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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, each of the basket and it’s included 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire-grid walls recited in each of independent claims 1, 8 and 14, and the “filter recited in claims 7 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, each of “the outside of the inlet”, “the rear side of the basket”, “the left side”, “the right side”, “the front side” and “the bottom side” all lack antecedent basis, since the claim is unclear what is meant by outside of the device inlet, and with respect to the basket, “rear”, “left”, “right” and “front” are all transient or relative terms, depending upon orientation or direction of water flow through inlet and basket.
In claim 2, recitation of “1/4 steel” is incomplete (is this regarding the bars being of ¼”? or does ¼ refer to some other feature such as ¼ of the screen area being made of the steel round bars?);
“the concrete inlet” lacks antecedent basis (claim 1 reciting merely an inlet), and it is unclear whether or not the recited “concrete anchors” are a positively recited device component;
in addition, it is unclear whether the recited “a ¼” round bar” is encompassed in the formerly recited “1/4 steel round bars”, or is a “round bar” that is separate and distinct from the “round bars”;
and it is also unclear what device structural components are spaced from each other at plural 3” intervals .
Also, in claim 2, the language “the screen is made of…steel round bars…” is ambiguous as to whether or not such language excludes other materials being present in the screen besides the specific materials recited.
In claim 3, “the inside of the inlet” lacks antecedent basis, since the claim is unclear what is meant by inside of the device inlet; and it is unclear whether “square wire” refers to a single or a plurality of wires.
In claim 4, it is unclear whether “the frame” refers back to the frame of each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire-grid walls” introduced in claim 1.
In claim 5, it is unclear whether “at least one 1” square wire” is reciting that each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire-grid walls” introduced in claim 1 includes at least one such square wire, or instead that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire grid walls together include at least one such square wire.
In claim 6, “the inner” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what is meant by “inner” (inside of”?), if the term means “the inside of the inlet, the term lacks antecedent basis, since the term is a transient or relative term, depending upon orientation or direction of water flow through the inlet; and it is unclear whether “this basket” refers back to “the basket” recited in claims 1 and 2 (replacing “this” with “the” is suggested).
In claim 8, each of “the outside of the inlet”, “the rear side of the basket”, “the left side”, “the right side”, “the front side” and “the bottom side” all lack antecedent basis, since the claim is unclear what is meant by outside of the device inlet, and with respect to the basket, “rear”, “left”, “right” and “front”, all are transient or relative terms, depending upon orientation or direction of water flow through inlet and basket.
Also in claim 8, it is also unclear what device structural components are spaced from each other at plural 3” intervals .
In claim 9, recitation of “1/4 steel” is incomplete (is this regarding the bars being of ¼”? or does ¼ refer to some other feature such as ¼ of the screen area being made of the steel round bars?).
Also, in claim 9, the language “the screen is made of…steel round bars…” is ambiguous as to whether or not such language excludes other materials being present in the screen besides the specific steel round bar material recited.
In claim 10, “the inner” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what is meant by “inner” (inside of”?), if the term means “the inside of the inlet, the term lacks antecedent basis, since the term is a transient or relative term, depending upon orientation or direction of water flow through the inlet.
In claim 11, it is unclear whether “the frame” refers back to the frame of each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire-grid walls” introduced in claim 8.
In claim 12, it is unclear whether “at least one 1” square wire” is reciting that each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire-grid walls” introduced in claim 8 includes at least one such square wire, or instead that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire grid walls together include at least one such square wire.
In claim 13, “the inner side of the inlet” lacks antecedent basis, since the term is a transient or relative term, depending upon orientation or direction of water flow through the inlet.
In claim 14, each of “the outside of the inlet”, “the rear side of the basket”, “the left side”, “the right side”, “the front side” and “the bottom side” all lack antecedent basis, since the claim is unclear what is meant by outside of the device inlet, and with respect to the basket, “rear”, “left”, “right” and “front” are all transient or relative terms, depending upon orientation or direction of water flow through inlet and basket;
and it is also unclear what device structural components are spaced from each other at plural 3” intervals.
In claim 15, recitation of “1/4 steel” is incomplete (is this regarding the bars being of ¼”? or does ¼ refer to some other feature such as ¼ of the screen area being made of the steel round bars?).
Also, in claim 15, the language “the screen is made of…steel round bars…” is ambiguous as to whether or not such language excludes other materials being present in the screen besides the specific steel round bar material recited.
