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 1.84(h)(2) because figure 6 contains an enlarged portion within the same figure. When a portion of a view is enlarged for magnification purposes, the view and the enlarged view must each be labeled as separate views.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In paragraph 35, line 5, “angels” should be changed to -- angles --.
The specification is replete with incorrect reference numerals too numerous to mention in each and every instance. The following are several examples. The specification should be carefully proofread for additional instances of incorrect reference numerals.
In paragraph 29, line 1, “70” should be changed to -- 72 --.
In paragraph 37, the second to last line, “96” should be changed to -- 88 --.
In paragraph 38, line 6, reference numeral 98 is incorrect. It appears that this should be reference numeral 20.
In paragraph 44, line 1, “96” is incorrect, as reference numeral 96 is used previously for the opening.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 4, “thereof” is unclear as to if this refers to the tube, or the first outlet nozzle.
In claim 13, line 2, “thereof” is unclear as to if this refers to the door, or the door assembly.
In claim 14, line 2, “a downspout” is a double recitation of the downspout in line 1, causing ambiguity.
In claim 14, line 2, “a rain gutter is a double recitation of the rain gutter in line 1, causing ambiguity.
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.
Claims 1-9, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conder 8,739,362 in view of Partis, Jr. 2016/0177571.
Conder discloses a system for cleaning a rain gutter 100 and a downspout (capable of being cleaned via an outlet at the end of the downspout) substantially as claimed, comprising: an air blower 90 having a first outlet nozzle 92; a tube 48 in air conducting communication with the first outlet nozzle at a first end thereof; and an outlet nozzle assembly 60 at a second end of the tube, the outlet nozzle assembly comprising an air conduit 62 (claim 1).
The tube is extendable (column 3, lines 52-61) (claim 7).
The tube is telescopic (column 3, lines 52-61) (claim 8).
An extension tube section 42 is selectively interposed between the tube and the first outlet nozzle (column 3, lines 61-65, for example) (claim 9).
However, Conder does not disclose the air conduit having a first turn of 180° and a second turn of 90° (claim 1), does not disclose that the first turn and the tube lie in a same plane (claim 2), does not disclose that the second turn is orthogonal to the first turn (claim 3), does not disclose that the nozzle outlet assembly further comprises a second outlet nozzle having an orifice substantially circular in nature (claim 4), does not disclose that the second outlet nozzle is closed by a plate at a top portion thereof, decreasing a size of the orifice (claim 5), and does not disclose that the outlet nozzle assembly is of unitary construction (claim 6).
Partis, Jr. shows a gutter cleaning device comprising a tube 26 and an outlet nozzle assembly 10 connected to a second end of the tube, the outlet nozzle assembly comprising a conduit 12 having a first turn of 180° at 18 and 22, and a second turn of 90° at 38 and 48, the first turn and the tube lying in a same plane, the second turn being orthogonal to the first turn, the nozzle outlet assembly further comprises a second outlet nozzle (note the annotated figure below) having an orifice 52 substantially circular in nature, the second outlet nozzle is closed by a plate at a top portion thereof, decreasing a size of the orifice, the outlet nozzle assembly being of unitary construction, for the purpose of providing a new cleaning device which removes debris from the gutter in a desired direction and which allows for construction via several parts.
PNG
media_image1.png
878
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the system of Conder such that the air conduit has a first turn of 180° and a second turn of 90°, such that the first turn and the tube lie in a same plane, such that the second turn is orthogonal to the first turn, such that the nozzle outlet assembly further comprises a second outlet nozzle having an orifice substantially circular in nature, such that the second outlet nozzle is closed by a plate at a top portion thereof, decreasing a size of the orifice, and such that the outlet nozzle assembly is of unitary construction, as taught by Partis, Jr., for the purpose of providing a new cleaning device which removes debris from the gutter in a desired direction and which allows for construction via several parts.
Although Partis, Jr. is directed towards water as the source of cleaning fluid, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the applicability of the teachings of Partis, Jr. to the system of Conder, as this would also provide a debris removal from the desired direction.
Claim 10, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conder 8,739,362 and Partis, Jr. 2016/0177571 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 98/37289A1.
The modified system for cleaning a rain gutter of Conder shows all of the claimed subject matter except for a cap received by the rain gutter over an opening in the rain gutter in communication with the downspout, the cap having a curvate member over the opening and extending toward the gutter.
WO 98/37289A1 shows a rain gutter covering system, including a cap 14 received by a rain gutter 11, 12, 13 over an opening 20 in the rain gutter in communication with a downspout 21, the cap having a curvate member 50 over the opening and extending toward the gutter, for the purpose of allowing for admitting rainwater but rejecting debris from the gutter.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified system of Conder such that it includes a cap received by the rain gutter over an opening in the rain gutter in communication with the downspout, the cap having a curvate member over the opening and extending toward the gutter, as taught by WO 98/37289A1, for the purpose of allowing for admitting rainwater but rejecting debris from the gutter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11-13 and 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to dependent claim 11, the closest art of record is the combination of Conder 8,739,362 in view of Partis, Jr. 2016/0177571 and WO 98/37289.
The combination of combination of Conder 8,739,362 in view of Partis, Jr. 2016/0177571 and WO 98/37289 shows the subject matter of claims 1 and 10 as set forth above, but does not show, in combination, a door assembly mounted over an opening in the downspout, said door assembly comprising a spring biased door adapted to be urged inwardly by said second outlet nozzle to allow forced air entry into the downspout upwardly, through the opening in the rain gutter and deflected into said gutter by said curvate member.
Claims 12-13 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency on allowable claim 11.
With regard to independent claim 14, Conder 8,739,362, St-Jacques 5,882,508, and WO 98/37289 are the closest art of record.
Conder 8,739,362 discloses a system for cleaning a rain gutter and downspout, comprising: an air blower 90, a tube 48 in air conducting communication with the air blower, an outlet nozzle assembly 60 at an end of the tube, the outlet nozzle assembly being configured for air-blowing receipt by the rain gutter.
St-Jacques 5,882,508 shows a downspout 34 having a first opening 72 therein covered by a reciprocating door 74, a rain gutter 20 having a second opening 36 in a bottom surface thereof, the rain gutter being in communication with the downspout through the second opening.
WO 98/37289 shows a cap 14 received by a rain gutter 11, 12, 13 over a second opening 20.
However, the combination of Conder 8,739,362, St-Jacques 5,882,508, and WO 98/37289 does not show the outlet nozzle assembly configured for air-blowing receipt by the reciprocating door to remove debris from clogging the rain gutter, downspout, and first opening.
Claims 15-19 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency on allowable claim 14.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Young is cited to show a gutter cleaning arrangement with a U-shaped bend.
Dietle is cited to show a gutter cleaning arrangement with a U-shaped bend and outlet nozzles.
Fischer is cited to show a gutter cleaning arrangement with a telescoping handle.
Chao is cited to show a gutter cleaning arrangement with a blower which blows air into the gutter through a vertical pipe.
DiFiore is cited to show a foundation drainage system with a downspout having a spring biased door which receives water leaves via gravity flow
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Verdier whose telephone number is (571)272-4824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/Christopher Verdier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745