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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0260007 to Schlabach (“Schlabach”).
Regarding claim 1, Schlabach discloses an apparatus capable of use for sealing a penetration in a floor of a manufactured home, the apparatus comprising: a cover (20 or 40) configured to be installed over the floor penetration adjacent a p-trap such that the cover acts as a catchment for water leaking from the p-trap, the cover having an upper surface (surface of 20 facing 40 and surface of 40 facing away from 20) and an opposing lower surface (surface of 20 facing away from 40 and surface of 40 facing 20), a rim portion (20A or 40A) forming a flange having an outer edge, and a recessed portion (dome portion 20B or 40B) extending downward (downward when 20 or 40 are in an inverted position) from the rim portion defining a cavity, wherein a portion of the p-trap is located within the cavity when the cover is installed; but does not expressly disclose that the cover is substantially transparent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a transparent material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 2, Schlabach discloses that the cavity is dome shaped.
Regarding claim 3, Schlabach discloses that the outer edge of the flange has four sides.
Regarding claim 4, Schlabach discloses that the rim portion (20A or 40A) is dimensioned and configured such that the outer edge of the flange extends over the penetration and the lower surface of the rim portion contacts the floor. The phrase " dimensioned and configured such that the outer edge of the flange extends over the penetration and the lower surface of the rim portion contacts the floor" is regarded to as functional language, and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally of functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP §2114. Furthermore, Schlabach’s cover is capable of performing the functions stated above.
Regarding claim 5, Schlabach discloses one or more adhesive layers 30 disposed on the lower surface of flange and configured to create a seal between the cover and the floor.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Schlabach discloses that the adhesive layer is an adhesive sealing tape, but does not disclose that the adhesive sealing tape is one sided.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use one sided adhesive sealing tape, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7, Schlabach discloses that the rim portion (20A or 40A) is dimensioned and configured such that the upper surface of the rim portion contacts the bottom of the floor.
Regarding claim 8, Schlabach discloses one or more adhesive layers 30 disposed on the upper surface of the flange and configured to create a seal between the cover and the floor.
Regarding claim 10, Schlabach discloses that the rim portion (20A or 40A) and recessed portion (20B or 40B) comprise a unitary structural element.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, Schlabach discloses that the rim portion and recessed portion are formed from a continuous piece of plastic, polymer material (par 0040) that is colorless and substantially transparent (par 0040), but does not disclose the plastic material is thermoplastic, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, or polypropylene.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a thermoplastic material, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, or polypropylene, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,912,815 to Koehler et al. (“Koehler”).
Regarding claim 1, Koehler in Fig. 7 discloses an apparatus capable of use for sealing a penetration in a floor of a manufactured home, the apparatus comprising: a cover 50 configured to be installed over the floor penetration adjacent a p-trap such that the cover acts as a catchment for water leaking from the p-trap, the cover having an upper surface (upwardly facing surface) and an opposing lower surface (downwardly facing surface), a rim portion 510 forming a flange having an outer edge, and a recessed portion 520 extending downward from the rim portion defining a cavity, wherein a portion of the p-trap is located within the cavity when the cover is installed; but does not expressly disclose that the cover is substantially transparent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a transparent material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 2, Koehler does not disclose that the cavity (formed by 520) is dome shaped. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the cavity to have a dome instead of a truncated dome shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the components. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Koehler does not disclose that the outer edge of the flange has four sides. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the cavity to have a four sided shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the components. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 4, Koehler discloses that the rim portion 510 is dimensioned and configured such that the outer edge of the flange extends over the penetration and the lower surface of the rim portion contacts the floor. The phrase " dimensioned and configured such that the outer edge of the flange extends over the penetration and the lower surface of the rim portion contacts the floor" is regarded to as functional language, and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally of functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP §2114. Furthermore, Koehler’s cover is capable of performing the functions stated above.
Regarding claim 5, Koehler discloses the step of using adhesive (tape, col 8, ln 53-57), but does not expressly disclose the adhesive is disposed on the lower surface of flange and configured to create a seal between the cover and the floor. It would have been obvious to place the one or more adhesive layers on the lower surface of the flange because the rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and such placement would not alter the performance of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Koehler discloses that the adhesive layer is an adhesive sealing tape, but does not disclose that the adhesive sealing tape is one sided.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use one sided adhesive sealing tape, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7, Koehler discloses that the rim portion 510 is dimensioned and configured such that the upper surface of the rim portion contacts the bottom of the floor.
Regarding claim 8, Koehler discloses the step of using adhesive (tape, col 8, ln 53-57), but does not expressly disclose the adhesive is disposed on the upper surface of flange and configured to create a seal between the cover and the floor. It would have been obvious to place the one or more adhesive layers on the upper surface of the flange because the rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and such placement would not alter the performance of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 10, Koehler discloses that the rim portion 510 and recessed portion 520 comprise a unitary structural element.
Regarding claims 11-12, and 14, Koehler discloses that the rim portion and recessed portion are formed from a continuous piece, but does not disclose it is from a continuous piece of plastic or polymer material that is colorless and substantially transparent wherein the plastic material is thermoplastic, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, or polypropylene.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a plastic, thermoplastic material, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, or polypropylene, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, alone or in obvious combination absent hindsight, discloses applicant’s invention of a method for sealing a penetration in a floor of a manufactured home adjacent a p-trap, comprising the inter alia the method steps of positioning the cover over the penetration ion the floor adjacent the p-trap, wherein a portion of the p-trap is located within the cavity. The various cited prior arts do not disclose a p-trap located in a cavity of a cover that is positioned in the floor nor that the cavity acts as a catchment for water leaking from the p-trap. Schlabach’s cover is used as a skylight in a ceiling and would not be placed on a floor and receiving a p-trap in its cavity. While Koehler is installed in a floor, Koehler’s cover is inserted in a drain and a portion of a p-trap would not be located in its cavity. The prior art covers serve a markedly different purpose. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to modify Schlabach or Koehler to have a portion of a p-trap located within the cover’s cavity or to have the cavity act as a catchment for water leaking from the p-trap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the remarks, the applicant argues that claim 1 “requires a substantially transparent cover installed adjacent a p-trap in a floor penetration, where a portion of the p-trap is located within the cavity and the cover is configured to act as a catchment for water leaking from the p-trap.” And neither Schlabach nor Koehler, individually or combined together, disclose or suggest a cover used in a floor, with a p-trap disposed in a cover cavity, wherein the cover acts as a catchment for leaks
However, the claim languages does not necessitate a cover installed adjacent a p-trap. 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). In the instant case, the claim requires an apparatus per se for sealing a penetration in a floor. The apparatus comprises a cover that is merely configured to be installed adjacent a p-trap and not installed adjacent a p-trap and that a portion of the p-trap is located within the cavity when the cover is installed. The recitation of the cover’s cavity and the p-trap within the cavity is recited as functional language or intended use and does not necessitate “a substantially transparent cover installed adjacent a p-trap in a floor penetration, where a portion of the p-trap is located within the cavity and the cover is configured to act as a catchment for water leaking from the p-trap” as alleged by applicant. The prior arts of Schlabach and Koehler has a cover which would be capable of receiving a p-trap in its cavity and therefore render the claimed invention as obvious over the prior art.
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 CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633