DETAILED ACTION
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 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the inclusion of a staircase) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant has argued that the amended claim language in claim 1 defines over the prior art of Smith (US 3,090,489) because smith does not disclose a staircase. This is not persuasive as the language of claim 1 does not positively recite a staircase. The language in question is below:
a handrail shaped such that a first handrail portion of the handrail is spaced above and angled to extend generally parallel to a staircase slope of a pool staircase when the handrail is installed in a pool on and/or adjacent the pool staircase
This language explicitly states that the handrail is not required to be installed on a staircase. Furthermore the language ‘when the handrail is installed in a pool on and/or adjacent the pool staircase’ does not require that the handrail be installed in such a fashion, it only requires that the handrail meet the remainder of the claim limitations if it were to be installed in such a manner on or adjacent the pool staircase. Additionally the staircase, and it’s slope, are not defined. As such the handrail of Smith having a sloped section spaced above the water would be parallel to and spaced above a staircase slope of an appropriate design.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the structure and configuration of Smith would prevent it from being oriented as described by the amended claim 1 the Examiner disagrees. As described above the claim does not positively recite a staircase and does not require the handrail be installed on a staircase. The handrail of Smith has a sloped/angled portion spaced above the pool water and wall and as such it is configured to be spaced above and parallel to a staircase slope when installed adjacent to an appropriately designed staircase per the limitations.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of claims 5-7 under Smith in view of Vianna (US 4,193,143), it is again noted that the claim language does not positively recite a staircase, does not require that the handrail be installed on a staircase and does not limit or otherwise define a required location or design of said staircase. The claim language of claims 5-7 only require the prior art be configured to perform the described function if and when the handrail is installed on or adjacent to a pool staircase the design/details of which are not defined. As such the directional nozzles taught by Vianna would be configured to perform the defined functions if the handrail were installed next to an appropriately designed staircase.
Regarding new claims 19 and 20, it is noted that a staircase is not positively recited and the claim language only requires that the apparatus must be capable of a function when installed in a claimed situation. As such the handrail is only required to be configured to perform the claimed function. Furthermore the claim language does not require the handrail be installed on a staircase as the claims explicitly state ‘on or alongside the pool staircase’.
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 1-2, 4-8, 11-13 and 19-20 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.
The term “generally parallel” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2, 4-8, 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-2, 4, 8, 11-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,090,489 (Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a pool handrail assembly comprising:
a handrail (L-7; 104/105/109/110/111/112) shaped such that a first handrail portion (109/110) of the handrail is spaced above and angled to extend generally parallel to a staircase slope of a pool staircase when the handrail is installed in a pool on and/or adjacent the pool staircase (The handrail comprises a portion which is spaced above/apart from the support structure and pool wall and which extends at a consistent angle. As such the portion of the handrail is shaped such that it would extend above and parallel to a staircase angle if installed adjacent to a staircase with the same angle as the handrail);
PNG
media_image1.png
390
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a channel extending through the handrail (the handrail is hollow) from a channel inlet (121) to at least one channel exit (122), the channel inlet being configured to connect to and receive water from a water source (Fig. 14) (C8 L3-11).
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses the inclusion of a pump (M/117/118; C7 L57-67) connectable in fluid communication with the channel and the water source (Fig. 14), the pump being operable to propel water from the water source through the channel (C7 L57-67).
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses that the at least one channel exit is positioned to allow water to leave the handrail below the water level of the pool (Fig. 14; C8 L3-11) when the handrail is installed in a pool adjacent a pool staircase with the first handrail portion spaced above and extending generally parallel to a staircase slope of the pool staircase, and with the channel exit submerged (A staircase is not positively recited and as described above the handrail is shaped to have a portion configured to be spaced above and parallel to a staircase slope).
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses that the handrail includes at least one anchor feature (27/115; Figs. 7, 14) that is configured to secure the handrail to a pool deck in a position where the channel inlet is in fluid communication with the water source.
Regarding claims 11-12, Smith discloses that the anchor feature comprises a spout tube that extends upward from the pool deck (25) which is configured to overlap with the handrail (Fig. 7; annotated figure below).
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses that the handrail comprises a second handrail portion (113/114) extending downwardly from the first handrail portion and positioned to support the first handrail portion above the pool staircase when the handrail is installed in a pool alongside the pool staircase (Fig. 7 – the vertical portions 113/114 support the angle portions 109/110 above the top of the pool wall and as such would support the angled portions above a staircase installed next to the handrail).
Regarding claim 20, Smith discloses that the channel exit (122) is located on a second handrail portion (105) extending downwardly from the first handrail portion when the handrail is installed in a pool alongside the pool staircase (Fig. 7, no staircase is claimed however the handrail is configured to be installed alongside one).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of US 4,193,143 (Vianna).
Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses that the handrail sources water from a pool into the channel inlet and that at the at least one channel exit is positioned to allow water to leave the handrail back into the pool as previously discussed. Smith further states that the inlet and exit are arranged in opposite directions to create a circulation within the pool but doesn’t explicitly state aiming the channel exit in other directions such that it would be aimed at a step of a staircase when installed adjacent the staircase.
Vianna teaches a swimming pool handrail assembly comprising a handrail (4/5) with internal conduits (the rails are hollow and as such form conduits). A channel inlet (9) is formed on the handrail (5) within a swimming pool and beneath the water level. A pump (22) is provided to move water into and through the handrail (4) and the water is then returned through at least one channel outlet (16/17) located beneath a normal water level within the pool (Figs. 1, 2). The outlet can be parallel to the pool wall (16), formed at an angle to the pool wall (17) and located at different heights (Fig. 1) (C2 L60-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the channel exit to directionally discharge the water into the body/water of a pool at a desired height, as taught by Vianna, to generate a desired current/circulation within the pool.
The provision of at least one directional outlet at a channel exit at a desired height as taught by Vianna would result in the channel exit being configured to be aimed toward a pool stair step of a pool staircase when the handrail is installed in a pool or alongside the pool staircase (A staircase is not claimed and the resultant device would be configured to achieve this).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses that the handrail sources water from a pool into the channel inlet and that at the at least one channel exit is positioned to allow water to leave the handrail back into the pool as previously discussed. Smith further states that the inlet and outlet are arranged in opposite directions to create a circulation within the pool but doesn’t explicitly state aiming the channel exit in other directions such that it would be aimed across a step of a staircase when installed adjacent the staircase.
Vianna teaches a swimming pool handrail assembly comprising a handrail (4/5) with internal conduits (the rails are hollow and as such form conduits). A channel inlet (9) is formed on the handrail (5) within a swimming pool and beneath the water level. A pump (22) is provided to move water into and through the handrail (4) and the water is then returned through at least one channel outlet (16/17) located beneath a normal water level within the pool (Figs. 1, 2). The outlet can be parallel to the pool wall (16), formed at an angle to the pool wall (17) and located at different heights (Fig. 1) (C2 L60-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the channel exit to directionally discharge the water into the body/water of a pool at a desired height, as taught by Vianna, to generate a desired current/circulation within the pool.
The provision of at least one directional outlet at the channel exit at a desired height as taught by Vianna would result in the channel exit being configured to direct water across a pool stair step of a pool staircase when the handrail is installed in a pool or alongside the pool staircase (A staircase is not claimed and the resultant device would be configured to achieve this).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses that the handrail sources water from a pool into the channel inlet and that at the at least one channel exit is positioned to allow water to leave the handrail back into the pool as previously discussed. Smith further states that the inlet and outlet are arranged in opposite directions to create a circulation within the pool as part of a filtration system (C1 L53-59) but doesn’t explicitly state aiming the channel exit in other directions such that it would be aimed to displace debris present on a step of a staircase when installed adjacent the staircase.
Vianna teaches a swimming pool handrail assembly comprising a handrail (4/5) with internal conduits (the rails are hollow and as such form conduits). A channel inlet (9) is formed on the handrail (5) within a swimming pool and beneath the water level. A pump (22) is provided to move water into and through the handrail (4) and the water is then returned through at least one channel outlet (16/17) located beneath a normal water level within the pool (Figs. 1, 2). The outlet can be parallel to the pool wall (16), formed at an angle to the pool wall (17) and located at different heights (Fig. 1) (C2 L60-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the channel exit to directionally discharge the water into the body/water of a pool at a desired height, as taught by Vianna, to generate a desired current/circulation within the pool.
The provision of at least one directional outlet at the channel exit at a desired height as taught by Vianna would result in the channel exit being configured to direct water across, and thereby displace debris located upon, a pool stair step of a pool staircase when the handrail is installed in a pool or alongside the pool staircase (A staircase is not claimed and the resultant device would be configured to achieve this).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith.
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses that the handrail conduit is received in an overlapping fashion with a spout tube projecting from the deck to form a continuous fluid conduit as previously discussed. Smith, however, does not explicitly disclose if and how the connection is formed to be water tight such as through the inclusion of a seal between the handrail and spout tube.
Smith also teaches another sleeved coupling for a handrail conduit in which a handrail (12) which forms a conduit is inserted into/overlaps with a spout tube (46) to form a sealed fluid connection. Smith further teaches the provision of seals (53) between the handrail and the spout tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a seal between the overlapping handrail and spout tube, as evidenced by Smith, to ensure a watertight seal along the fluid conduit thereby preventing loss of water or possible damage from water leaking into the deck structure.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,978,977 (Haydu) in view of FR 2900720 (Gicquel).
