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 .
Examiner Comments
The request filed on 10/22/2025 for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. 29926764 is acceptable and a CPA has been established. An action on the CPA follows.
This is a CPA of applicant's earlier Application No. 29926764. All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
After careful review the Examiner does not find the applicant’s arguments to be persuasive, therefore the following rejections is made final.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Final Claim Rejection - 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.
The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Design Patent D978293 (NPL Reference “F” 02/14/2023 on Form 892) in view of Patent Publication US 20210207349 A1 (NPL Reference “M” 07/08/2021 on Form 892).
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth 35 U.S.C. §102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious not later than the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.
Design Patent D978293 has an overall appearance with design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design, in showing that includes as follows:
L-shaped spout with a rectangular base
Rectangular handles with a flat extended lip portion
Square base under the spout and handles
PNG
media_image1.png
488
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claimed design
Design Patent D978293
The claimed design differs from Design Patent D978293 because of the rounded corners of the spout.
Patent Publication US 20210207349 A1 shows an L-shaped faucet with rounded corners.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
215
315
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claimed design
Patent Publication US 20210207349 A1
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill not later than the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Design Patent D978293 by rounding the corners, as taught by Patent Publication US 20210207349 A1. This modification would have been within the skill of an ordinarily skilled designer. Additionally, faucets with rounded corners are well known in the art of faucets as shown in the cited prior art. The rounding of the base around each handle and faucet is not shown but is minor and is not considered a patentable distinction.
The claimed design would have no patentable distinction over the examiner’s combination of references.
Claim Rejection - 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.
The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KES Black Bathroom Faucet (NPL Reference “U” 12/14/2022 on Form 892) in view of Patent Publication US 20210207349 A1 (NPL Reference “M” 07/08/2021 on Form 892).
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth 35 U.S.C. §102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious not later than the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.
KES Black Bathroom Faucet has an overall appearance with design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design, in showing that includes as follows:
L-shaped spout with a rectangular base
Rectangular handles with a flat extended lip portion
Square base under the spout and handles
PNG
media_image1.png
488
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
295
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claimed design
KES Black Bathroom Faucet
The claimed design differs from KES Black Bathroom Faucet because of the rounded corners of the spout.
Patent Publication US 20210207349 A1 shows an L-shaped faucet with rounded corners.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
215
315
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claimed design
Patent Publication US 20210207349 A1
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill not later than the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify KES Black Bathroom Faucet by rounding the corners, as taught by Patent Publication US 20210207349 A1. This modification would have been within the skill of an ordinarily skilled designer. Additionally, faucets with rounded corners are well known in the art of faucets as shown in the cited prior art. The rounding of the base around each handle and faucet is not shown but is minor and is not considered a patentable distinction.
The claimed design would have no patentable distinction over the examiner’s combination of references.
Non-statutory Double Patenting
The claim is provisionally rejected on the grounds of provisional non-statutory double patenting of the claim of copending Application No. 29/934,175. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because overall appearances are substantially the same. 29943175 differs from the claimed design in the orientation of the handles relative to the spout, the rounded corners of the base, handles and spout, and the circular features on the back of the handles. At the time applicant made the design, it would have been obvious to modify the orientation of the handles, and the shorter height of the handles as demonstrated by D978293. Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the rectangular base with rounded corners, and plain handles as demonstrated by D856490. Lastly, it would have been obvious to round each fitting as demonstrated by Fig. 1A as seen in PG Pubs Application 20210207349. All other features between the two designs, including the overall shape, overall. proportioning, and placement and relationship of features, are the same between the two applications. Therefore, the two designs are held to be patentably indistinct. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
PNG
media_image5.png
363
1285
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is well settled that it is unobviousness in the overall appearance of the claimed
design, when compared with the prior art, rather than minute details or small variations
in design as appears to be the case here, that constitutes the test of design patentability. See In re Frick, 275 F.2d 741, 125 USPQ 191 (CCPA 1960) and /n re
Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 128 USPQ 539 (CCPA 1961).
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.131(c). A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Examiner Rebuttal
The Examiner has considered applicants comments and remarks. However, the differences
pointed out, the spout, handles, and base have sharp corners verses rounded corners is not
persuasive because such a modification is no more than a simple substitution of one known design
element for another (rounded corner design element replacing squared corner design element).
Additionally, such substitution of one known design element for another known design element in the
same field of endeavor would have been within the skill of an ordinarily skilled designer. Moreover,
Obvious changes in arrangement and proportioning are no more patentable in one case than in the
other. (In re Stevens, 624 O.G. 366; 81 USPQ 362 (CCPA 1949). It is both a small difference and obvious
to round edges and/or make rounded edges sharp. Rounding corners is obvious expedient in designs. (In
re Peet, 101 USPQ 203 (CCPA 1954)). It is not significant enough to warrant a patent for the overall
appearance of the claimed design over the prior art. (In re Lapworth, 172 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1971)).”
Therefore, the argument is not found to be persuasive and this rejection is made final.
Conclusion
The claim stands FINALLY REJECTED under 35 USC § 103 and Non-statutory Double Patenting.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
PNG
media_image6.png
18
19
media_image6.png
Greyscale
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL RASHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-9151. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, Dana Weiland can be reached on 571-270-0253. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2914 /NATASHA VUJCIC/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2913