Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1011117
`
`Filing date:
`
`10/24/2019
`
`Proceeding
`
`Applicant
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Attachments
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`87555014
`
`WCM Industries, Inc.
`
`SCOTT W JOHNSTON
`MERCHANT & GOULD PC
`PO BOX 2910
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0910
`UNITED STATES
`17905.0002US01.active@ef.merchantgould.com, pcole-
`man@merchantgould.com, dockmpls@merchantgould.com, sjohn-
`ston@merchantgould.com, slindemeier@merchantgould.com
`303-332-5300
`
`Reply Brief
`
`2019 10 24 Applicants Reply Brief 87555014.PDF(177210 bytes )
`2019 10 24 Appendix A to Applicants Reply Brief 87555014.PDF(828865 bytes )
`
`Scott W. Johnston
`
`sjohnston@merchantgould.com, slindemeier@merchantgould.com
`
`/SWJ/
`
`10/24/2019
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLICATION SERIAL NO: 87/555,014
`APPLICANT: WCM Industries, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`FILING DATE: 08/03/2017
`EX. ATTORNEY: Heather A. Sales
`
`MARK:
`
`
`
`
` DOCKET NO: 17905.0002US01
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S REPLY BRIEF
`
`The Examining Attorney errs in her functionality analysis because the benefits described in
`
`Applicant’s patents and touted in Applicant’s advertising are not attributable to the features claimed as
`
`Applicant’s mark. Applicant’s mark is the specific ornamental appearance of its bath overflow cap, not
`
`the internal workings, the attachment mechanisms, or the vent that facilitates fluid flow. Moreover, the
`
`record shows that there are many alternative designs available and used by others, and that Applicant’s
`
`cap is no less expensive to make than other configurations. Accordingly, Applicant’s mark is not
`
`functional under Section 2(e)(5).
`
`In addition, Applicant has more than met its burden to show that Applicant’s mark has acquired
`
`distinctiveness through 18 years of exclusive use, nearly 12 million units sold, $2.8 million in advertising
`
`and marketing expenditures, 166 signed declarations from customers and those in the industry from
`
`around the country, and dozens of alternative designs used by others. These facts show that consumers
`
`have come to associate Applicant’s mark with Applicant and use it to distinguish Applicant’s bath
`
`overflow cap from caps made by others. Accordingly, Applicant’s mark should be allowed.
`
`I. APPLICANT’S MARK IS NOT FUNCTIONAL UNDER SECTION 2(E)(5)
`
`A. Applicant’s Mark Includes Many Features That Have Been Disregarded.
`
`The Examining Attorney’s functionality and distinctiveness refusals improperly disregard
`
`important visual and ornamental features of Applicant’s mark. It is well-settled that the “drawing depicts
`
`the mark to be registered,” not the words used to describe it. 13, In re OEP Enter., Inc. 2019 USPQ2d
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`309323 (TTAB 2019). While the Examining Attorney only discusses the generally cylindrical form,
`
`smooth face, and elongated slot, all of which are not functional, Applicant’s overflow drain cap has
`
`important design elements that help distinguish it from caps made by others, including a gentle convex
`
`contour on the face of the cap, a rounded edge as the cap curves from the face to the side wall, and a
`
`distinctive elongated slot with curved ends that is contained entirely in the side wall and stretches up on
`
`either side like a smile. It is this total collection of elements that make up Applicant’s mark and must be
`
`considered when assessing functionality and distinctiveness. Id.
`
`B. Applicant’s Utility Patents Do Not Describe Any Utilitarian Advantages of the Outer
`Appearance of Applicant’s Overflow Cap.
`
`Applicant’s utility patents do not support the conclusion that Applicant’s mark is functional. In
`
`order for a patent to support a finding of functionality, it must not only show the claimed configuration,
`
`but must also show that the claimed configuration provides a utilitarian benefit. See e.g., In re 3M
`
`Company, 2012 USPQ2d 7701886 (TTAB 2012). Similarly, Applicant’s patents include drawings that
`
`show the outer appearance of Applicant’s overflow cap. However, they do not claim that outer
`
`appearance and do not attribute a utilitarian benefit to the outer appearance.
`
`In Traffix Devices v. Mktg. Displays, 592 U.S. 23, 30 (2001), the Supreme Court said one can
`
`show a feature is not functional “by showing that it is merely an ornamental, incidental, or arbitrary
`
`aspect of the device.” The Court found the dual spring arrangement at issue functional because it was
`
`the central advance claimed in the utility patents. However, the court made the following contrast:
`
`In a case where a manufacturer seeks to protect arbitrary, incidental, or ornamental aspects of
`features of a product found in the patent claims, such as arbitrary curves in the legs or an
`ornamental pattern painted on the springs, a different result might obtain. Id. at 34.
`
`In this case, the central advances claimed and extolled in Applicant’s patents are various snap-on
`
`attachment mechanisms for overflow caps and internal structures that facilitate fluid flow. In contrast,
`
`Applicant’s trademark is directed to the ornamental appearance of the cap, including the arbitrary curves
`
`and contours of the face, sidewalls, and elongated slot. Each could be very different in shape, texture,
`
`size, structure, and appearance, but they are fixed in a specific design that Applicant has used and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`promoted for many years, and has come to identify Applicant’s overflow drain caps and distinguish them
`
`from those of others. As such, Applicant’s mark should be allowed to register.
`
`The Examining Attorney points to five issued patents and one published patent application and
`
`contends that they describe the utilitarian benefits of Applicant’s mark. While these patents are directed
`
`to inventions and features associated with bath overflow drain systems, none is directed to, or extols the
`
`utilitarian benefits of, the specific outer appearance of Applicant’s mark. The main patent cited by the
`
`Examining Attorney, U.S. Pat. No. 8769736 (the “‘736 patent”), is directed to a device and method for
`
`concealing an overflow plate (42) using retention plates (178 and 182) that are positioned between the
`
`overflow plate (42) and the bathtub (6) and to which the overflow plate cover is attached. (Nov. 15,
`
`2017, Office Action, TSDR pp. 2-9). The Examining Attorney quotes several passages in the ‘736
`
`patent. However, none of these passages discusses utilitarian benefits of the outer appearance of the
`
`claimed cap design.
`
`The Examining Attorney also relies heavily on Applicant’s U.S. Patent Pub. No. US
`
`2018/0044899 (the “‘899 patent application”), entitled “Device for Providing Improved Drainage.” It
`
`focuses on features not necessary to Applicant’s mark that help improve the ability of the system to
`
`drain, such as a second opening called the “vent opening (182),” which allows air into the cap as it is
`
`draining, and internal structures that facilitate fluid flow.1 The excerpts from Applicant’s patents on
`
`which the Examining Attorney relies (many of which are miss-quoted) do not describe or claim the
`
`specific appearance of the face, the curves, the side walls, the elongated slot, the edges, the height, or the
`
`circumference. Just because they specify an overflow plate cover positioned generally in line with the
`
`fluid opening of the overflow plate does not provide any information about what the cover should look
`
`1 The Examining Attorney also cites to two references to “vent opening 180” in the ‘899 patent application to argue
`that Applicant’s elongated slot structure improves drainage. 9, Examiner’s Statement, TTABVue, pp.8. Those
`references (Col. 7, ll. 31 and 34 in the issued US Patent 10,443,220), however, were typographical errors, and a
`request for Certificate of Correction was filed on October 16, 2019, to correct them to read “vent opening 182.” As
`clearly explained in the ‘899 application, the improved drainage is achieved by introducing a second opening, “a
`vent opening 182,” in addition to the “overflow opening 180,” so that the air pressure from inside the overflow
`assembly is allowed to equalize with the air pressure outside of the overflow assembly. The claimed vent opening is
`not necessary to Applicant’s mark. Thus, nothing in the identified patent shows that the claimed configuration
`increases the fluid flow capacity of an overflow system.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`like to make it work, what texture it will use, whether and how many holes it might have, or what overall
`
`shape it will take. The patents do not discuss these ornamental features because they are not relevant to
`
`the inventions claimed therein, which involve the means for attaching an overflow drain plate cover to
`
`the overflow system and internal structures that improve fluid flow.
`
`There is no evidence in the record that a bath cap that looks like Applicant’s bath cap works
`
`better because of its appearance. The particular gentle curves of the face and side walls do not make
`
`water flow through it faster. The rounded ends of the elongated slot do not make the cap work better.