In claim 16, “one1” is non-idiomatic (was “at least one 1” square wire” intended?), and “the inner side” again lacks antecedent basis, since the term is a transient or relative term, depending upon orientation or direction of water flow through the inlet.
In claim 17, it is unclear whether “the frame” refers back to the frame of each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire-grid walls” introduced in claim 14; and “one ore more” is non-idiomatic, (“one or more” is suggested).
In claim 18, it is unclear whether “at least one 1” square wire” is reciting that each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire-grid walls” introduced in claim 14 includes at least one such square wire, or instead that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wire grid walls together include at least one such square wire.
In claim 19, “the inner side” again lacks antecedent basis, since the term is a transient or relative term, depending upon orientation or direction of water flow through the inlet.
Claim Interpretation
In each of claims 2, 9 and 15, the terminology “1/4 steel round bars” is interpreted as denoting “1/4 inch steel round bars”, it being assumed that omission of the term “inch” in these claims is an obvious grammatical or typographical error.
Also, in each of claims 2, 9 and 15, the terminology “the screen is made of…” is interpreted as being open-ended and having the equivalent meaning of “the screen comprises”, not excluding the claims precluding the screen having other features or structural components, given recitation of other structural features of the screen in various other of the recited claims.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al PGPUBS Document US 2004/0226869 (McClure) in view of Patent Publication AU 20021000944 (Publication ‘944). Cited paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Document are referenced by “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, McClure discloses: A storm drain curb inlet device [0016] comprising:
an inlet having an opening 10/10’/10’’/10s ([0033 and 0067 re concrete curb-inlet], fig 1);
a screen made of steel, attached to the opening of the inlet (grating and grating bars 21/21’/21’’, [0017, 0019 and 0020 re stainless steel construction of components of the device assembly, generally, 0022 re at least stainless steel fastener portions of the grating or screen being steel, and 0045 and 0062 re description of grating ramp, aperture and grating bars], fig 1); and
a basket 27’/27’’, (fig 1 [0062, 0069]) attached to the inner side of the inlet (attached via at least one hanger paw 27 to supporting frame 26 of containment housing 17 which is all shown as being on the inner side of the inlet in figure 1, attached to the housing panels, in turn attached to the concrete curb inlet with anchors 31 , see [0025, 0055 and 0060 re anchor bolts and washers] re attachment of housing assembly panels to the concrete inlet with the housing assembly panels), the basket including:
a first wire-grid wall located on the rear side of the basket and extending between the left side and the right side of the basket (fig 1 showing the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0062] re “wire-mesh” construction),
a second wire-grid wall located on the front side of the basket and extending between the left side and the right side of the basket (fig 1 showing the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0062] re “wire-mesh” construction), and
a third wire-grid wall located on the bottom side of the basket and coupled to the first and second wire-grid walls (fig 1 and [0062] concerning the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0069] re “wire-mesh bottoms”),
wherein each of the first, second, and third wire-grid walls comprises:
a grid of wire lying in a plane (evident from fig 1).
Claim 1, and claims 2-7 dependent therefrom, differ by requiring the grid walls to have a frame extending around the grid of wire.
Publication ‘944 teaches a device for purifying water pumped from roadworks and other excavations and runoff to remove sediment (Abstract, page 1, lines 14-20), and teaches the device having a cage-like filter basket or silt trap 10 in which side walls 11 comprise wire mesh infill 18 surrounded by a welded rectangular frame 15 of lightweight steel tubing (page 2, lines 20-22 and page 3, lines 8-19).
Publication ‘944 suggests such frame construction being collapsible, hence facilitating assembly and transportability (page 2, lines 4-5 and page 3, lines 10-13), as well as being easily disassembled and stacked flat (page 6, lines 27-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by constructing the grid walls of the basket to have a frame extending around the grid of wire, as taught by publication ‘944, in order to facilitate assembly and transportability of the basket as well as making the baskets to be easily disassembled and stacked.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al PGPUBS Document US 2004/0226869 (McClure) in view of Patent Publication AU 20021000944 (Publication ‘944), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rahimzadeh PGPUBS Document US 2016/0130798 (Rahimzadeh). Cited paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents are referenced by “[ ]” symbols.
For claim 2, McClure further discloses wherein the screen is attached to the concrete inlet by concrete anchors [0025 and 0060 re anchor-bolts 31/31’/31B], shown in Fig 1 as attached to the inlet portion of concrete in the vicinity of the concrete inlet)
Claim 2 further differs by requiring the screen to be made of, i.e. “comprise” ¼” steel round bars and such that it includes a 2″ flatbar that attaches to the concrete inlet and a ¼″ round bar, spaced at approximately 3″ intervals.
An objective of McClure is to achieve “very robust fixed mounting means” for the device [0021].
Rahimzadeh teaches a building structure (Abstract), in which flooring structure is reinforced and anchored by a combination of reinforcing rods, flatbars, round bar, rebar (i.e. “rectangular or square elements), and anchor bolts and other anchoring elements [0037-0038], so as to form reinforced and strengthened, composite structures including concrete planks [0031-0033 and 0037]. The various bars and other anchoring elements are inherently spaced by a given dimension so as to uniformly reinforce and strengthen the joining or bonding of components to each other.
In addition, the claimed dimensions of the screen bars are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by combining the anchoring bolts and other anchoring elements disclosed with plural flatbars and round bars, spaced by any selected number of inches, as taught by Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the screen to other structural elements of the storm drain device.
For claim 3, McClure in view of Rahimzadeh further suggest wherein the round bars are surrounded by 1″ square wire and connected to the inside of the inlet using washers and concrete anchors (again see McClure at [0025, 0055 and 0060 re anchor bolts and washers] and see Rahimzadeh at [0038 regarding “rebar…any dimensional stock…formed sections of rebar”, suggesting the claimed surrounding square wire, as rebar is conventionally reinforced with a network of wiring).
In addition, the claimed dimension(s) of the screen bars and square wire is/are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have further modified the McClure device by combining the anchoring bolts and other anchoring elements disclosed with plural flatbars and round bars, spaced by any selected number of inches, as taught by Rahimzadeh, and further including surrounding square wire of any given dimensions, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the screen to other structural elements of the storm drain device, while providing additional reinforcement of the screen mounting.
For claim 4, Publication ‘944 and Rahimzadeh cumulatively further suggest wherein the frame (frames of each of the wire-grid walls) is manufactured out of one or more ¼″ steel round bars.
Publication ‘944 teaches a device for purifying water pumped from roadworks and other excavations and runoff to remove sediment (Abstract, page 1, lines 14-20), and teaches the device having a cage-like filter basket or silt trap 10 in which side walls 11 comprise wire mesh infill 18 surrounded by a welded rectangular frame 15 of lightweight steel tubing (page 2, lines 20-22 and page 3, lines 8-19).
Rahimzadeh teaches a building structure (Abstract), in which flooring structure is reinforced and anchored by a combination of reinforcing rods, flatbars, round bar, rebar (i.e. “rectangular or square elements), and anchor bolts and other anchoring elements [0037-0038], so as to form reinforced and strengthened, composite structures including concrete planks [0031-0033 and 0037]. The various bars and other anchoring elements are inherently spaced by a given dimension so as to uniformly reinforce and strengthen the joining or bonding of components to each other.
In addition, the claimed dimension(s) of the frame(s) is/are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by, as cumulatively taught by publication ‘944 and Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the frame(s) of the wire-grid walls of McClure to other structural elements of the storm drain device, while providing additional reinforcement of the wire-grid walls of the baskets.
For claim 5, McClure further suggest wherein the first, second, and third wire grid walls include at least one 1″ square wire (see McClure at (fig 1 and [0062] concerning the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0069] re “wire-mesh bottoms”), .
In addition, the claimed dimension(s) of the wires of wire-grid walls of the basket is/are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have also modified the McClure device by, as taught by Rahimzadeh, by including at least 1” square wires with the wire-grid walls of the basket, in order to, further reinforce and strengthen the baskets and the connection of the basket to the remainder of the device structure.
For claim 6, McClure in view of Rahimzadeh further suggest wherein the basket is connected to the inner of the inlet using washers and concrete anchors (see McClure at fig 1 and again see [0025, 0055 and 0060 re anchor bolts and washers] re attachment of housing assembly panels to the concrete inlet with the housing assembly panels, in turn being connected to the basket via at least one hanger paw 27 to supporting frame 26 of containment housing 17 which is all shown as being on the inner side of the inlet in figure 1), this basket is configured to catch any debris that slips past the screen (figure 1 illustrating the basket being configured and positioned to catch debris that slips by or bypasses the screen).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by including round and square bars of selected dimensions combined with the washers and anchor bolts, as taught by Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly further strengthen and reinforce the connection of the basket to other structural elements of the storm drain device, and indirectly to the curb-inlet of the device disclosed by Rahimzadeh, while providing additional reinforcement of connection of components.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al PGPUBS Document US 2004/0226869 (McClure) in view of Patent Publication AU 20021000944 (Publication ‘944), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rahimzadeh PGPUBS Document US 2016/0130798 (Rahimzadeh), as applied to claims 2-6, and additionally in view of Schilling et al patent 6,086,758 (Schilling). Cited paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents are referenced by “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 7 further differs by requiring wherein the basket includes a filter.
Schilling also teaches a stormwater storm drain filtration device , configured to be located near a street or highway (column 1, lines 5-12 and column 2, lines 15-23). Schilling teaches the storm drain filtration device as having a water-permeable filter positioned at least partially within a rigid basket (column 2, lines 16-23),
Schilling together further suggest the modification of the basket 7 including a filter 10 therewithin, the basket having a grated bottom and side walls (column 2, lines 51-61, column 4, lines 25-34 and figs 1-3 and 6-8.
Schilling teaches such filter as improving the quality of the water discharged from the storm water drainage device by selection of a material capable of filtering out heavy metals and hydrocarbons in the water to a non-detectable level, as well as larger solids such as dirt (column 5, lines 7-32). Schilling also teaches that such configuration of locating a filter within the basket facilitates emptying and cleaning of the filter at regular, selected intervals (column 5, lines 23-32).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by providing a filter capable of filtering out heavy metals, hydrocarbons and dirt within the basket, as taught by Schilling, in order to improving the quality of the water discharged from the storm water drainage device by selection of a material capable of filtering out heavy metals and hydrocarbons in the water to a non-detectable level, as well as larger solids such as dirt, and in a manner which facilitates emptying and cleaning of the filter at regular, selected intervals.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al PGPUBS Document US 2004/0226869 (McClure) in view of Patent Publication AU 20021000944 (Publication ‘944), and further in view of Rahimzadeh PGPUBS Document US 2016/0130798 (Rahimzadeh), and Schilling et al patent 6,086,758 (Schilling). Cited paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents are referenced by “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 8, McClure discloses: A storm drain curb inlet device [0016] comprising:
an inlet having an opening 10/10’/10’’/10s ([0033 and 0067 re concrete curb-inlet], fig 1);
a screen made of steel, attached to the opening of the inlet (grating and grating bars 21/21’/21’’, [0017, 0019 and 0020 re stainless steel construction of components of the device assembly, generally, 0022 re at least stainless steel fastener portions of the grating or screen being steel, and 0045 and 0062 re description of grating ramp, aperture and grating bars], fig 1); and
a basket 27’/27’’, (fig 1 [0062, 0069]) attached to the inner side of the inlet (attached via at least one hanger paw 27 to supporting frame 26 of containment housing 17 which is all shown as being on the inner side of the inlet in figure 1, attached to the housing panels, in turn attached to the concrete curb inlet with anchors 31 , see [0025, 0055 and 0060 re anchor bolts and washers] re attachment of housing assembly panels to the concrete inlet with the housing assembly panels), the basket including:
a first wire-grid wall located on the rear side of the basket and extending between the left side and the right side of the basket (fig 1 showing the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0062] re “wire-mesh” construction),
a second wire-grid wall located on the front side of the basket and extending between the left side and the right side of the basket (fig 1 showing the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0062] re “wire-mesh” construction), and
a third wire-grid wall located on the bottom side of the basket and coupled to the first and second wire-grid walls (fig 1 and [0062] concerning the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0069] re “wire-mesh bottoms”),
wherein each of the first, second, and third wire-grid walls comprises:
a grid of wire lying in a plane (evident from fig 1).
Claim 8 and claims dependent therefrom differ from McClure by requiring wherein the screen includes a 2″ flatbar that attaches to the inlet by the concrete anchors, and a ¼″ round bar, spaced at approximately 3″ intervals.
An objective of McClure is to achieve “very robust fixed mounting means” for the device [0021].
Rahimzadeh teaches a building structure (Abstract), in which flooring structure is reinforced and anchored by a combination of reinforcing rods, flatbars, round bar, rebar (i.e. “rectangular or square elements), and anchor bolts and other anchoring elements [0037-0038], so as to form reinforced and strengthened, composite structures including concrete planks [0031-0033 and 0037]. The various bars and other anchoring elements are inherently spaced by a given dimension so as to uniformly reinforce and strengthen the joining or bonding of components to each other.
In addition, the claimed dimensions of the screen bars are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by combining the anchoring bolts and other anchoring elements disclosed with plural flatbars and round bars, spaced by any selected number of inches, as taught by Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the screen to other structural elements of the storm drain device.
Claim 8 and claims dependent therefrom also differ from McClure by requiring the basket having a frame extending around the grid of wire.
Publication ‘944 teaches a device for purifying water pumped from roadworks and other excavations and runoff to remove sediment (Abstract, page 1, lines 14-20), and teaches the device having a cage-like filter basket or silt trap 10 in which side walls 11 comprise wire mesh infill 18 surrounded by a welded rectangular frame 15 of lightweight steel tubing (page 2, lines 20-22 and page 3, lines 8-19).
Publication ‘944 suggests such frame construction being collapsible, hence facilitating assembly and transportability (page 2, lines 4-5 and page 3, lines 10-13), as well as being easily disassembled and stacked flat (page 6, lines 27-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by constructing the grid walls of the basket to have a frame extending around the grid of wire, as taught by publication ‘944, in order to facilitate assembly and transportability of the basket as well as making the baskets to be easily disassembled and stacked.
Claim 8 and claims dependent therefrom also differ from McClure by requiring the basket having a filter placed inside of the basket.
Schilling also teaches a stormwater storm drain filtration device , configured to be located near a street or highway (column 1, lines 5-12 and column 2, lines 15-23). Schilling teaches the storm drain filtration device as having a water-permeable filter positioned at least partially within a rigid basket (column 2, lines 16-23),
Schilling together further suggest the modification of the basket 7 including a filter 10 therewithin, the basket having a grated bottom and side walls (column 2, lines 51-61, column 4, lines 25-34 and figs 1-3 and 6-8.
Schilling teaches such filter as improving the quality of the water discharged from the storm water drainage device by selection of a material capable of filtering out heavy metals and hydrocarbons in the water to a non-detectable level, as well as larger solids such as dirt (column 5, lines 7-32). Schilling also teaches that such configuration of locating a filter within the basket facilitates emptying and cleaning of the filter at regular, selected intervals (column 5, lines 23-32).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by providing a filter capable of filtering out heavy metals, hydrocarbons and dirt within the basket, as taught by Schilling, in order to improving the quality of the water discharged from the storm water drainage device by selection of a material capable of filtering out heavy metals and hydrocarbons in the water to a non-detectable level, as well as larger solids such as dirt, and in a manner which facilitates emptying and cleaning of the filter at regular, selected intervals.
Claim 9 further differs by requiring the screen to be made of, i.e. “comprise” ¼” steel round bars.
An objective of McClure is to achieve “very robust fixed mounting means” for the device [0021].
Rahimzadeh teaches a building structure (Abstract), in which flooring structure is reinforced and anchored by a combination of reinforcing rods, flatbars, round bar, rebar (i.e. “rectangular or square elements), and anchor bolts and other anchoring elements [0037-0038], so as to form reinforced and strengthened, composite structures including concrete planks [0031-0033 and 0037]. The various bars and other anchoring elements are inherently spaced by a given dimension so as to uniformly reinforce and strengthen the joining or bonding of components to each other.
In addition, the claimed dimensions of the screen bars are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by combining the anchoring bolts and other anchoring elements disclosed with plural ¼” steel round bars, spaced by any selected number of inches, as taught by Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the screen to other structural elements of the storm drain device.
For claim 10, McClure in view of Rahimzadeh further suggest wherein the round bars are surrounded by 1″ square wire and connected to the inside of the inlet using washers and concrete anchors (again see McClure at [0025, 0055 and 0060 re anchor bolts and washers] and see Rahimzadeh at [0038 regarding “rebar…any dimensional stock…formed sections of rebar”, suggesting the claimed surrounding square wire, as rebar is conventionally reinforced with a network of wiring).
In addition, the claimed dimension(s) of the screen bars and square wire is/are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have further modified the McClure device by combining the anchoring bolts and other anchoring elements disclosed with plural flatbars and round bars, spaced by any selected number of inches, as taught by Rahimzadeh, and further including surrounding square wire of any given dimensions, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the screen to other structural elements of the storm drain device, while providing additional reinforcement of the screen mounting.
For claim 11, Publication ‘944 and Rahimzadeh cumulatively further suggest wherein the frame (frames of each of the wire-grid walls) is manufactured out of one or more ¼″ steel round bars.
Publication ‘944 teaches a device for purifying water pumped from roadworks and other excavations and runoff to remove sediment (Abstract, page 1, lines 14-20), and teaches the device having a cage-like filter basket or silt trap 10 in which side walls 11 comprise wire mesh infill 18 surrounded by a welded rectangular frame 15 of lightweight steel tubing (page 2, lines 20-22 and page 3, lines 8-19).
Rahimzadeh teaches a building structure (Abstract), in which flooring structure is reinforced and anchored by a combination of reinforcing rods, flatbars, round bar, rebar (i.e. “rectangular or square elements), and anchor bolts and other anchoring elements [0037-0038], so as to form reinforced and strengthened, composite structures including concrete planks [0031-0033 and 0037]. The various bars and other anchoring elements are inherently spaced by a given dimension so as to uniformly reinforce and strengthen the joining or bonding of components to each other.
In addition, the claimed dimension(s) of the frame(s) is/are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by, as cumulatively taught by publication ‘944 and Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the frame(s) of the wire-grid walls of McClure to other structural elements of the storm drain device, while providing additional reinforcement of the wire-grid walls of the baskets.
For claim 12, McClure further suggest wherein the first, second, and third wire grid walls include at least one 1″ square wire (see McClure at (fig 1 and [0062] concerning the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0069] re “wire-mesh bottoms”), .
In addition, the claimed dimension(s) of the wires of wire-grid walls of the basket is/are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have also modified the McClure device by, as taught by Rahimzadeh, by including at least 1” square wires with the wire-grid walls of the basket, in order to, further reinforce and strengthen the baskets and the connection of the basket to the remainder of the device structure.
For claim 13, McClure in view of Rahimzadeh further suggest wherein the basket is connected to the inner of the inlet using washers and concrete anchors (see McClure at fig 1 and again see [0025, 0055 and 0060 re anchor bolts and washers] re attachment of housing assembly panels to the concrete inlet with the housing assembly panels, in turn being connected to the basket via at least one hanger paw 27 to supporting frame 26 of containment housing 17 which is all shown as being on the inner side of the inlet in figure 1), this basket is configured to catch any debris that slips past the screen (figure 1 illustrating the basket being configured and positioned to catch debris that slips by or bypasses the screen).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by including round and square bars of selected dimensions combined with the washers and anchor bolts, as taught by Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly further strengthen and reinforce the connection of the basket to other structural elements of the storm drain device, and indirectly to the curb-inlet of the device disclosed by Rahimzadeh, while providing additional reinforcement of connection of components.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al PGPUBS Document US 2004/0226869 (McClure) in view of Patent Publication AU 20021000944 (Publication ‘944) and further in view of Rahimzadeh PGPUBS Document US 2016/0130798 (Rahimzadeh). Cited paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents are referenced by “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 14, McClure discloses: A storm drain curb inlet device [0016] comprising:
an inlet having an opening 10/10’/10’’/10s ([0033 and 0067 re concrete curb-inlet], fig 1);
a screen made of steel, attached to the opening of the inlet (grating and grating bars 21/21’/21’’, [0017, 0019 and 0020 re stainless steel construction of components of the device assembly, generally, 0022 re at least stainless steel fastener portions of the grating or screen being steel, and 0045 and 0062 re description of grating ramp, aperture and grating bars], fig 1); and
a basket 27’/27’’, (fig 1 [0062, 0069]) attached to the inner side of the inlet (attached via at least one hanger paw 27 to supporting frame 26 of containment housing 17 which is all shown as being on the inner side of the inlet in figure 1, attached to the housing panels, in turn attached to the concrete curb inlet with anchors 31 , see [0025, 0055 and 0060 re anchor bolts and washers] re attachment of housing assembly panels to the concrete inlet with the housing assembly panels), the basket including:
a first wire-grid wall located on the rear side of the basket and extending between the left side and the right side of the basket (fig 1 showing the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0062] re “wire-mesh” construction),
a second wire-grid wall located on the front side of the basket and extending between the left side and the right side of the basket (fig 1 showing the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0062] re “wire-mesh” construction), and
a third wire-grid wall located on the bottom side of the basket and coupled to the first and second wire-grid walls (fig 1 and [0062] concerning the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0069] re “wire-mesh bottoms”),
wherein each of the first, second, and third wire-grid walls comprises:
a grid of wire lying in a plane (evident from fig 1).
Claim 14 and claims dependent therefrom differ from McClure by requiring wherein the screen includes a 2″ flatbar that attaches to the inlet by the concrete anchors, and a ¼″ round bar, spaced at approximately 3″ intervals.
An objective of McClure is to achieve “very robust fixed mounting means” for the device [0021].
Rahimzadeh teaches a building structure (Abstract), in which flooring structure is reinforced and anchored by a combination of reinforcing rods, flatbars, round bar, rebar (i.e. “rectangular or square elements), and anchor bolts and other anchoring elements [0037-0038], so as to form reinforced and strengthened, composite structures including concrete planks [0031-0033 and 0037]. The various bars and other anchoring elements are inherently spaced by a given dimension so as to uniformly reinforce and strengthen the joining or bonding of components to each other.
In addition, the claimed dimensions of the screen bars are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by combining the anchoring bolts and other anchoring elements disclosed with plural flatbars and round bars, spaced by any selected number of inches, as taught by Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the screen to other structural elements of the storm drain device.
Claim 14 and claims dependent therefrom also differ from McClure by requiring the basket having a frame extending around the grid of wire.
Publication ‘944 teaches a device for purifying water pumped from roadworks and other excavations and runoff to remove sediment (Abstract, page 1, lines 14-20), and teaches the device having a cage-like filter basket or silt trap 10 in which side walls 11 comprise wire mesh infill 18 surrounded by a welded rectangular frame 15 of lightweight steel tubing (page 2, lines 20-22 and page 3, lines 8-19).
Publication ‘944 suggests such frame construction being collapsible, hence facilitating assembly and transportability (page 2, lines 4-5 and page 3, lines 10-13), as well as being easily disassembled and stacked flat (page 6, lines 27-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by constructing the grid walls of the basket to have a frame extending around the grid of wire, as taught by publication ‘944, in order to facilitate assembly and transportability of the basket as well as making the baskets to be easily disassembled and stacked.
Claim 15 further differs by requiring the screen to be made of, i.e. “comprise” ¼” steel round bars.
An objective of McClure is to achieve “very robust fixed mounting means” for the device [0021].
Rahimzadeh teaches a building structure (Abstract), in which flooring structure is reinforced and anchored by a combination of reinforcing rods, flatbars, round bar, rebar (i.e. “rectangular or square elements), and anchor bolts and other anchoring elements [0037-0038], so as to form reinforced and strengthened, composite structures including concrete planks [0031-0033 and 0037]. The various bars and other anchoring elements are inherently spaced by a given dimension so as to uniformly reinforce and strengthen the joining or bonding of components to each other.
In addition, the claimed dimensions of the screen bars are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by combining the anchoring bolts and other anchoring elements disclosed with plural ¼” steel round bars, spaced by any selected number of inches, as taught by Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the screen to other structural elements of the storm drain device.
For claim 16, McClure in view of Rahimzadeh further suggest wherein the round bars are surrounded by 1″ square wire and connected to the inside of the inlet using washers and concrete anchors (again see McClure at [0025, 0055 and 0060 re anchor bolts and washers] and see Rahimzadeh at [0038 regarding “rebar…any dimensional stock…formed sections of rebar”, suggesting the claimed surrounding square wire, as rebar is conventionally reinforced with a network of wiring).
In addition, the claimed dimension(s) of the screen bars and square wire is/are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have further modified the McClure device by combining the anchoring bolts and other anchoring elements disclosed with plural flatbars and round bars, spaced by any selected number of inches, as taught by Rahimzadeh, and further including surrounding square wire of any given dimensions, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the screen to other structural elements of the storm drain device, while providing additional reinforcement of the screen mounting.
For claim 17, Publication ‘944 and Rahimzadeh cumulatively further suggest wherein the frame (frames of each of the wire-grid walls) is manufactured out of one or more ¼″ steel round bars.
Publication ‘944 teaches a device for purifying water pumped from roadworks and other excavations and runoff to remove sediment (Abstract, page 1, lines 14-20), and teaches the device having a cage-like filter basket or silt trap 10 in which side walls 11 comprise wire mesh infill 18 surrounded by a welded rectangular frame 15 of lightweight steel tubing (page 2, lines 20-22 and page 3, lines 8-19).
Rahimzadeh teaches a building structure (Abstract), in which flooring structure is reinforced and anchored by a combination of reinforcing rods, flatbars, round bar, rebar (i.e. “rectangular or square elements), and anchor bolts and other anchoring elements [0037-0038], so as to form reinforced and strengthened, composite structures including concrete planks [0031-0033 and 0037]. The various bars and other anchoring elements are inherently spaced by a given dimension so as to uniformly reinforce and strengthen the joining or bonding of components to each other.
