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 locking handle comprising a movable latch configured to abut and engage a locking protrusion on the fixed frame 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 currently states “The drip pan system of claim 12, where the valve is comprises food safe plastic material.” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “The drip pan system of claim 12, where the valve [[is]] comprises food safe plastic material.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e. the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 is drawn to the fixed frame which the drip pan system is attached to, but does not have any limitations drawn to the drip pan system itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coker (US 2024/0125536) in view of Szpak et al. (US 9357856) (hereinafter Szpak), with evidence by Grant (US 6748300).
Regarding Claim 1
Coker teaches a drip pan system (below – Fig. 1 and 2), comprising: a tray (100) comprising a base surface (106) and at least one perimeter wall (101/102/203/104) defining a liquid collection recess, wherein the tray defines a drain hole (107) extending through the base surface, the drain hole allowing a liquid to flow out of the liquid collection recess (Paragraphs [0017]-[0020]).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
250
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Coker does not teach a roll-out device comprising a first member configured to couple to a fixed frame; a second member slidable relative to the first member; and a locking handle disposed on the second member; the tray disposed on the second member, wherein the tray is movable between (i) a first configuration wherein the second member is fully retracted within the fixed frame adjacent to the first member and the locking handle is engaged to prevent movement of the second member, and (ii) a second configuration wherein the second member extends out of the fixed frame and beyond the first member and the locking handle is disengaged to allow movement of the second member..
Szpak teaches a system (below – Fig. 12, 16, 17, 18), comprising: a roll-out device comprising a first member (330/332) configured to couple to a fixed frame (66); a second member (334 and the front/rear portions shown below) slidable relative to the first member (330/332); and a locking handle (292) disposed on the second member; a tray (290) disposed on the second member, wherein the tray is movable between (i) a first configuration wherein the second member is fully retracted within the fixed frame adjacent to the first member and the locking handle is engaged to prevent movement of the second member, and (ii) a second configuration wherein the second member extends out of the fixed frame and beyond the first member and the locking handle is disengaged to allow movement of the second member (Col. 6, Ln. 63 – Col. 8, Ln. 41).
PNG
media_image3.png
327
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
446
331
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
248
519
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
429
347
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Coker and Szpak are analogous inventions in the field of trays. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tray of Coker with the teachings of the roll-out device of Szpak in order to allow for the condensation tray to be easily accessible to empty (Grant – Pg. 1, Ln. 9-14).
Regarding Claim 2
Coker in view of Szpak with evidence by Grant (hereinafter “modified Coker”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Szpak further teaches the locking handle (292) is disposed on a front crossbeam of the second member and the locking handle comprises a movable latch (350) configured to abut and engage a locking protrusion (352) on the fixed frame (330) (Col. 7, Ln. 46 – Col. 8, Ln. 19).
Regarding Claim 3
Modified Coker teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Szpak further teaches the locking handle (292) further comprises a spring biasing the locking handle in the first configuration (Col. 7, Ln. 46 – Col. 8, Ln. 19).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5
Modified Coker teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Coker does not specifically teach the tray is dimensioned to accommodate two standard pallets across a width of the tray, or the tray is dimensioned to accommodate two standard pallets across a depth of the tray.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the tray dimensioned to accommodate two standard pallets across a width and/or depth of the tray, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of having the tray dimensioned to accommodate two standard pallets across a width and/or depth of the tray does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Coker teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Szpak further teaches bolts (54) engaged through the first member of the roll-out device to couple to a vertical post of the fixed frame (Col. 4, Ln, 57-64).
Szpak does not teach self-tapping screws.
Applicant states in their specification, that the mounting brackets are configured to accept a fastener (e.g. a screw, a bolt, or a self-tapping screw) which extends into a vertical post of the fixed frame, securing the roll-out pallet device to the fixed frame (Paragraph [0048]). At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use self-tapping screws, as the Applicant teaches bolts and self-tapping screws are functional equivalents. As such, the claim of self-tapping screws engaged through the first member of the roll-out device to couple to a vertical post of the fixed frame does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Coker teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Coker further teaches the base surface (106) of the tray is contoured to funnel liquid to a drainage portion of the tray that includes the drain hole (107) (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Coker teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Coker further teaches the base surface (106) of the tray comprises a plurality of angled sections (1061/1062/1063/1064) configured to funnel liquid to a drainage portion of the tray that includes the drain hole (107) (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 15
Modified Coker teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Coker further teaches the base surface (106) of the tray is angled towards a front side of the tray, as can be seen in Fig 1, above.
Regarding Claim 16
Modified Coker teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Coker further teaches the base surface (106) comprises angled sections (1061/1062/1063/1064) on either side of a longitudinal axis, wherein each of the angled sections meet at a lower edge of the base surface parallel to the longitudinal axis, as can be seen in the figures above.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Coker as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hubert (US 3304950).
