DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 11-16 are rejected and claims 1-10 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) where Lamb does not teach a “drainage system”. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “drainage system” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to applicants arguments on page 7 that Lamb does not disclose drainage pipe, the examiner respectfully disagrees as “drainage pipe” is a broad term and there is nothing structurally different between a “stove pipe” and a “drainage pipe” as both are used to convey fluids.
In response to applicant's argument on page 7 that Lamb is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Lamb and Siferd are directed to pipe connections which are both in the same field of endeavor.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 7 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lamb discloses a pipe connection comprising slots and keys to provide the benefit of securing the pipe together (2:19-22) and therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves.
In response to applicants arguments on pages 8-9 that Siferd would not have been motivated to provide slots/keys as the pipe is reinforced, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Siferd does not disclose that the pipe end cannot be modified (see MPEP 2143.01(V), where in In re Urbanski where “Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have resulted in an ‘inoperable’ process or a dietary fiber product with undesirable properties.”).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/17/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb U.S. Patent No. 92,843) in view of Siferd (U.S. Patent No. 6,199,592).
In regards to claim 11, Lamb discloses:
A drainage system (see fig. 2) comprising:
a first section of pipe having a first bell end (see annotated figs. 1-2 and 5 below), including:
a first plurality of slots (see annotated fig. 1) formed around the periphery of the first bell end termination;
a second section of pipe defined as having a second spigot end termination (see annotated fig. 2), including
a second plurality of slots formed around the periphery of the second spigot end termination
the second section of drainage pipe disposed to engage with the first section of drainage pipe such that second spigot end termination mates within the first bell end termination in an overlapped configuration (see annotated figs. 1-2),
the first and second sections of drainage pipe oriented to align the first plurality of slots with the second plurality of slots in the overlapped configuration (see annotated fig. 1, where there are slots opposite of each other for both the bell and spigot end); and
a plurality of locking key members (see annotated fig. 2 of the magnified key) disposed to pass through the aligned first and fourth pluralities of slots (ex., see annotated fig. 5) to releasably maintain connection between the first and second sections of drainage pipe,
each locking key member having an intermediate shaft portion of a length sufficient to pass through an aligned combination of a bell slot from the first plurality of slots and a spigot slot from the fourth plurality of slots (ex., see annotated fig. 5);
a horizontal bar element (see annotated fig. 2) disposed at a first end termination of the intermediate shaft portion and positioned to be perpendicular thereto; and
a knob element (see annotated fig. 2) disposed at a second, opposing end termination of the intermediate shaft portion,
wherein the locking key member is positioned such that the bar element is positioned within an interior of the engaged first and second sections of drainage pipe (ex., see annotated fig. 5) and the knob element is positioned on an exterior surface of the engaged first and second sections of drainage pipe (ex., see annotated fig. 5),
with rotation of the knob element providing change between engagement and disengagement of the first and second sections of drainage pipe in the area of the combination of the bell slot and the spigot slot, such that rotation of the plurality of locking key members permits disengagement of the second section of drainage pipe from the first section of drainage pipe (ex., it is inherent that such functional limitation would be met as both the prior art and present invention disclose similarly structured keys that are inserted into slots and rotated to be locked),
wherein either a single pipe sections can be connected to each other or multiple pipe sections can be connected to each other by using more keys (see col. 2, lines 20-23),
wherein each key is used to securely fasten the pipes together (see col. 2, lines 19-22),
but does not disclose
the opposite ends of the pipes and how they are connected.
