DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
Annotated Representative Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
951
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 specifies:
PNG
media_image2.png
169
639
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The recitation in claim 1, "the frame is continuously rotatable to any angular orientation with respect to the base without rotating the connector relative to the base, and wherein the frame can be secured to the connector in any angular orientation" appears to lack clear, positive basis in the disclosure. The recitations “continuously rotatable” and “any angular orientation” do not appear to be present in the originally filed disclosure.
Independent claim 21 specifies:
PNG
media_image3.png
190
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The recitation in independent claim 21, “frame being continuously rotatable about the base axis to any angular orientation relative to the connector and the base, the frame capable of being secured to the connector to prevent rotation of the frame relative to the connector and the base at any angular orientation” appears to lack clear, positive basis in the disclosure. The recitations “continuously rotatable” and “any angular orientation” do not appear to be present in the originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 21-24 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.
In claims 1 and 21, a single aperture is not seen to define a “grate”. Use of the term “grate” to describe a component that has only one aperture, is considered misdescriptive.
In claims 3 and 4, it is unclear what Applicant intends by “without moving the first joint”. It is unclear how a “joint” can be moved in the context of the claims/invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6,8,10 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZURN Z158-C-E-VP (2018). See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
1030
804
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of ZURN Z158-C-E-VP (2018) and ZURN Z158-C (2008).
PNG
media_image4.png
1030
804
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Independent claim 11 differs from ZURN Z158-C-E-VP by specifying, “an aperture in fluid communication with the channel, the aperture extending through portions of the second surface and the sidewall.” ZURN Z158-C discloses such, in a similar system.
ZURN Z158-C discloses:
ENGINEERING SPECIFICATION: ZURN Z158-C
10 [254] Square Top Prom-Deck drain, Dura-Coated cast iron body with
rotatable square promenade frame with seepage openings, frame
clamps, light-duty heel-proof grate, and underdeck clamp
PNG
media_image5.png
1036
744
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
973
758
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
983
763
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ZURN Z158-C-E-VP (2018) in view of the teachings of ZURN Z158-C (2008) by incorporating “an aperture in fluid communication with the channel, the aperture extending through portions of the second surface and the sidewall”, in order to facilitate drainage of liquid from about the drain.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Z158-C-E-VP (2018) as applied to claims 1-6,8,10 and 21-24 above, and further in view of ZURN Z158-C (2008).
Dependent claim 7 differs from ZURN Z158-C-E-VP by specifying, “wherein the frame includes a plurality of apertures in fluid communication with the channel, and wherein the plurality of apertures are open to the second surface.” ZURN Z158-C discloses such, in a similar system, as detailed immediately above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ZURN Z158-C-E-VP (2018) in view of the teachings of ZURN Z158-C (2008) by incorporating “a plurality of apertures in fluid communication with the channel, and wherein the plurality of apertures are open to the second surface”, in order to facilitate drainage of liquid from about the drain.
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, with respect to claim 8, a “lip” defined by the base, and a “groove” on the connector, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached from 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights