DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mailhot et al (US 2020/0032499).
As to claim 1, Mailhot et al discloses (see annotated Fig. 1B) a stackable endcap 100’ of a chamber for holding and discharging stormwater, the stackable endcap comprising:
an endcap body having a wall with a convex outer surface and a concave inner surface, the concave inner surface of the wall defining an interior volume of the stackable endcap;
a substantially planar foot extending from a lower edge of the endcap body; and
a protruding inner rim running along an inner edge of the endcap body,
wherein the stackable endcap is configured to be stacked with at least one additional endcap such that at least one of the foot or the inner rim of the stackable endcap contacts the additional endcap while the wall of the endcap body is spaced apart from a wall of the additional endcap. While silent to the endcap being stackable, the endcap(s) of Mailhot et al are clearly capable of being stacked.
PNG
media_image1.png
891
1093
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Mailhot et al discloses wherein the stackable endcap 100’ is configured to connect to an end of a chamber body 200 in at least one of an overlapping configuration or an underlapping configuration to form the chamber.
As to claim 3, Mailhot et al discloses wherein the stackable endcap100’ and the at least one additional endcap 100’ are stackable in a vertical stacking direction or in a horizontal stacking direction. While silent to the endcap being stackable, the endcap(s) of Mailhot et al are clearly capable of being stacked in a vertical or horizontal direction.
As to claim 4, Mailhot et al inherently discloses wherein the interior volume of the stackable endcap communicates with an interior volume of the additional endcap when the stackable endcap and the additional endcap are stacked together. While silent to the endcap being stackable, the endcap(s) of Mailhot et al are clearly capable of being stacked. Furthermore, when stacked the interior volume would communicate with an interior volume of the additional endcap.
As to claim 5, Mailhot et al inherently discloses wherein the stackable endcap is configured to receive, within the interior volume, an outer surface of the additional endcap when the stackable endcap and the additional endcap are stacked together. While silent to the endcap being stackable, the endcap(s) of Mailhot et al are clearly capable of being stacked. Furthermore, when stacked the outer surface would be received within an interior volume.
As to claim 6, Mailhot et al discloses (see annotated Fig. 1D) further comprising a plurality of nesting ribs extending from the wall of the endcap body, wherein the nesting ribs are configured to hold the wall of the endcap body apart from the wall of the additional endcap.
As to claim 7, Mailhot et al discloses wherein at least one of the nesting ribs 180 runs along the concave inner surface of the wall of the endcap body between the foot and the inner rim of the endcap.
As to claim 8, Mailhot et al discloses (see annotated Fig. 1D) further comprising at least one nesting rib extending from the wall of the endcap body, wherein the at least one nesting rib is configured to support a third endcap stacked adjacent to the stackable endcap. Mailhot et al discloses a plurality of nesting ribs. As such, if stacked, a third end cap may be supported on such rib.
As to claim 9, Mailhot et al discloses further comprising a plurality of mounting rings (generally at 500) protruding from at least one of the convex outer surface of the wall of the endcap body or the concave inner surface of the wall of the endcap body, wherein each mounting ring is configured to hold a fluid pipe extending through an opening in the stackable endcap.
As to claim 10, Mailhot et al discloses wherein the mounting rings (generally at 500) are arranged in a concentric configuration.
As to claim 11, Mailhot et al discloses wherein a depth of at least one mounting ring (generally at 500), relative to the wall of the endcap body, varies as a function of position along the wall of the endcap body.
As to claim 12, Mailhot et al discloses (see annotated Figure 1D) further comprising at least one latch extending from the endcap, wherein the at least one latch is configured to engage with a receiving projection of the additional endcap so as to secure the stackable endcap against movement relative to the additional endcap.
As to claim 13, Mailhot et al discloses (see annotated Figure 1D) wherein the stackable endcap includes at least two latches that are spaced apart from the lower end of the endcap and which each extend from the inner rim in a laterally inward direction.
As to claim 14, Mailhot et al discloses wherein the wall of the endcap body 100’ has a parabolic profile in at least one dimension.
As to claim 15, Mailhot et al discloses wherein the wall of the endcap body 100’ has a parabolic profile in two dimensions.
Insofar as understood, Mailhot et al discloses wherein the concave inner surface of the endcap body wall and the convex outer surface of the endcap body wall are substantially flat.
As to claim 17, Mailhot et al discloses wherein the wall of the endcap body forms a plurality of corrugations 108 defined by alternating peaks and valleys emanating from the lower edge of the endcap body to the inner edge of the endcap body, wherein the peaks and valleys have parabolic profiles in two dimensions.
As to claim 18, Mailhot et al discloses wherein at least one of the corrugation valleys 108 has a variable width.
As to claim 19, Mailhot et al discloses wherein at least one of the corrugation peaks 108 has a variable width.
As to claim 20, Mailhot et al discloses (see annotated Figure 1D) further comprising a plurality of nesting ribs running laterally across the corrugation valleys, wherein the nesting ribs are configured to support a third endcap stacked adjacent to the stackable endcap.
As to claim 21, Mailhot et al discloses (see figure annotated 1D) a system for holding and discharging stormwater, the system comprising:
a stormwater chamber formed from a chamber body 200 and a stackable endcap (100, 100”) connected to an end of the chamber body, wherein the stackable endcap 100’ comprises: an endcap body having a wall with a convex outer surface and a concave inner surface, the concave inner surface of the wall defining an interior volume of the stackable endcap that is open to an interior volume of the chamber; a substantially planar foot extending from a lower edge of the endcap body; and a protruding inner rim running along an inner edge of the endcap body, wherein the stackable endcap is configured to be stacked with at least one additional endcap such that at least one of the foot or the inner rim of the stackable endcap contacts the additional endcap while the wall of the endcap body is spaced apart from a wall of the additional endcap.
As to claim 22, Mailhot et al discloses further comprising: a fluid pipe 300 extending through an opening in the endcap body of the stackable endcap, wherein the stackable endcap includes a plurality of mounting rings protruding from at least one of the outer surface of the wall or the inner surface of the wall, wherein one of the mounting rings encircles and holds the fluid pipe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the stackable end cap is configured to be stacked with at least one additional endcap such that at least one of the foot or the inner rim of the stackable endcap contacts the additional endcap while the wall of the endcap body is spaced apart from a wall of the additional endcap, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The examiner maintains that the endcap of Mailhot et al is easily/clearly capable of being stacked such that at least one of the foot or the inner rim of the stackable endcap contacts the additional endcap while the wall of the endcap body is spaced apart from a wall of the additional endcap. For example, if stacked it would appear that at least the inner surface of the foot would contact an outer surface of at least one corrugation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678