DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 1/10/2026.
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 .
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 1-7, 9-16, and 18 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the slots are radially spaced apart”. These limitations are unclear because radially spaced slots as claimed require the slots to be spaced along a common radius. However, applicant’s slots are instead spaced around the circumference of the sidewall. It appears that this limitation may be intended to recite “wherein each of the slots extends along a radius of the body”.
Claim 9 recites the housing has a circular cross-section. This limitation has been added to claim 8 and therefore it is unclear whether the same cross-section is being referenced.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the piping means" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a well”. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the same well as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pump" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “the combination of the tapered cylindrical sidewall and elongated slots is configured to minimize debris entry while maximizing fluid flow into the well in the X, Y,and Z directions while adding rigidity and resistance to deformation in response to downward forces applied to the uppermost regions of the housing.” The scope of these limitations is unclear as it is unclear how to ascertain whether slots “minimize debris entry while maximizing fluid flow into the well in the X, Y, and Z directions”. Instead, it is clear that utilizing smaller slots will further minimize debris while utilizing larger slots will further maximize fluid flow. Therefore, it is unclear how both of these limitations are achieved. Similarly, it is unclear how to ascertain whether “adding rigidity and resistance to deformation in response to downward forces applied to the uppermost regions of the housing” is achieved.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the body" in line 2 of page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “high strength” molded plastic material. The scope of this limitation is unclear, particularly because the applicant’s specification as filed does not provide any context for this term.
Claim 16 recites “a first sump housing” and “a second sump housing”. It is unclear whether either of these housings refer to the housing recited in claim 8.
Claim 18 recites the slots are “radially spaced apart”. These limitations are unclear because radially spaced slots as claimed require the slots to be spaced along a common radius. However, applicant’s slots are instead spaced around the circumference of the sidewall. It appears that this limitation may be intended to recite each of the slots extends along a radius of the body.
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 1-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramble et al. (US Patent 8,875,729) in view of Janesky (US Patent 5,927,955).
Regarding Claim 1, Bramble discloses a housing for a sump pump, comprising a body 12 formed by a floor 44 and a continuous sidewall (including lower and upper ends 64 and 66 of the sidewall) joined to and extending upward from the floor 44 (best shown in Figure 5) and defining a sump pump receiving well bounded by the sidewall (the region within the body 12 as best shown in Figure 5), wherein: the body has a cross-section near the floor being smaller than the cross-section at the uppermost end opposite the floor (as shown in Figure 5); the sidewall further comprises an exterior surface (facing away from the interior of the basin), an interior surface (facing the interior of the basin), and a rim 72 forming a periphery of a sump pump receiving well opening (72 defines the periphery of the opening at the upper end of the body); the rim further comprises a substantially horizontal ledge 70 with a lip 72 extending upwardly from and substantially perpendicular to the ledge 70; a plurality of elongated slots 92 are formed through the sidewall enabling fluid to pass through the sidewall into the well (col. 7, lines 36-41); and wherein the slots 92 are laterally spaced apart and substantially parallel around the sidewall (best shown in Figure 1).
Although Bramble discloses the body having a narrower section at the lower end thereof, Bramble does not disclose the body has a circular cross-section having a diameter near the floor being smaller than the diameter at the uppermost end opposite the floor to form an inwardly tapered cylinder extending in a direction downward toward the floor; the lip of the rim forming an annulus extending upwardly from and substantially perpendicular to the ledge; and the slots are radially spaced apart and substantially parallel around the circumference of the sidewall.
Janesky teaches a sump pump container and further teaches a body 11 has a circular cross-section having a diameter near the floor 18 being smaller than the diameter at the uppermost end opposite the floor to form an inwardly tapered cylinder extending in a direction downward toward the floor (as shown in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bramble such that the body is formed as a tapered cylinder as taught by Janesky for the purpose of utilizing an alternative shape known in the art to be suitable for use with sump pumps. It is noted that in the proposed modification of Bramble in view of Janesky the lip of the rim (lip 72 disclosed by Bramble) forms an annulus because it is circumferential to match the tapered cylinder of the main portion of the body (i.e. the upper end of the tapered cylinder taught by Janesky is circular). Furthermore, as best understood as described with respect to the indefiniteness rejections above, in the proposed modification of Bramble in view of Janesky the slots (92 disclosed by Bramble) are radially spaced apart and substantially parallel around the circumference of the sidewall (due to the slots being spaced as disclosed by Bramble around the circumference of the tapered cylinder as taught by Janesky).
Regarding Claim 2, Bramble in view of Janesky further discloses a removable lid 14 configured to rest on the ledge 70 and bounded by the vertical annulus 72 (the vertical wall 72 is annular as modified in view of Janesky) to form an upper deck substantially covering the well (as shown in Figure 1 of Bramble).
Regarding Claim 3, Bramble further discloses the lid 14 is secured to the body with at least one fastener 98.
