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 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (US 5,123,627) in view of Uriarte (US 10,989,435).
As to claim 1, Hodges a multi-fit adapter (10) for a fluid basin (11), the adapter comprising: a plate (26) configured to be mounted on an outer surface of a cylindrical side wall of the fluid basin (Fig. 2); wherein a curvature of the plate corresponds to a curvature of the outer surface of the cylindrical side wall of the fluid basin (Fig. 2), and wherein each of the plurality of different diameter sections is configured to accommodate a fluid pipe (2: 34-51).
The plate (26) is flexible and arcuate, and therefore considered configured to be mounted to a cylindrical side wall of a given fluid basin.
Hodges fails to teach a plurality of concentric rings protruding from the plate, wherein a height of each of the plurality of concentric rings is different. Hodges teaches a male adapter in the form of a nipple having ascending diameter sections in order to accommodate differently sized pipes (2: 34-41).
Uriarte teaches an adapter for connecting differently sized pipes in the form of a female adapter (100). The adapter includes concentric rings (114, 116, 118) that are dimensioned to receive differently sized pipes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adapter of Hodges to include concentric female rings in place of Hodges nipple, as taught by Uriarte, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative means by which to connect differently sized pipes.
As to claim 2, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the plurality of concentric rings protrude from a curved first surface of the plate (Fig. 1, Hodges).
As to claim 3, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 2, wherein a second surface of the plate is configured to be positioned flush with the outer surface of the cylindrical side wall of the (given) fluid basin.
Hodges’ plate (26) is flexible and arcuate and therefore considered configured to be positioned flush with the outer surface of the cylindrical side wall of a given fluid basin. Note Fig. 2 of Hodges.
As to claim 4, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the multi-fit adapter is configured to be affixed to the outer surface of the cylindrical side wall of the (given) fluid basin to provide a fluid-tight connection between the fluid pipe and an interior volume of the fluid basin.
Hodges’ plate (26) is flexible and arcuate and therefore considered configured to be affixed to the outer surface of the cylindrical side wall of a given fluid basin to provide a fluid-tight connection between the fluid pipe and an interior volume of the fluid basin. Note Fig. 2 of Hodges.
As to claim 5, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the plurality of concentric rings includes an internal surface of a first diameter and an external surface of a second diameter (see Figs. 2, 3, 5 and 6, Uriarte), and wherein the internal surface of the at least one of the plurality of concentric rings is configured to couple to the (given) fluid pipe (the internal surface of each of the rings is cylindrical and therefore configured to couple to a given fluid pipe).
As to claim 6, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the at least one concentric ring includes an internal surface of a first diameter and an external surface of a second diameter (see Figs. 2, 3, 5 and 6, Uriarte), and wherein the external surface of the at least one concentric ring is configured to couple to the (given) fluid pipe (the external surface of each of the rings is cylindrical and therefore configured to couple to a given fluid pipe).
As to claim 7, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the concentric rings are configured to couple to (given) fluid pipes of different sizes (refer to Figs. 2, 3, 5 and 6, Uriarte).
As to claim 8, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the plate is configured to be mounted on the outer surface of the cylindrical side wall of the fluid basin at any position along a circumference of the fluid basin.
Hodges’ plate (26) is flexible and arcuate and therefore considered configured to be mounted on the outer surface of the cylindrical side wall of the fluid basin at any position along a circumference of the given fluid basin. Note Fig. 2 of Hodges.
As to claim 9, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the plate is configured to be positioned over a (given) fluid opening in a side wall of the fluid basin.
Hodges’ plate (26) is flexible and arcuate and therefore considered configured to be positioned over a (given) fluid opening in a side wall of the fluid basin. Note Fig. 2 of Hodges.
As to claim 10, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the plate includes a center portion at a position corresponding to a center of the concentric rings (see axis 11, Uriarte), wherein the multi-fit adapter is configured for formation of a fluid opening in the center portion of the plate.
As to claim 11, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the plate and the plurality of concentric rings are constructed from the same material. In Figs. 5 and 6, Uriarte shows a single-piece adapter having uniform material cross-hatching.
As to claim 12, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein the (given) fluid basin has an outer diameter of approximately 24 inches.
As the fluid basin is not being positively claimed as part of the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, claim 12 is considered to only further qualify the functional use of the fluid basin. For example, the claim 1 recitation “...for a fluid basin” in the preamble would read as “...for a fluid basin having an outer diameter of approximately 24 inches” for claim 12. Hodges’ plate (26) is flexible and arcuate and therefore considered configured to be used with a fluid basin having an outer diameter of approximately 24 inches. Note Fig. 2 of Hodges.
As to claim 13, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of concentric rings is configured to accommodate a (given) pipe for delivering fluid into the fluid basin.
As the rings are cylindrical, at least one is configured to accommodate a pipe for delivering fluid into the fluid basin.
As to claim 14, Hodges/Uriarte discloses the multi-fit adapter of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of concentric rings is configured to accommodate a (given) pipe for draining fluid from the fluid basin.
As the rings are cylindrical, at least one is configured to accommodate a pipe for draining fluid from the fluid basin.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
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 James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