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Coker teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above. Coker teaches a drain hose coupled to and in fluid communication with the drain hole (Paragraph [0028]). Modified Coker does not teach a valve coupled to the drain hose at a distal end thereof, the valve being movable between an open and a closed configuration.
Hubert teaches a drain pan system (Fig. 1 and 4) with a tray (11) having a valve (43) movable between an open and a closed configuration (Col. 2, Ln. 26-32).
PNG
media_image7.png
397
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
210
186
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Modified Coker and Hubert are analogous inventions in the field of drip trays. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the drip tray system of modified Coker with the teachings of a valve of Hubert (at the distal end of the drain hose) in order to allow a user to manually control the removal of liquid from the tray.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuck (US 6718788) in view of Szpak et al. (US 9357856) (hereinafter Szpak), with evidence by Grant (US 6748300).
Regarding Claim 1
Shuck teaches a drip pan system (below – Fig. 3), comprising: a tray (30) comprising a base surface (25) and at least one perimeter wall (26/28) defining a liquid collection recess, wherein the tray defines a drain hole (24) extending through the base surface, the drain hole allowing a liquid to flow out of the liquid collection recess (Col. 3, Ln. 20-37).
PNG
media_image9.png
296
540
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Shuck does not teach a roll-out device comprising a first member configured to couple to a fixed frame; a second member slidable relative to the first member; and a locking handle disposed on the second member; the tray disposed on the second member, wherein the tray is movable between (i) a first configuration wherein the second member is fully retracted within the fixed frame adjacent to the first member and the locking handle is engaged to prevent movement of the second member, and (ii) a second configuration wherein the second member extends out of the fixed frame and beyond the first member and the locking handle is disengaged to allow movement of the second member..
Szpak teaches a system (Fig. 12, 16, 17, 18), comprising: a roll-out device comprising a first member (330/332) configured to couple to a fixed frame (66); a second member (334 and the front/rear portions shown below) slidable relative to the first member (330/332); and a locking handle (292) disposed on the second member; a tray (290) disposed on the second member, wherein the tray is movable between (i) a first configuration wherein the second member is fully retracted within the fixed frame adjacent to the first member and the locking handle is engaged to prevent movement of the second member, and (ii) a second configuration wherein the second member extends out of the fixed frame and beyond the first member and the locking handle is disengaged to allow movement of the second member (Col. 6, Ln. 63 – Col. 8, Ln. 41).
Shuck and Szpak are analogous inventions in the field of trays. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tray of Shuck with the teachings of the roll-out device of Szpak in order to allow for the condensation tray to be easily accessible to empty (Grant – Pg. 1, Ln. 9-14).
Regarding Claim 2
Shuck in view of Szpak with evidence by Grant (hereinafter “modified Shuck”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Szpak further teaches the locking handle (292) is disposed on a front crossbeam of the second member and the locking handle comprises a movable latch (350) configured to abut and engage a locking protrusion (352) on the fixed frame (330) (Col. 7, Ln. 46 – Col. 8, Ln. 19).
Regarding Claim 3
Modified Shuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Szpak further teaches the locking handle (292) further comprises a spring biasing the locking handle in the first configuration (Col. 7, Ln. 46 – Col. 8, Ln. 19).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5
Modified Shuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Shuck does not specifically teach the tray is dimensioned to accommodate two standard pallets across a width of the tray, or the tray is dimensioned to accommodate two standard pallets across a depth of the tray.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the tray dimensioned to accommodate two standard pallets across a width and/or depth of the tray, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of having the tray dimensioned to accommodate two standard pallets across a width and/or depth of the tray does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Shuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Szpak further teaches bolts (54) engaged through the first member of the roll-out device to couple to a vertical post of the fixed frame (Col. 4, Ln, 57-64).
Szpak does not teach self-tapping screws.
Applicant states in their specification, that the mounting brackets are configured to accept a fastener (e.g. a screw, a bolt, or a self-tapping screw) which extends into a vertical post of the fixed frame, securing the roll-out pallet device to the fixed frame (Paragraph [0048]). At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use self-tapping screws, as the Applicant teaches bolts and self-tapping screws are functional equivalents. As such, the claim of self-tapping screws engaged through the first member of the roll-out device to couple to a vertical post of the fixed frame does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Shuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Shuck further teaches the tray comprises 24 gage steel (Col. 2, Ln. 52-57).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Shuck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamilton (US 671798).
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Shuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Shuck does not teach the base surface of the tray is contoured to funnel liquid to a drainage portion of the tray that includes the drain hole.
