Election/Restrictions
Claims 5,6,12,13,19, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/18/26.
Applicant has elected Group III a precast vault with the joint as shown in (fig. 6c).
Claim Interpretation
PNG
media_image1.png
324
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-4,10,11,16-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall (US Pub No 2017/0233230).
Kendall discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
With respect to claim 1, Kendall shows (see fig. 2) precast concrete utility vault (200) comprising :a) a rectangular upper riser section (240) precast concrete formed as a single piece (shown as a single piece in fig. 2) with four upper riser walls and having an open bottom, each upper riser wall having a top section with a top surface and a bottom section (210) with a bottom surface, said upper riser section (240) further comprising: b) a rectangular lower riser section (230) of precast concrete formed as a single piece (drawn as a single piece (fig. 2)) with four lower riser walls having an open top and joined at bottom by a slab section (210) having an upper surface (shown not labeled), each lower riser (230) wall having an upper section and a top surface, said lower riser section (230) further comprising: wherein said bottom surface of said upper riser (240) walls comprises a plurality of projecting portions (244) and said top surface of said bottom riser walls comprises a corresponding plurality of receiving portions (232), said projecting portions (244) and said receiving portions (232) being aligned and configured so that, when said upper riser section (240) is aligned with and placed on said lower riser section (230), each of said plurality of projecting portions (244) and said plurality of receiving portions (232) engages (very broad term) with each other to secure said upper riser section (240) and said lower riser section (230) to each other.
However Kendall does not disclose a rectangular upper riser section of 5,000 psi precast concrete i) a weight of between about 30,000 and 45,000 pounds, ii) an upper riser wall thickness of between about 8 inches and 12 inches, iii) a length of between about 10 feet and 14 feet, iv) a width of between about 10 feet and 12 feet, and v) a height of between about 7 feet and 9 feet; b) said lower riser section (230) further comprising: i) a weight of between about 50,000 and 65,000 pounds, ii) a lower riser wall thickness of between about 8 inches and 12 inches, iii) a length of between about 10 feet and 14 feet, iv) a width of between about 10 feet and 12 feet, and v) a height of between about 5 feet and 7 feet; claim 2, wherein said rectangular upper riser section has a weight of between about 40,000 and about 45,000 pounds and said rectangular lower riser section has a weight of between about 60,000 and about 65,000 pounds,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose these sizes (height, width, length, and thickness) and weights in order to fit the desired equipment or capacity of the underground vault and have it hold up to any desired weight on top of the vault.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose these sizes based on the condition the vault will see, a bigger vault will have a greater size (height, length and thickness) and weight, the more weight the more concrete the more concrete a higher strength concrete will be needed, there are known standards when using concrete calculators. These standards are typically written on ever bag of concrete or supplied and tested with a concrete delivery, also, location and size of the sump would be within the ordinary skill of a person in the art based on the amount and type of fluid the vault may experience a simple volume calculation, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 3, Kendall further shows wherein said slab section (210) comprises a sump channel (paragraph 27 discloses base can have a sump) along the length of one of said lower riser walls. (location and size of the sump would be within the ordinary skill of a person in the art based on the amount and type of fluid the vault may experience)
With respect to claim 4, Kendall further shows wherein said sump channel has a depth of between about 1.5 feet and about 2.5 feet below said upper surface and a width of between about 2 feet and about 3 feet. (location and size of the sump would be within the ordinary skill of a person in the art based on the amount and type of fluid the vault may experience)
With respect to claim 4, Kendall further shows wherein said top surface of said upper riser wall (240) is adapted to receive and support a removable precast concrete roof slab (250).
Claims 10,11,16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall.
With respect to claim 10, Kendall shows a rectangular upper riser section (240) of a precast concrete utility vault (200), said upper riser section (240) formed as a single piece with four upper riser walls and having an open bottom, each upper riser wall having a top section (250) having a top surface and a bottom section (210) having a bottom surface, said upper riser section (240) further comprising: wherein said bottom surface of said upper riser walls comprises a plurality of projecting portions (244) aligned and configured to correspond to a plurality of receiving portions (232) in a lower riser section (230) so that, when said upper riser section (240) is aligned with and placed on the lower riser section (230), each of said plurality of projecting portions (244) engages with each of the plurality of receiving portions (232) to secure said upper riser section (240) and the lower riser section (230) to each other
Kendall discloses the claimed invention except for a) a weight of between about 30,000 and 45,000 pounds, b) an upper riser wall thickness of between about 8 inches and 12 inches, c) a length of between about 10 feet and 14 feet, d) a width of between about 10 feet and 12 feet, and e) a height of between about 7 feet and 9 feet, claim 11, having a weight of between about 40,000 and 45,000 pounds. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to these sizes based on the condition the vault will see, a bigger vault with more weight on top will require a larger size and thicker stronger concrete, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 16, Kendall further shows said top surface of said upper riser (240) wall is adapted to receive and support a removable precast concrete roof slab (250).
Claims 17,18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall.
Kendall discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
With respect to claim 17, Kendall shows a rectangular lower riser section (230) of precast concrete formed as a single piece with four lower riser walls having an open top and joined at bottom by a slab section (210) having an upper surface, each lower riser wall having an upper section and a top surface, said rectangular lower riser section (230), wherein said top surface of said bottom riser walls comprises a plurality of receiving portions (232) aligned and configured to correspond to a plurality of projecting portions (244) in an upper riser section (240) so that, when the upper riser section (240) is aligned with and placed on said lower riser section (230), each of said plurality of receiving portions (232)and the plurality of projecting portions (244)engages with each other to secure said lower riser section (230) and the upper riser section (240) to each other.
However Kendall does not disclose a) a weight of between about 50,000 and 65,000 pounds, b) a lower riser wall thickness of between about 8 inches and 12 inches, c) a length of between about 10 feet and 14 feet, d) a width of between about 10 feet and 12 feet, and e) a height of between about 5 feet and 7 feet, claim 18, having a weight of between about 60,000 and about 65,000 pounds.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the weight, length, width and height, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7,8,14,15,20, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN M BRADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Orlando E Aviles-Bosques can be reached at 571 270-5531. 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.
/SHAWN M BRADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736