comprising the opening-- for clarity. 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.
Claim 7 is 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 claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name (i.e. “alnico”) cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became descriptive of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. See MPEP 2173.05(u).
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, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS5580014 (hereinafter JP ‘014) in view of JP H0620565 (hereinafter JP ‘565) and JP H0725403 (hereinafter JP ‘403)
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘014 shows a garbage catching member holder comprising: a holder body member (1) including a flange portion capable of being put on a peripheral edge of a drain port (4,5) and a flow down portion disposed inwardly of the flange portion and having an opening through which wastewater flows down (see annotated figure below); and a fixing member (3) capable of being coupled with an attachment portion (6) on a bottom surface of the hold body member through a garbage catching member (2)(see fig. 1) in such a manner as to attach the garbage catching member to the attachment portion, the garbage catching member being configured to cover the flow-down portion and catch garbage in the wastewater (fig. 1), wherein the fixing member is an annular shape (see fig. 2).
JP ‘014 does not show that the fixing member has an outside diameter which is smaller than an inside diameter of the drain port. Attention is turned to JP ‘565 which teaches a similar garbage catcher having a holder body member (2) and a fixing member (3), where the fixing member outer diameter is smaller than the inside diameter of the drain port (5)(see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the fixing member of JP ‘014 in such a diameter as to be smaller than the drain port as a functionally equivalent means of attaching the garbage catching member to the holder body member. Either configuration still allows the garbage catching device to be seated appropriately overtop of the drain port. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary in order to render such substitution obvious see MPEP §2144.06.
JP ‘014 does not show that the fixing member is at least partially made of a magnet so that the garbage catching member is attached to the attachment portion by magnetic force. Attention is turned to JP ‘403 which teaches a similar garbage catching device (fig. 1) having a magnetic holder member (7) and a magnet fixing member (6) and a garbage catching member (4) magnetically fixed in between (para. [0012] of attached machine translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to formed the fixer member and holder members in a magnet and magnetic material as in the manner taught by JP ‘403, since magnetic connections still enable a strong reversible connection between two pieces. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary in order to render such substitution obvious see MPEP §2144.06.
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘014 as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the flow down portion includes a cylindrical tubular portion (see annotated figure below) extending downward from the opening with the flange portion being on the peripheral edge of the drain port.
Regarding claim 4, JP ‘014 as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further shows that the flange portion has a circular outer periphery in top view and the opening is circular in shape in the top view (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, JP ‘014 as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the garbage catching member is attached to the attachment portion (interface of 6/7) and as shown in JP ‘565, the open end portion of the garbage catching member is stored inside the drain port (see fig. 2, free end of 4 is folded over 3 and will be positioned within 5 when installed.)
Regarding claim 8, JP ‘014 shows that the garbage catching member is a net (see fig. 2, hatch markings).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘014, JP ‘565, and JP ‘403, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Garber (US 2,864,096)
Regarding claims 3 and 7, JP ‘014 shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and under the proposed modification with JP ‘403, the whole fixing member is made out of the magnet (see that 6 of JP ‘403 and 3 of JP ‘014 are monolithic parts and thus under the proposed modification, 3 would be entirely composed of magnet), but is silent as to the material of the magnet. The combination also provides that the whole holder member is formed out of a material (see that 1 is a monolithic piece). But the combination fails to show that the whole holder body is made of metal. Attention is turned to Garber which teaches that it is common to use metal containing nickel (col. 3 ln. 6)(22) to mate with an alnico magnet element (26)(col. 3, ln. 54). It would have been obvious to use metal for the holder of JP ‘014, since it commonly available and can be corrosion resistant in a wet environment. It would have been obvious to use alnico since it is a commonly available strong magnet.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘014, JP ‘565, and JP ‘403, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ychie (US 20150074891).
Regarding claim 5, JP ‘014 as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show an inclined portion between an edge portion that is an outer region of the flange and an inner portion that is an inner region comprising the opening. JP ‘014 shows a flat flange between the outer edge and opening. Attention is turned Ychie which teaches a similar drain strainer having a flange (3) with an inclined portion between the edge portion and the inner portion. See annotated figure below. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided an inclined surface on the flange of JP ‘014 as modified so that water drains more efficiently.
PNG
media_image2.png
383
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dees (US 7,975,323) shows a strainer with magnetic holder and fixing members of interest to the instant invention.
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