Regarding Claim 4, Bramble further discloses at least one port 54 formed through the sidewall and configured to receive a section of pipe 56 for fluid communication with the well and exterior of the sidewall.
Regarding Claim 5, Bramble further discloses the body is made from a molded plastic material (e.g. molded polymer; col. 5, lines 29-34).
Regarding Claim 6, Bramble in view of Janesky further discloses the tapered cylinder shape of the body (as taught by Janesky as described above) allows at least two separate sump housings to be stacked wherein one of the at least two sump housings is received and nested within the well of another of the at least two sump housings (the tapered cylinder shape as taught by Janesky is seen to allow a second housing to nest within the well of a first housing in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s tapered cylinder shape).
Regarding Claim 7, Bramble further discloses a system for removing water including: a sump pump 18 operably positioned within the well and supported by the floor (via feet 138 of pump 18).
Regarding Claim 8, Bramble discloses a system for removing unwanted water accumulation comprising a housing 12 for a sump pump 18 and further comprising; a housing floor 44; a continuous sidewall (including lower and upper ends 64 and 66 of the sidewall) extending upward from the floor 44; a sump pump receiving well (the region within the body 12 as best shown in Figure 5) within the housing having a top opening (top opening defined within lip 72) spaced apart from and parallel to the floor 44 (as shown in Figure 5); a plurality of non-circular elongated slots 92 formed through the sidewall to enable fluid to pass through it and into the well (col. 7, lines 36-41) wherein the slots are laterally spaced apart around the perimeter of the sidewall (best shown in Figure 1).
Although Bramble discloses the housing having a narrower section at the lower end thereof, Bramble does not disclose the housing has a circular cross-section having a diameter near the floor being smaller than the diameter at the uppermost end opposite the floor to form an inwardly tapered cylinder extending in a direction downward toward the floor; and the slots are radially spaced apart around the circumference of the sidewall.
Janesky teaches a sump pump container and further teaches a body 11 has a circular cross-section having a diameter near the floor 18 being smaller than the diameter at the uppermost end opposite the floor to form an inwardly tapered cylinder extending in a direction downward toward the floor (as shown in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bramble such that the body is formed as a tapered cylinder as taught by Janesky for the purpose of utilizing an alternative shape known in the art to be suitable for use with sump pumps. It is noted that in the proposed modification of Bramble in view of Janesky the slots (92 disclosed by Bramble) are radially spaced apart around the circumference of the sidewall (due to the slots being spaced as disclosed by Bramble around the circumference of the tapered cylinder as taught by Janesky).
Regarding Claim 9, Bramble in view of Janesky further discloses the housing (12 of Bramble) has a circular cross-section (in the manner taught by Janesky as described above) with the diameter of the sidewall near the floor being smaller than the diameter of the housing near the opening of the well to form an outwardly tapered cylinder extending upward from the floor (as taught by Janesky as best shown in Figure 2 as described above).
Regarding Claim 10, Bramble in view of Janesky further discloses the sidewall (tapered cylindrical sidewall as taught by Janesky as described above) further comprises an exterior surface (exterior surface of the tapered cylindrical sidewall), an interior surface (interior surface of the tapered cylindrical sidewall), and a circular rim (rim 72 disclosed by Bramble formed in a circular shape to match the tapered cylinder of the main portion of the body as taught by Janesky; i.e. the upper end of the tapered cylinder taught by Janesky is circular) forming the periphery of the top opening (72 defines the periphery of the opening at the upper end of the body), wherein: the rim further comprises a substantially horizontal ledge (70 disclosed by Bramble) and an annulus extending upwardly (72 of Bramble extends upwardly and is formed in a circular shape as taught by Janesky and therefore defines an annulus) and substantially perpendicular to the ledge (as shown by Bramble).
Regarding Claim 12, Bramble in view of Janesky further discloses a removable lid 14 configured to rest on the ledge 70 and bounded by the annulus 72 (the vertical wall 72 is annular as modified in view of Janesky) to form an upper deck (as shown in Figure 1 of Bramble).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood Bramble in view of Janesky is seen as further disclosing the combination of the tapered cylindrical sidewall (as taught by Janesky) and elongated slots (92 disclosed by Bramble) is configured to minimize debris entry (via the limited size of the slots) while maximizing fluid flow (via the plurality of slots as best understood as described above) into the well in the X, Y, and Z directions (as best understood the slots of Bramble will allow flow into the housing in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s slots) while adding rigidity and resistance to deformation in response to downward forces applied to the uppermost regions of the housing (this is seen to be achieved in at least the same manner in which it is achieved by applicant’s device; the limited number of slots adds to rigidity relative to a housing with a greater number of slots).
Regarding Claim 15, Bramble further discloses the body (the housing as best understood) is made from a high strength molded plastic material (e.g. molded polymer; col. 5, lines 29-34; this material is seen to be “high strength” at least relative to another, weaker material).
Regarding Claim 16, Bramble in view of Janesky further discloses the tapered cylinder shape (as taught by Janesky as described above) allows a first sump housing to be stacked and nested within the well of a second sump housing (the tapered cylinder shape as taught by Janesky is seen to allow a second sump housing to nest within the well of a first sump housing in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s tapered cylinder shape).
Regarding Claim 17, Bramble discloses an improved sump pump housing having a body 12 formed by a flat floor 44, a continuous sidewall (including lower and upper ends 64 and 66 of the sidewall) extending outwardly and upwardly from the floor 44 (the sidewall extends upwardly from the floor as shown in Figure 5; at least the upper portion extends outwardly from the floor via shelf 68), and a sump pump receiving well bounded by the sidewall and floor (the region within the body 12 as best shown in Figure 5), wherein the sidewall further comprises: an exterior surface (facing away from the interior of the basin), an interior surface (facing the interior of the basin), and a rim 72 forming the periphery of the opening of the well (72 defines the periphery of the opening at the upper end of the body); the rim further comprises a substantially horizontal ledge 70 and a lip 72 extending upwardly therefrom (as shown in Figure 5); a plurality of elongated slots 92 formed through the exterior and interior surfaces of the sidewall enabling fluid to pass through the sidewall into the well (col. 7, lines 36-41); and a removable lid 14 configured to rest on the ledge 70 inside of the lip 72 to form an upper deck (as shown in Figure 1).
Bramble does not disclose the rim is a circular rim; the lip of the rim forming an annulus extending upwardly from the ledge; and the body has a circular cross-section of varying diameter to form an outwardly tapered cylinder extending upward from the floor.
Janesky teaches a sump pump container and further teaches a body 11 has a circular cross-section of varying diameter to form an outwardly tapered cylinder extending upward from the floor 18 (as shown in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bramble such that the body is formed as a tapered cylinder as taught by Janesky for the purpose of utilizing an alternative shape known in the art to be suitable for use with sump pumps. It is noted that in the proposed modification of Bramble in view of Janesky the rim is circular and the lip of the rim (lip 72 disclosed by Bramble) forms an annulus because it is circumferential to match the tapered cylinder of the main portion of the body (i.e. the upper end of the tapered cylinder taught by Janesky is circular).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood Bramble in view of Janesky further discloses the slots (92 disclosed by Bramble) are formed through the sidewall (in the manner disclosed by Bramble) and radially spaced apart and substantially parallel around the circumference of the housing (due to the slots being spaced as disclosed by Bramble around the circumference of the tapered cylinder as taught by Janesky).
Regarding Claim 19, Bramble in view of Janesky further discloses the body is made from a molded plastic material (e.g. molded polymer; col. 5, lines 29-34) and the varying diameter (as taught by Janesky) enables a second housing to nest within the well of a first housing (the tapered cylinder shape as taught by Janesky is seen to allow a second housing to nest within the well of a first housing in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s tapered cylinder shape).
Regarding Claim 20, Bramble further discloses at least one fastener 98 for attaching the lid 14 to the body.
Claims 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramble et al. (US Patent 8,875,729) in view of Janesky (US Patent 5,927,955) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Haslock et al. (US Patent 6,164,315).
Regarding Claim 11, Bramble further discloses the piping means further includes a substantially horizontal water pipe 88 for carrying water into a well of the housing for removal by the pump, however Bramble does not disclose the horizontal water pipe passing through an aperture in the housing sidewall.
Haslock teaches a sump pump system and further teaches a substantially horizontal water pipe 18 passing through an aperture in the housing sidewall (Figure 1; col. 3, lines 14-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bramble such that the inlet pipe extends through an aperture in the housing sidewall as taught by Haslock for the purpose of providing an arrangement known in the art which ensures that the liquid is delivered into the sump housing.
Regarding Claim 14, Bramble further discloses at least one port 54 formed through the sidewall and configured to receive a section of pipe 56 for fluid communication with the well and exterior of the sidewall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have overcome some, but not all of the indefiniteness rejections set forth in the previous Office action. The limitations of a continuous sidewall (as recited in claims 1, 8, and 17) are interpreted in light of applicant’s specification in which applicant’s continuous sidewall includes slots. That is, the limitation of a continuous sidewall is not seen to require a sidewall to be continuous at each and every location. However, applicant’s arguments regarding the limitation of the slots radially spaced apart (as recited in at least claim 1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s slots are not provided along a common radius and therefore are not radially spaced apart as claimed. As described above, applicant’s slots each extend along a respective radius of the body.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the combination of Bramble in view of Janesky have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Bramble discloses a shelf within the basin and therefore teaches away from utilizing a circular cross-section as claimed. These arguments are not persuasive because utilizing a circular cross-section does not preclude providing an inner shelf as argued (and the claims do not require a constant tapering from the uppermost end to the lowermost end). Modifying Bramble such that the outer surface is a circular cross section as taught by Janesky utilizes an alternative shape known in the art to be suitable for use in sump pump basins. It is noted that the device may still have a shelf as disclosed by Bramble while forming a tapered cylinder as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753