Regarding claim 21, Haydu discloses a pool handrail assembly (10) comprising:
a handrail (12) supported in and/or adjacent a pool (Fig. 1; C2 L42-51);
a first fluid channel extending through the handrail from a channel inlet (12A) to at least one channel exit (12B) (C2 L28-33, 42-51);
a second fluid channel (14) connected and providing fluid communication between the first fluid channel inlet and a remote location in the pool (Inlet 14’A; C2 L58-65); and
a pump (16) connected in the second fluid channel (Fig. 1) between an inlet in the pool (14’A) and the first fluid channel inlet (14’’B) and actuable to pump water from the second channel inlet through the first and second fluid channels and back into the pool through the first fluid channel exit (C3 L4-11 – pump draws water from pool and moves it through the handrail; C2 L42-45 – exits back into the pool).
While Haydu discloses that the source of water is water from the pool (C2 L58-60) it doesn’t disclose sourcing the water through an aperture in an interior wall of the pool.
Gicquel teaches a fluid circulation system for a swimming pool comprising a railing assembly (1) wherein a first fluid channel is formed in the handrail (Figs. 1 and 2 depict an embodiment with hollow interiors of the railing acting as a conduit) comprising an inlet and an outlet as well as a second fluid channel (12/17/18; 22/P/F) which supplies water to the fist fluid channel in the railing. Gicquel further teaches the inlet of the second channel can comprise an inlet (17) inserted into the pool water (Fig. 5) or can be an aperture in an interior wall of the pool (Fig. 6 – Circulation system including pool sidewall and bottom inlets 22 supplies water through pump P to the railing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to utilize an aperture in an interior wall of the pool, as taught by Gicquel, so as to lower costs and/or simplify designs/work by utilizing existing or already planned/required filtration/circulation systems.
Regarding claim 22, Haydu discloses a pool handrail assembly (10) comprising:
a handrail (12) supported in and/or adjacent a pool (Fig. 1; C2 L42-51);
a first fluid channel extending through the handrail from a channel inlet (12A) to at least one channel exit (12B) (C2 L28-33, 42-51);
a second fluid channel (14) connected and providing fluid communication between the first fluid channel inlet and a remote location in the pool (Inlet 14’A; C2 L58-65); and
a pump (16) connected in the second fluid channel (Fig. 1) between an inlet in the pool (14’A) and the first fluid channel inlet (14’’B) and actuable to pump water from the second channel inlet through the first and second fluid channels and back into the pool through the first fluid channel exit (C3 L4-11 – pump draws water from pool and moves it through the handrail; C2 L42-45 – exits back into the pool).
While Haydu discloses that the source of water is water from the pool (C2 L58-60) it doesn’t disclose sourcing the water through an aperture in an interior wall of the pool which is remote from the handrail.
Gicquel teaches a fluid circulation system for a swimming pool comprising a railing assembly (1) wherein a first fluid channel is formed in the handrail (Figs. 1 and 2 depict an embodiment with hollow interiors of the railing acting as a conduit) comprising an inlet and an outlet as well as a second fluid channel (12/17/18; 22/P/F) which supplies water to the fist fluid channel in the railing. Gicquel further teaches the inlet of the second channel can comprise an inlet (17) inserted into the pool water (Fig. 5) or can be an aperture in an interior wall of the pool at locations remote from the railing (Fig. 6 – Circulation system including pool sidewall and bottom inlets 22 supplies water through pump P to the railing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to utilize an aperture in an interior wall of the pool remote from the handrail, as taught by Gicquel, so as to lower costs and/or simplify designs/work by utilizing existing or already planned/required filtration/circulation systems.
Regarding the remote positioning of the aperture in the pool wall, it is noted that Gicquel teaches sourcing the water from multiple such apertures including in a sidewall and in a bottom of the pool. As the inlets are remote from each other, and remotely located from the exterior railing, it establishes utilizing remote inlets from various locations in the pool.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FR 2773189 (Desjoyaux) teaches a pool staircase comprising a handrail formed of hollow tubes intended to act as conduits/channels for receiving wiring to a pool light on the staircase.
US 2006/0236447 (St. Hilaire) teaches supplying outlets on a staircase with water pumped from a remote location.
US 3,090,465 (Smith2) teaches a handrail for a pool supplied with water from a remote water source through piping that passes through an internal channel of the handrail before exiting into the pool from the handrail.
US 4,381,763 (Kahl) teaches alternatively sourcing water from an aperture in a pool wall or an inlet placed in the pool water to pump the water through a handrail.
US 6,102,156 (Lipniarski) teaches that it is typical to configure the handrail of a staircase to be parallel to a slope of the stairs.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICHOLAS A ROS whose telephone number is (571)270-3577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-6:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
/NICHOLAS A ROS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754