DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-10 as filed 11/10/2025 are pending for consideration.
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 base body and collar (at least claim 1) and the spiral grooves or spiral flow channels (claim 5) 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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The odor and clog prevention method for the floor drain” (line 1) should be “The anti-odor and anti-blocking method for a floor drain”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The odor and clog prevention method for the floor drain” (line 1) should be “The anti-odor and anti-blocking method for a floor drain”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The odor and clog prevention method for the floor drain” (line 1) should be “The anti-odor and anti-blocking method for a floor drain”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The odor and clog prevention method for the floor drain” (line 1) should be “The anti-odor and anti-blocking method for a floor drain”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The odor and clog prevention method for the floor drain” (line 1) should be “The anti-odor and anti-blocking method for a floor drain”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The odor and clog prevention method for the floor drain” (line 1) should be “The anti-odor and anti-blocking method for a floor drain”. 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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the base comprises “a base body and a collar”. It is unclear what is required by this structure and it is further noted that applicant’s specification as filed does not provide any context for these limitations. It is unclear whether the base body and collar are integrally formed or are separate elements.
Claim 1 recites “embedding the base into the ground”. This limitation is unclear because the claim is directed to a method for a “floor drain”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the base is embedded into the ground or into a floor. It appears that the above limitation should be “embedding the base into a floor” and the claim is interpreted accordingly.
Claim 3 recites “on the ground”. This is unclear as described above and it appears that this limitation should be “on the floor”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the indoor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the drainage process" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the step of preventing clogging" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “embedding the base into the ground”. As described with respect to claim 1 above, this limitation is unclear and appears to be intended to recite “embedding the base into the floor”.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragsdill (US Patent Application 2005/0016094).
Regarding Claim 1, when making and using the device of Ragsdill, Ragsdill necessarily discloses an anti-odor and anti-blocking method for a floor drain (floor drain; abstract), comprising using a vertical floor drain (as shown in Figure 4) that is anti-odor (anti-odor via water 404 seal at 404), anti-blocking (anti-blocking at least because of the holes of lid 406 which have a predetermined size; i.e. the holes prevent large blocking items from entering the device) and easy to clean (the limitation “easy to clean” is a broad subjective term and the device of Ragsdill is necessarily “easy to clean” at least via wiping the grate), wherein the floor drain comprises a base 401, a drainage cover 403 and a cover plate (lower plate of basket 402 is readable as a cover plate at least because it covers the upper portion of assembly 403); the base 401 is equipped with a drainage pipe 405 and comprises a base body (as best understood as described above; bottom 408 of base 401 with the portion indicated at 420 is readable as a base body) and a collar (as best understood as described above; the portion of base 401 above 420 is seen to be readable as a collar), and a drainage channel is formed between the drainage pipe 405 and the base body (at least between the pipe and the portion indicated at 420 of the base body in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device); an upper end of the base is provided with a drainage outlet (i.e. at 417 as shown in Figure 4 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device), and the drainage cover 403 is detachably connected above the drainage pipe 405 (para. 0027), forming a connected drainage cavity (cavity between the outer surface of 405 and the inner surface of 415 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device) and a water inlet with the drainage pipe (water inlet at the open terminal end 422 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device); and the cover plate (cover plate of 402 as described above) is placed at the drainage outlet of the base 401 (the cover plate is near the upper end of the 401 and therefore is readable as “placed at the drainage outlet of the base”, as the term “placed at” is a broad limitation of the location of the cover plate), forming a drainage gap with the base (gap between the outer surface of 402 and the inner surface of 401); the method comprises the following steps of: Step 1, embedding the base into the ground (as best understood as described above, the base is embedded into the floor 407 as shown in Figure 4), and connecting the drainage pipe with a sewage pipe (para. 0002-0003; the drain is connected to a sewage system and therefore inherently connected to a sewage pipe).
Although Ragsdill does teach cleaning the drain (para. 0034), Ragsdill does not specifically disclose Step 2, when sewage is discharged, manually removing long hair residues remaining above a gap between the cover plate and the collar to prevent blockage of the floor drain.
However, the office takes official notice that manually cleaning or mopping the drain lid is old and well known (it is noted that cleaning the drain lid results in manually removing long hair residues above a gap between the cover plate and the collar to prevent blockage of the floor drain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Ragsdill to include cleaning or mopping the drain lid as is known in the art for the purpose of preventing blockages of the drain. As described above, such cleaning or mopping includes manually removing long hair residues remaining above a gap between the cover plate and the collar to prevent blockage of the floor drain (because hair residues on the lid are above the gap between the cover plate and collar).
Ragsdill further discloses Step 3, for internal cleaning of the floor drain (para. 0034), firstly holding the cover plate (plate of 402 which is held, at least indirectly, prior to its removal) and taking the cover plate out from the base 401 (basket is removable by hand as described in para. 0034), then holding the drainage cover 403 and pulling the drainage cover out from the drainage pipe 405 (cover 403 is also removable by hand as described in para. 0034; it is noted that 402 must be removed prior to removal of 403 to allow access to 403), and cleaning the dirt accumulated in the drainage channel (channel at least between the pipe and the portion indicated at 420 of the base body in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device; it is noted that accumulated dirt is inherently cleaned during “cleaning” described in para. 0034) to avoid the blockage of the floor drain (cleaning of accumulated dirt inherently assists in avoiding blockage of the floor drain).
Regarding Claim 2, Ragsdill further discloses, wherein during sewage discharge, the sewage sequentially passes through the drainage gap (gap between the outer surface of 402 and the inner surface of 401), the drainage channel (including the portion between the outside of 403 and the inside surface of 401) and the water inlet (water inlet at the open terminal end 422 as described above), and enters the drainage cavity (cavity between the outer surface of 405 and the inner surface of 415 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device); and the sewage in the drainage cavity then flows into the drainage pipe 405 (as shown by the line 410), and the sewage drainage pipe 405 is discharged into the sewage pipeline (this is inherently achieved as described above).
Regarding Claim 3, Ragsdill further discloses, wherein after the sewage on the ground is drained (i.e. sewage on the floor 407 as best understood as described above), some sewage remains in the drainage channel (including the portion between the outside of 403 and the inside surface of 401) and the drainage cavity (cavity between the outer surface of 405 and the inner surface of 415 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device; i.e. this cavity formed below the drainage channel), forming a water seal between the indoor and the drainage pipe 405 (as shown in Figure 4) to prevent odor backflow (via the water seal).
Regarding Claim 4, Ragsdill further discloses, wherein during the drainage process, when a water level in the drainage cavity (cavity between the outer surface of 405 and the inner surface of 415 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device; i.e. this cavity formed below the drainage channel) exceeds an upper opening of the drainage pipe 405, a liquid flows downward under an own gravity (as shown by line 410), creating a bell siphon effect for rapid drainage (this is shown in Figure 4 and seen to be achieved in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device; it is noted that “rapid discharge” is a broad term that has not been given a special definition in applicant’s specification as filed and therefore is seen to be met by the structure of Ragsdill).
Regarding Claim 6, Ragsdill further discloses the step of preventing clogging further comprise reducing a flow velocity of sewage in the drainage channel (the drainage channel including the portion between the outside of 403 and the inside surface of 401; velocity is reduced via the flow impacting wall 414), allowing solid waste in the sewage to settle within the drainage channel (solid waste may settle in portion 420 as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Ragsdill is seen as further disclosing, wherein after long hair is intercepted by the drainage gap (drainage gap between the outer surface of 402 and the inner surface of 401 as described above; it is noted that during normal use at least some long hair is intercepted by this gap), the long hair remains on a surface of the cover plate (plate of 402) for subsequent manual cleaning (as described with respect to claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 8, Ragsdill is seen as further disclosing, wherein during the step of internal cleaning of the floor drain (as described above), the drainage cover 403 and the cover plate (plate of 402 as described above) are separately removed to achieve multi-level cleaning inside the floor drain (separately removed as described in para. 0034).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragsdill (US Patent Application 2005/0016094) in view of Kwan (KR 102045492; attached with machine translation).
Regarding Claim 5, Ragsdill does not disclose an inner surface of the drainage cover is provided with spiral grooves or spiral flow channels, and flowing sewage forms a spiral water flow when passing through the spiral grooves or spiral flow channels during drainage, thereby accelerating a water flow speed.
Kwan teaches a drain structure and further teaches (Figure 5 especially) an inner surface of a drainage cover 300 is provided with spiral grooves or spiral flow channels (formed via vortex portion 310 as shown in Figure 5), and flowing sewage forms a spiral water flow (vortex) when passing through the spiral grooves or spiral flow channels during drainage, thereby accelerating a water flow speed (this is achieved in at least the same manner in which it is achieved by applicant’s spiral flow channels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Ragsdill such that the drainage cover includes spiral flow channels as taught by Kwan for the purpose of creating a vortex of flow to thereby promote drainage of the water.
Claims 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragsdill (US Patent Application 2005/0016094) in view of Wei (CN 115404970; attached with machine translation).
Regarding Claim 9, Ragsdill does not disclose, wherein when removing the cover plate, one end of the cover plate is pressed downward by a hand, causing the other end of the to cover plate lift upward, and then the lifted end is grasped to remove the cover plate from the base.
Wei teaches a floor drain and further teaches wherein, when removing a cover plate 302, one end of the cover plate is pressed downward by a hand (the portion of plate 302 adjacent to plate 303 is pressed downward by hand to cause folding of the entire device 3), causing the other end of the to cover plate 302 lift upward (via the folding at pivot shaft 301), and then the lifted end is grasped to remove the cover plate from the base (“to conveniently take out the floor drain cover”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Ragsdill such that the lid 406 includes a foldable cover plate as taught by Wei for the purpose of providing a structure which is easily removed from the drain. It is noted that for the purpose of this claim, the modified lid 406 (in view of Wei) is relied upon as readable on the recited cover plate. It is noted that this cover plate forms a drainage gap with the base in the manner taught by Wei (gaps formed between the lateral extensions taught by Wei as best shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Ragsdill in view of Wei (the proposed modification of Ragsdill in view of Wei as described with respect to claim 9 above is incorporated herein) further discloses, wherein when embedding the base into the ground (i.e. into the floor 407 of Ragsdill as best understood as described above), a top of the base 401 and an upper surface of the cover plate (406 of Ragsdill as modified in view of Wei as described above) are made flush with a decorative layer of the floor (layer 407 of Ragsdill is readable as a “decorative layer”, as this term is not given a special definition and any layer may be seen as “decorative”; the base and cover plate are flush with each other in the manner taught by Wei as shown in Figure 1 and are flush with the floor in the manner disclosed by Ragsdill in Figure 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu (US Patent Application 2021/0363743) teaches a floor drain with a cover plate 5 forming a gap with a base. Yang (US Patent Application 2022/0389702) teaches a drain with a drainage cover 40.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