In regards to the opposite ends, Siferd discloses:
A drainage system (see fig. 2) comprising
a first section (ex., the pipe on the left) of drainage pipe defined as having a first bell end termination (see near 7) and an opposing first spigot end termination (ex., see pipe section in fig. 1, where each section comprises a bell and spigot end) comprising a seal (ex., as shown in fig. 1, where the bell end would also comprise a spigot end comprising a seal), and
a second section of drainage pipe (ex., pipe on the right) defined as having a second bell end termination (ex., see pipe section in fig. 1, where each section comprises a bell and spigot end) and an opposing second spigot end termination (see near 5) comprising a seal (21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have the first and second sections of each pipe to comprise a bell end and an opposing spigot end because Lamb discloses that it is known to connect multiple pipe sections together (see col. 2, lines 20-23), Siferd discloses that pipes are known to comprise one end as a spigot and the opposing end as a bell (see fig. 1), and there a finite number of identified solutions of having each pipe section as either spigot ends, a belled ends, or a spigot and opposing belled end. A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because having the first and second sections of pipe of Lamb to comprise one end as a spigot end and the opposing end as a bell end is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results (ex., as shown by Siferd where this configuration for pipes are known).
PNG
media_image1.png
846
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Lamb further discloses:
The drainage system as defined in claim 11, wherein the overlapped configuration of the first bell end termination and the second spigot end termination exhibit a combined thickness T, with the length of each intermediate shaft portion of the plurality of locking key members slightly longer than the combined thickness T (ex., see annotated fig. 5 above where the length of the bar is slightly greater than the thickness of each pipe).
In regards to claim 13, Lamb further discloses:
The drainage system as defined in claim 11, wherein each slot of the pluralities of slots exhibits a common width W (ex., see annotated fig. 1) and each bar element of the plurality of locking key members exhibits a length greater than the common width W (ex., see annotated fig. 1, where each bar is greater in width to allow fastening of each pipe together).
In regards to claim 14, Lamb further discloses:
The apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the horizontal bar element of at least one locking key member comprises a rectangular element (see annotated figs. 3-4).
In regards to claim 16, Lamb in view of Siferd further discloses:
The drainage system as defined in claim 11, further comprising additional sections of drainage pipe (see col. 2, lines 20-23, where multiple pipes can be assembled together using more keys),
each additional section having a bell end termination and an opposing spigot end termination (it is inherent that each section would comprise this configuration),
including a plurality of bell slots formed around the periphery of the bell end termination and a plurality of spigot slots formed around the periphery of the opposing spigot end termination the additional sections disposed to engage in sequence with the second section of drainage pipe to form an extended drainage system (it is inherent that providing duplicated pipe sections would meet the limitation of the claim),
with a plurality of locking key elements used to releasable connect adjacent sections of drainage pipe (it is inherent that duplication the pipe sections would also requires keys).
Claim(s) 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siferd in view of Lamb.
In regards to claim 11, Siferd discloses:
A drainage system (see fig. 2) comprising
a first section (ex., the pipe on the left) of drainage pipe defined as having a first bell end termination (see near 7) and an opposing first spigot end termination (ex., see pipe section in fig. 1, where each section comprises a bell and spigot end) comprising a seal (ex., as shown in fig. 1, where the bell end would also comprise a spigot end comprising a seal),
a second section of drainage pipe (ex., pipe on the right) defined as having a second bell end termination (ex., see pipe section in fig. 1, where each section comprises a bell and spigot end) and an opposing second spigot end termination (see near 5) comprising a seal (21),
but does not disclose slots and keys used to fasten each of the pipe sections together.
In regards to the slots/keys, Lamb discloses:
a first section of pipe having a first bell end (see annotated figs. 1-2 and 5 below), including:
a first plurality of slots (see annotated fig. 1) formed around the periphery of the first bell end termination;
a second section of pipe defined as having a second spigot end termination (see annotated fig. 2), including
a second plurality of slots formed around the periphery of the second spigot end termination
the second section of drainage pipe disposed to engage with the first section of drainage pipe such that second spigot end termination mates within the first bell end termination in an overlapped configuration (see annotated figs. 1-2),
the first and second sections of drainage pipe oriented to align the first plurality of slots with the second plurality of slots in the overlapped configuration (see annotated fig. 1, where there are slots opposite of each other for both the bell and spigot end); and
a plurality of locking key members (see annotated fig. 2 of the magnified key) disposed to pass through the aligned first and fourth pluralities of slots (ex., see annotated fig. 5) to releasably maintain connection between the first and second sections of drainage pipe,
each locking key member having an intermediate shaft portion of a length sufficient to pass through an aligned combination of a bell slot from the first plurality of slots and a spigot slot from the fourth plurality of slots (ex., see annotated fig. 5);
a horizontal bar element (see annotated fig. 2) disposed at a first end termination of the intermediate shaft portion and positioned to be perpendicular thereto; and
a knob element (see annotated fig. 2) disposed at a second, opposing end termination of the intermediate shaft portion,
wherein the locking key member is positioned such that the bar element is positioned within an interior of the engaged first and second sections of drainage pipe (ex., see annotated fig. 5) and the knob element is positioned on an exterior surface of the engaged first and second sections of drainage pipe (ex., see annotated fig. 5),
with rotation of the knob element providing change between engagement and disengagement of the first and second sections of drainage pipe in the area of the combination of the bell slot and the spigot slot, such that rotation of the plurality of locking key members permits disengagement of the second section of drainage pipe from the first section of drainage pipe (ex., it is inherent that such functional limitation would be met as both the prior art and present invention disclose similarly structured keys that are inserted into slots and rotated to be locked),
wherein either a single pipe sections can be connected to each other or multiple pipe sections can be connected to each other by using more keys (see col. 2, lines 20-23),
wherein each key is used to securely fasten the pipes together (see col. 2, lines 19-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the each of the pipe sections of Siferd with the provision of a plurality slots of Lamb such that slots are provided on the bell end (ex., near 19) and corresponding slots are provided on the spigot end (ex., see near 5) where a key of Lamb is between each of the plurality of aligned slots to provide the benefit of further securely fastening the pipes together, as taught by Lamb (see col. 2, lines 19-22).
PNG
media_image1.png
846
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Siferd in view of Lamb further discloses:
The drainage system as defined in claim 11, wherein the overlapped configuration of the first bell end termination and the second spigot end termination exhibit a combined thickness T, with the length of each intermediate shaft portion of the plurality of locking key members slightly longer than the combined thickness T (ex., see annotated fig. 5 above where the length of the bar is slightly greater than the thickness of each pipe).
In regards to claim 13, Siferd in view of Lamb further discloses:
The drainage system as defined in claim 11, wherein each slot of the pluralities of slots exhibits a common width W (ex., see annotated fig. 1) and each bar element of the plurality of locking key members exhibits a length greater than the common width W (ex., see annotated fig. 1, where each bar is greater in width to allow fastening of each pipe together).
In regards to claim 14, Siferd in view of Lamb further discloses:
The apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the horizontal bar element of at least one locking key member comprises a rectangular element (see annotated figs. 3-4).
In regards to claim 15, Siferd in view of Lamb further discloses:
The drainage system as defined in claim 11, wherein the first and second sections of drainage pipe are formed of a high density polyethylene material (6:7-13).
In regards to claim 16, Siferd in view of Lamb further discloses:
The drainage system as defined in claim 11, further comprising additional sections of drainage pipe (ex., see 1:5-9, where “segments which are assembled into larger pipe systems during installation; ex., see the rejection of claim 1 where each of the pipe sections would be modified, thus, meeting the limitation of the claim),
each additional section having a bell end termination and an opposing spigot end termination (see fig. 1, where each pipe section comprises a bell and spigot end),
including a plurality of bell slots formed around the periphery of the bell end termination and a plurality of spigot slots formed around the periphery of the opposing spigot end termination the additional sections disposed to engage in sequence with the second section of drainage pipe to form an extended drainage system (it is inherent that providing duplicated pipe sections would meet the limitation of the claim),
with a plurality of locking key elements used to releasable connect adjacent sections of drainage pipe (it is inherent that duplication the pipe sections would also requires keys).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679