`
`Enclosing the entirety of the elongated slot in the sidewall does not make water leave the tub faster.
`
`Instead, these features are purely ornamental and serve to distinguish Applicant’s cap from others.
`
`The Examining Attorney also argues that the configuration is functional because it does not
`
`require screws. Again, the means by which the cap attaches is not claimed in Applicant’s mark. Further,
`
`there are many other ways to design an overflow cap that snaps on as evidenced by the multitude of
`
`different third party overflow caps in the record that do not have screw holes. See Section I.E. below.
`
`The Examining Attorney also contends that a cylindrical shape is functional because it can cover
`
`a cylindrical shaped drainpipe. First, there is no functional reason why a cylindrical cover must be used
`
`with a cylindrical pipe. Further, Applicant is not merely claiming a cylindrical body. Rather, Applicant
`
`is claiming the specific structure shown in the drawing of the trademark application as Applicant’s mark,
`
`including the specific gentle convex contour of the face, the soft curves to the sidewall, the width and
`
`length of the elongated slot set entirely within the sidewall, and the curved ends of the elongated slot.
`
`C. Applicant’s Advertising Materials Do Not Tout Utilitarian Advantages of Applicant’s
`Claimed Design.
`
`The second Morton-Norwich factor, advertising by the applicant that touts the utilitarian
`
`advantages of the design, also fails to show that Applicant’s mark is functional. The Examining
`
`Attorney points to claims in Applicant’s advertising that allegedly tout the advantages of Applicant’s
`
`overflow cover, such as “installs in minutes” or “high-flow capacity” and just assumes that they are
`
`attributable to Applicant’s mark. However, none of these advantages is attributable to the exterior
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`ornamental appearance of the overflow drain cover.
`
`Applicant’s advertising touts advantages to Applicant’s various bath overflow systems, but does
`
`not attribute those advantages to the outer appearance of Applicant’s overflow cap. The same is true of
`
`the numerous declarations that praised the ease of installation and ability of the overflow cap to be
`
`snapped on and off – the means by which the overflow cap is attached are not shown or claimed in
`
`Applicant’s mark. Further, an understanding of how Applicant’s various overflow systems and overflow
`
`cap actually work makes clear that all of the identified advantages are because of hidden, internal
`
`features and not the outer appearance of the cap. If Applicant were trying to register the structure that
`
`enables an overflow cap to snap onto the drain pipe system, that would likely be functional. But here,
`
`Applicant’s mark is only the outer appearance of the overflow cap, which is not “essential to the use or
`
`purpose of the article.” Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165, 34 USPQ2d 1161,
`
`1163-64 (1995). Competitors seeking to replicate the snap-on functionality can do so without making
`
`their overflow cap look the same as Applicant’s distinctive cap.
`
`Finally, the Examining Attorney argues that Applicant’s mark is functional because Applicant’s
`
`description of its design process included objectives of making the cap strong, yet flexible enough to
`
`snap onto the retainer nut, and of sufficient size to drain properly but not look bad. These considerations
`
`are simply requirements for an overflow drain cover to work for its intended purpose. But they do not
`
`dictate the outer appearance of the cap, the texture, the number, arrangement or position of the drain
`
`openings, the radius of the curves from the side walls to the face, or the nature of the contours of the
`
`face. These were all arbitrary design decisions that Applicant made in order to create not just a
`
`functioning overflow bath drain cap, but one that was distinctive looking and appealing to the consumer.
`
`There are a virtually unlimited number of ways to configure the outer appearance of an overflow drain
`
`cover that meets these objectives as evidenced by the numerous third party products that use distinct
`
`outer appearances. Since one need not make the outside of the product look like Applicant’s mark in
`
`order for it to work, Applicant’s design is not essential to the use or purpose of the article.
`
`D. Applicant’s Mark is Not Aesthetically Functional.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`The Examining Attorney also contends that Applicant’s mark should be denied as aesthetically
`
`functional because providing a product without screw holes on its face “merely enhances the
`
`attractiveness of the product, which is a competitive advantage over competitors, and, thus, should
`
`remain in the public domain.” Examining Attorney’s Appeal Brief at 7. The aesthetic functionality
`
`doctrine does not apply in this case because: (1) Applicant’s mark is directed to the overall outer
`
`appearance of the overflow cap, not just an overflow cap without one or more screw holes; and (2)
`
`competitors are free to create and have created their own overflow cap designs without screw holes that
`
`use distinctly different overall appearances. When competitors are and have adopted different
`
`configurations, as is the case here, it is unlikely that there is a competitive need for others to use the
`
`claimed configuration. See Grote Indus. v. Truck-Lite Co., LLC, 126 U.S.P.Q.2D 1197, 1209-1210
`
`(TTAB 2018). Accordingly, Applicant’s mark is not aesthetically functional.
`
`E. The Plethora of Alternative Configurations Used by Competitors Supports the
`Conclusion that Applicant’s Mark is Not Functional.
`
`The third Morton-Norwich factor, availability of alternative designs, further supports the
`
`conclusion that Application’s mark is not functional. The record shows that many competitors make
`
`overflow drain cover caps that do not employ Applicant’s distinctive design. In fact, there are even a
`
`large number of dissimilar looking caps that are generally cylindrical, without screw holes, as shown in
`
`Appendix A. When competitors routinely opt for different designs for their products, this is evidence
`
`that the “same functions can be performed by a variety of other shapes with no sacrifice of any functional
`
`advantage.” In re Morton-Norwich, 213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) at 16. The large number of alternative designs
`
`used by third parties, including caps without screw holes and caps that are generally cylindrical, shows
`
`that one need not use Applicant’s design in order to compete effectively. Accordingly, the availability of
`
`alternative designs also supports the conclusion that Applicant’s mark is not functional.
`
`
`
`The Examining Attorney speculates that “Applicant’s competition may have had to seek
`
`alternative designs because of legal necessity directly stemming from the functional advantages of
`
`Applicant’s design and the corresponding patent.” Examiner’s Statement at 18. Again, the Examining
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney misreads and misunderstands Applicant’s patents, which focus on the means for connecting the
`
`cap, not the outer appearance of the cap. In addition, the citation to Applicant’s patent infringement case
`
`against IPS Corporation is misguided because that case focused on the mechanism for attaching the cap
`
`to the overflow system, not the outer appearance of the cap. May 14, 2018 Resp. to OA at 55, 533-555.
`
`F. Applicant’s Mark is Not Easier or Less Expensive to Manufacture Than Other Designs.
`
`There is no evidence in the record that suggests Applicant’s overflow cap is easier or less
`
`expensive to manufacture than other designs. To the contrary, Applicant’s Vice President, Kevin G. Fink,
`
`testified that considerable time and effort went into designing Applicant’s cap. He also testified that it
`
`involves a cost to manufacture that is similar to third parties that manufacture overflow caps composed of
`
`similar materials. Fink Declaration, ¶ 5. Therefore, the fourth Morton-Norwich factor also supports the
`
`conclusion that Applicant’s mark is not functional.
`
`In sum, Applicant’s mark is not functional. Neither Applicant’s patents nor advertising tout
`
`utilitarian benefits that are attributable to the ornamental appearance of Applicant’s overflow cap. In
`
`addition, Applicant’s cap is one of a virtually unlimited number of configurations that are available to
`
`competitors and is not easier or less expensive to manufacture than other designs. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant’s mark is not functional.
`
`II.
`
`APPLICANT’S MARK HAS ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS UNDER SECTION 2(F)
`AND IS A DISTINCT PRODUCT DESIGN UNDER SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 45.
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Applicant’s Mark is Comprised of Interdependent Product Configuration Elements
`that are Recognized by the Relevant Purchasing Class as Original and Distinctive.
`
`Applicant’s mark is a wholly-original design, which does not merely represent a variation on
`
`otherwise pedestrian features commonplace to competing product configurations. The Examining
`
`Attorney argues that Applicant’s mark lacks source-indicating significance because its design combines a
`
`common shape with a water flow opening with other features the Examining Attorney categorizes as
`
`“ordinary” to competing overflow water caps. To support this proposition, the Examining Attorney relies
`
`on the holding in In re Mars, where the Trademark Office found the applicant’s pet food can to be a mere
`
`inverted design of other competitive products. 105 USPQ2d 1859, 1870 (TTAB 2013). As such, the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Board determined that the pet food can shared “many of the same features” and was “almost identical” to
`
`its competitors’ product configuration. Id. at 1871. Here, Applicant’s mark does not represent a variation
`
`on an otherwise ordinary water cap so simple as to be an inversion of the product configuration. Not one
`
`of Applicant’s competitors incorporate all of the elements of Applicant’s mark, and certainly none
`
`incorporates nearly the same elements transposed as in In re Mars. Unlike the facts underlying the
`
`Board’s holding in In re Mars, Applicant sets forth an original, distinctive design with a peculiar
`
`appearance, separating Applicant’s mark from not some, but all, competing products.
`
`In submitting 166 declarations of manufacture representatives and other plumbing industry
`
`consumers (May 15, 2018 Response to Office Action pp. 1286-1618), Applicant has gone beyond
`
`demonstrating that none of its competitors offer products with a related or identical design. The evidence
`
`makes clear that the relevant purchasing class recognizes Applicant’s mark and use the design features
`
`claimed therein to readily distinguish Applicant’s product from third party offerings. Contrary to the
`
`Examining Attorney’s contentions, Applicant has demonstrated that its overflow cap mark is neither a
`
`basic design nor a mere refinement of or ornamentation for a particular class of goods, and that its mark is
`
`unique and has created a distinct commercial impression that adequately distinguishes Applicant’s
`
`products from those of others.
`
`B. Applicant’s Representative Advertisement and Advertising Expenditures Evidence Are
`Strong Indicators of its Mark’s Source-Identifying Properties.
`
`Applicant’s submission of representative advertisements and advertising expenditure costs
`
`constitute valuable evidence of acquired distinctiveness that the Examining Attorney has mistakenly
`
`overlooked. The Examining Attorney has cited to the Board’s decision in Stuart Spector Designs in an
`
`effort to establish that Applicant’s evidence solely demonstrates its efforts to promote its product and its
`
`commercial success therefrom as opposed to demonstrate consumer recognition of the same. 94 USPQ2d
`
`at 1549 (TTAB 2009). Yet, in its Stuart Spector Design decision, the Trademark Office conceded that,
`
`while “sales and advertising figures do not always amount to a finding of acquired distinctiveness,” “the
`
`more important question is how the alleged mark is being used, i.e., in what manner have consumers
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`been exposed to the alleged mark so that we can impute consumer association between the configuration
`
`and the product producer.” Id. at 1572.
`
`“’Look for’ advertising refers to advertising that directs the potential consumer in no uncertain
`
`terms to look for a certain feature to know that it is from that source,” which is precisely the breed of
`
`advertisements submitted by Applicant. Kohler Co., v. Honda Gilken Kogyo K.K., 125 USPQ2d 1468,
`
`1516 (2017). Id. at 1517. Applicant’s numerous representative advertisements prominently display its
`
`overflow cap mark and draw the attention of the viewer to aspects of its design in call out statements
`
`pictographs. Applicant’s advertising is clearly relevant “look for” advertising that is not limited to
`
`promoting product desirability, but hastens viewers to draw connections between the product, its design
`
`features, and the product source. (May 14, 2018 Response to Office Action at 401-517.) It remains
`
`TTAB precedent to consider an applicant’s marketing efforts in order to fully investigate consumer
`
`associations. Applicant’s advertisements featuring the design claimed in the application and large
`
`number of sales (11,840,000 caps sold) in conjunction therewith are persuasive evidence supporting the
`
`proposition that its mark has achieved secondary meaning. Id. at 53.)
`
`C. The Declarations Submitted by Applicant Constitute Valuable Evidence of Acquired
`Distinctiveness Emanating from the Relevant Purchasing Class.
`
`Applicant’s submission of 166 declarations from individuals working for plumbing wholesalers,
`
`individual plumbers, and others who work in or are associated with the plumbing industry constitute
`
`overwhelmingly persuasive evidence regarding acquired distinctiveness. (May 15, 2018 Response to
`
`Office Action pp. 1286-1618). Applicant vehemently disagrees with the assertion that the contents of the
`
`declarations it submitted were “not completely composed individually” or not “expressed in the
`
`declarants’ own words.” The declarations included a space for submission, in their own words, of any
`
`description deemed applicable that indicates what particular attributes of the mark in question are
`
`recognized as emanating from Applicant. The declarants’ statements were in their own words and
`
`handwriting. Applicant also disagrees that the declarations were of limited geographic diversity and
`
`biased. In fact, the declarations submitted by Applicant were from manufacturer representatives and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`customers from different sales territories across the U.S., and who represent multiple plumbing product
`
`manufacturers. Id. at 56. Moreover, manufacturer representatives further disseminated declarations to
`
`their downstream customers, many of whom also submitted a declaration. Id. Therefore, numerous
`
`declarants had no direct communication or business relationship with Applicant and were not biased.
`
`The declarations submitted by Applicant stem from a sample of geographically dispersed
`
`declarants who represent a wide range of participants in the plumbing industry. Id. Each declarant
`
`independently submitted feedback with regard to the elements of Applicant’s product that they believe
`
`are strongly associated with Applicant and its goods. Id. at 1286-1618. Feedback indicating that
`
`Applicant’s overflow cap having a “clean aesthetic design” with “rounded edges,” and a “smooth” and
`
`“screwless” face is well-recognized as a product stemming from Applicant serves as a litmus test
`
`indicating the source identifying properties of the applied-for mark. Id. at 57-63. Consequently, this
`
`evidence constitutes valuable evidence of secondary meaning which overwhelmingly supports the
`
`conclusion that Applicant’s mark has achieved acquired distinctiveness.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`III.
`
`
`Applicant has shown that the specific ornamental appearance of Applicant’s mark is not dictated by
`
`functional considerations, is one of many available designs, and is not less expensive to manufacture.
`
`Thus, it is not functional. Moreover, Applicant’s extensive use, massive sales, significant advertising,
`
`and multitude of customer and industry declarations prove that Applicant’s mark has acquired
`
`distinctiveness and serves to identify the source of Applicant’s overflow cap. Accordingly, the refusals
`
`under Sections 2(e)(5) and 1, 2 and 45 should be withdrawn, and Applicant’s application approved for
`
`publication.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 24, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`WCM INDUSTRIES, INC.
`By its Attorneys,
`/s/ Scott W. Johnston
`Scott W. Johnston
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`P.O. Box 2910
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Appendix A
`
`Alternative Overflow Cap Designs Used by Competitors
`
`Danco’s No External Screw Cap
`
`Westbrass No External Screw Cap
`
`(Feb. 4, 2019 TEAS Request Reconsideration after
`FOA at 13, 88-89).
`
`AB&A No External Screw Cap
`
`(Feb. 4, 2019 TEAS Request Reconsideration after
`FOA at 14).
`Kohler Overflow Hood
`
`(May 15, 2018 Response to Office Action at 127,
`551, 1265, 1281; Feb. 4, 2019 TEAS Request
`Reconsideration after FOA at 91-93).
`
`(May 15, 2018 Response to Office Action at 126,
`558, 1272; Feb. 4, 2019 TEAS Request
`Reconsideration after FOA at 96).
`
`(Feb. 4, 2019 TEAS Request Reconsideration after
`FOA at 97).
`
`(Feb. 4, 2019 TEAS Request Reconsideration after
`FOA at 108).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Storm Plumbing (May 15, 2018 OA p. 1275)
`
`SlipX Solutions (May 14, 2018 Resp. p. 90)
`
`(May 15, 2018 Response to Office Action at 126,
`561, 1275).
`Kohler PureFlo
`
`(May 15, 2018 Response to Office Action at 123).
`
`Westbrass
`
`(Nov. 19, 2018 Office Action at 12; Oct. 4, 2019
`Examiners Statement at 18)
`Kohler Escale
`
`(Feb. 4, 2019 TEAS Request Reconsideration after
`FOA at 14, 81-84).
`
`Kallista Perfect
`
`(Oct. 4, 2019 Examiners Statement at 18).
`
`(Oct. 4, 2019 Examiners Statement at 18).
`
`2
`
`

`

`(Feb. 4, 2019 TEAS Request Reconsideration after
`FOA at 76-78).
`
`Feb. 4, 2019 TEAS Request Reconsideration after
`FOA at 85).
`
`3
`
`