Hamilton teaches a tray (below - Fig. 2 and 3) comprising a base surface (7) and at least one perimeter wall (shown below) defining a liquid collection recess, wherein the tray defines a drain hole (shown below) extending through one of the at least one perimeter wall, the drain hole allowing a liquid to flow out of the liquid collection recess, wherein the base surface of the tray is contoured to funnel liquid to a drainage portion of the tray that includes the drain hole (Pg. 1, Ln. 34 – 62).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Drain hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Perimeter walls)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image10.png
300
409
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
249
433
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Modified Shuck and Hamilton are analogous inventions in the field of drip pan systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tray of Shuck with the teachings of the base surface of Hamilton in order to force the liquid towards the drain hole (Pg. 1, Ln. 44-54).
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Shuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Shuck does not teach the base surface of the tray is contoured to funnel liquid to a drainage portion of the tray that includes the drain hole.
Hamilton teaches a tray (Fig. 2 and 3) comprising a base surface (7) and at least one perimeter wall (shown above) defining a liquid collection recess, wherein the tray defines a drain hole (shown above) extending through one of the at least one perimeter wall, the drain hole allowing a liquid to flow out of the liquid collection recess, wherein the base surface of the tray comprises a plurality of angled sections (shown below) configured to funnel liquid to a drainage portion of the tray that includes the drain hole (Pg. 1, Ln. 34 – 62).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angled sections)]
PNG
media_image11.png
249
433
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Modified Shuck and Hamilton are analogous inventions in the field of drip pan systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tray of Shuck with the teachings of the base surface of Hamilton in order to force the liquid towards the drain hole (Pg. 1, Ln. 44-54).
Regarding Claim 12
Modified Shuck in view of Hamilton teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above. Hamilton further teaches a valve (8) coupled to the drain hole, the valve being movable between an open and a closed configuration (Pg. 1, Ln. 44-54). Shuck further teaches a drain hose coupled to and in fluid communication with the drain hole (Col. 3, Ln. 50-56).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the drip tray system of modified Shuck with the teachings of a valve of Hamilton (at the drain hole) in order to allow a user to manually control the removal of liquid from the tray.
Regarding Claim 16
Modified Shuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Shuck does not teach the base surface comprises angled sections on either side of a longitudinal axis, wherein each of the angled sections meet at a lower edge of the base surface parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Hamilton teaches a tray (Fig. 2 and 3) comprising a base surface (7) and at least one perimeter wall (shown above) defining a liquid collection recess, wherein the tray defines a drain hole (shown above) extending through one of the at least one perimeter wall, the drain hole allowing a liquid to flow out of the liquid collection recess, wherein the base surface comprises angled sections (shown above) on either side of a longitudinal axis, wherein each of the angled sections meet at a lower edge of the base surface parallel to the longitudinal axis (Pg. 1, Ln. 34 – 62).
Modified Shuck and Hamilton are analogous inventions in the field of drip pan systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tray of Shuck with the teachings of the base surface of Hamilton in order to force the liquid towards the drain hole (Pg. 1, Ln. 44-54).
Regarding Claim 17
Modified Shuck in view of Hamilton teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as shown above. Shuck further teaches a front perimeter wall (28) defines the drain hole (24) extending therethrough, the drain hole being aligned with an edge of the base surface and configured to allow liquid to flow out of the liquid collection recess, as can be seen in the figures above.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Shuck in view of Hamilton as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hubert (US 3304950).
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Shuck in view of Hamilton teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above. Modified Shuck in view of Hamilton does not teach a storage container coupled to and in fluid communication with the drain hose.
Hubert teaches a drain pan system (Fig. 1 and 4) with a tray (11) having a valve (43) movable between an open and a closed configuration, and a storage container in fluid communication with the valve (Col. 2, Ln. 26-41).
Modified Shuck in view of Hamilton and Hubert are analogous inventions in the field of drain pan systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the drain pan system of modified Shuck in view of Hamilton with the teachings of a storage container of Hubert in order to provide a way for the liquid in the tray to be disposed of.
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Shuck in view of Hamilton teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above. Modified Shuck in view of Hamilton does not teach the valve is comprises food safe plastic material.
Hubert teaches a drain pan system (Fig. 1 and 4) with a tray (11) having a valve (43) movable between an open and a closed configuration, where the valve comprises plastic material (Col. 2, Ln. 26-41).
Modified Shuck in view of Hamilton and Hubert are analogous inventions in the field of drain pan systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the valve material of modified Shuck in view of Hamilton with the teachings of the valve being plastic of Hubert in order to provide a valve that does not rust. At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the valve made of food safe plastic material. Applicant has not disclosed that food safe plastic material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the valve being made of food safe plastic material does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/LAURA E. PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights