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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjamin (U.S. Patent 1,328,980) in view of Roodvoets et al. (U.S. Patent 5,479,955), hereainfter “Roodvoets”, Abramovitz (U.S. Patent 1,483,964) and Evans et al. (U.S. Publication 2004/0020420), hereinafter “Evans”.
In regards to claim 1, Benjamin discloses a drain valve system configured to be connected to a body, the drain valve system comprising: a casing (11) configured to be sealed against an outside wall of the body, a conduit (14) fluidly connected to the casing (11), and an opener mechanism (15, 16, 17) extending through the casing (11) and configured to engage with the casing so as to cause a pressure tight seal (via 20, 21) between the casing (11) and the opener mechanism (15, 16, 17), a second gasket (20 or 21) positioned between the opener mechanism (15, 16, 17) and the casing (11); wherein the opener mechanism (15, 16, 17) is configured to open a hole in the body, and wherein the conduit (14) is fluidly connected to an inside of the body through the hole.
Benjamin discloses the casing secured to the body via a threaded coupling.
Benjamin does not specifically disclose a clamp configured to seal the casing to the body. However, Roodvoets teaches a system for removing a plug from a body wherein a casing (14) is secured to a body (11) via a clamp (68).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the casing and body of Benjamin to be coupled via a clamp as a well-known alternative manner of securing two components to each other. Further, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have utilized a clamp to facilitate linear coupling without the need for rotation (i.e. threading) of component parts.
Benjamin does not specifically disclose a drain valve fluidly connected to the conduit.
However, Abramovitz teaches a tank tapping device which includes a valve (24) located on a conduit.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Benjamin to include a valve on the conduit to facilitate flow control from the opened body as illustrated by Abramovitz.
Benjamin does not specifically disclose a gasket positioned between the casing the outside wall of the body.
However, Evans teaches two components (234, 260) wherein a gasket (282) is placed between the components.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included a gasket between the mating components of Benjamin to ensure a fluid tight seal between the components as taught by Evans (see para. [0054]).
In regards to claim 2, the opener mechanism (15, 16, 17) comprises a socket (17) for removing a threaded plug comprised in the body to open the hole in the body.
In regards to claim 3, the opener mechanism (15, 16, 17) is configured to reinstall the threaded plug to the body to close the hole in the body.
Regarding "bonding" and “welding” as recited in claims 6 and 10, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
In regards to claim 9, the body (1) is pressurized.
Claim(s) 1, and 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yocum (U.S. Patent 3,038,490) in view of Abramovitz (U.S. Patent 1,483,964).
In regards to claim 1, Yocum discloses a drain valve system configured to be connected to a body, the drain valve system comprising: a casing (1) configured to be sealed against an outside wall of the body (8), a conduit (14) fluidly connected to the casing (1), a clamp (2, 3, 4) configured to seal the casing (1) to the body (8)and an opener mechanism (18,26) extending through the casing (1) and configured to engage with the casing so as to cause a pressure tight seal (via 23) between the casing (1) and the opener mechanism (18, 26), a first gasket (9) positioned between the casing (1) and the outside wall of the body (8) and a second gasket (23) positioned between the opener mechanism (18, 26) and the casing (1); wherein the opener mechanism (18, 26) is configured to open a hole in the body, and wherein the conduit (14) is fluidly connected to an inside of the body through the hole.
See at least col. 7, lines 20-24, which disclose turning screws (3, 4) to bring the base plate (2) and casing (1) into piercing position and effecting a seal between the casing (1) and the tube (8).
Yocum does not specifically disclose a drain valve fluidly connected to the conduit.
However, Abramovitz teaches a tank tapping device which includes a valve (24) located on a conduit.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Yocum to include a valve on the conduit to facilitate flow control from the opened body as illustrated by Abramovitz.
In regards to claim 4, the opener mechanism (18, 26) comprises a piercer (29) for piercing the body to open the hole in the body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
As discussed above, Roodvoets teaches a clamp and Yocum discloses the clamp as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753