In addition, the claimed dimension(s) of the frame(s) is/are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by, as cumulatively taught by publication ‘944 and Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly strengthen and reinforce the connection of the frame(s) of the wire-grid walls of McClure to other structural elements of the storm drain device, while providing additional reinforcement of the wire-grid walls of the baskets.
For claim 18, McClure further suggest wherein the first, second, and third wire grid walls include at least one 1″ square wire (see McClure at (fig 1 and [0062] concerning the grid side walls of the baskets, and see [0069] re “wire-mesh bottoms”), .
In addition, the claimed dimension(s) of the wires of wire-grid walls of the basket is/are deemed to be results effective variables, for which it would have been obvious to optimize by routine experimentation in order to provide an optimum level of stability and resistance against deforming as a result of high pressure storm water flow passing into the device, without imparting undue weight of materials to unnecessarily increase installation costs of the device.
The MPEP Section 2144.05, parts I and II cites Case Law which has established precedence that where the prior art teaches or suggests parameter values, ranges, proportions and amounts which overlap, approach or are similar to what is claimed, patentability of the subject matter is not supported, absent finding of unexpected results or verified criticality of what is claimed.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have also modified the McClure device by, as taught by Rahimzadeh, by including at least 1” square wires with the wire-grid walls of the basket, in order to, further reinforce and strengthen the baskets and the connection of the basket to the remainder of the device structure.
For claim 19, McClure in view of Rahimzadeh further suggest wherein the basket is connected to the inner of the inlet using washers and concrete anchors (see McClure at fig 1 and again see [0025, 0055 and 0060 re anchor bolts and washers] re attachment of housing assembly panels to the concrete inlet with the housing assembly panels, in turn being connected to the basket via at least one hanger paw 27 to supporting frame 26 of containment housing 17 which is all shown as being on the inner side of the inlet in figure 1), this basket is configured to catch any debris that slips past the screen (figure 1 illustrating the basket being configured and positioned to catch debris that slips by or bypasses the screen).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by including round and square bars of selected dimensions combined with the washers and anchor bolts, as taught by Rahimzadeh, in order to uniformly further strengthen and reinforce the connection of the basket to other structural elements of the storm drain device, and indirectly to the curb-inlet of the device disclosed by Rahimzadeh, while providing additional reinforcement of connection of components.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure et al PGPUBS Document US 2004/0226869 (McClure) in view of Patent Publication AU 20021000944 (Publication ‘944), and further in view of Rahimzadeh PGPUBS Document US 2016/0130798 (Rahimzadeh), as applied to claims 14-19, and additionally in view of Schilling et al patent 6,086,758 (Schilling). Cited paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents are referenced by “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 20 further differs from McClure by requiring the basket having a filter placed inside of the basket.
Schilling also teaches a stormwater storm drain filtration device , configured to be located near a street or highway (column 1, lines 5-12 and column 2, lines 15-23). Schilling teaches the storm drain filtration device as having a water-permeable filter positioned at least partially within a rigid basket (column 2, lines 16-23),
Schilling together further suggest the modification of the basket 7 including a filter 10 therewithin, the basket having a grated bottom and side walls (column 2, lines 51-61, column 4, lines 25-34 and figs 1-3 and 6-8.
Schilling teaches such filter as improving the quality of the water discharged from the storm water drainage device by selection of a material capable of filtering out heavy metals and hydrocarbons in the water to a non-detectable level, as well as larger solids such as dirt (column 5, lines 7-32). Schilling also teaches that such configuration of locating a filter within the basket facilitates emptying and cleaning of the filter at regular, selected intervals (column 5, lines 23-32).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of constructing storm drain curb inlet devices, to have modified the McClure device by providing a filter capable of filtering out heavy metals, hydrocarbons and dirt within the basket, as taught by Schilling, in order to improving the quality of the water discharged from the storm water drainage device by selection of a material capable of filtering out heavy metals and hydrocarbons in the water to a non-detectable level, as well as larger solids such as dirt, and in a manner which facilitates emptying and cleaning of the filter at regular, selected intervals.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art is cited, however not relied upon teaching other variations of storm water curb or street inlet drain devices, generally comprising screen or filtering planar members or baskets, filters and having metallic or specifically steel structural members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
02/06/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773