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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a “chamfer” in Figure 1 as described in the specification in the “Brief Description of the Drawings” section. The specification discloses that the chamfer is denoted by reference numeral 3, but element 3 in Figure 1 is simply a flat flange. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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:
page 3 of the specification discloses “Figure 1 shows…chamfer (3)”. However, looking at element 3 in Figure 1, what is shown is clearly a flat flange, not any sort of chamfer.
The description of Figure 2 in the “Brief Description of the Drawings” section includes “the clamping elastomers (10)”. There is no other disclosure about the clamping elastomers anywhere else in the specification, and it is unclear what structure “clamping elastomers” entails. Figure 3 includes reference numeral 10, but the element shown does not appear to be a clamp in any way, and it is unclear how 10 can perform a clamping function.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8 and 14 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said laminar portion" in the fifth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Applicant intended “said lamellar portion”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “centered on said laminar portion a signaling element emerges”, as if the signaling element can be actuated. Based on Applicant’s specification and drawings, the signaling element (cone shown in the figures) cannot be actuated, it simply exists on top of a plate. This limitation as worded is misleading and indefinite because it does not appear to be in accordance with Applicant’s specification and drawings. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Applicant intended “a signaling element centered on said lamellar portion” (see rejection above).
Claim 8 recites “includes at least three clamping elastomers”. The description of Figure 2 in the “Brief Description of the Drawings” section includes “the clamping elastomers (10)”. There is no other disclosure about the clamping elastomers anywhere else in the specification, and it is unclear what structure “clamping elastomers” entails. Figure 3 includes reference numeral 10, but the element shown does not appear to be a clamp in any way, and it is unclear how element 10 can perform a clamping function.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the surface” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Correction is required.
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 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legendre, US 3,046,853 in view of Sauriol et al., US 3,920,347; Corder, US 9,573,086 B2; Balint et al., US 3,409,344; CN 208949925 U (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘925”); and Miller, US 5,328,294.
Regarding claim 8, Legendre teaches a means with which to cover an opening of a manhole (manhole cover) by a portion of material of lamellar form (2, plate form as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
While Legendre fails to disclose, next to the perimeter of the lamellar portion, a plurality of holes that cooperate with screws for fixation on the manhole, Sauriol teaches a manhole cover and discloses that it may be desirable to semi-permanently lock the manhole cover within the manhole opening by bolting the cover down (column 2 lines 57-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Legendre’s lamellar portion to have a plurality of holes that cooperate with screws for fixation on the manhole in view of Sauriol’s disclosure that it may be desirable to semi-permanently lock the manhole cover; that would minimize the chance of the manhole cover from being removed by unauthorized persons. The resulting combination makes obvious that the holes are near the perimeter because that is where the manhole shaft is, to be able to attach the manhole cover.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose the lamellar portion including a chamfer, Corder teaches a drain cover and discloses a chamfered edge (8; Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the edge of the resulting combination to have a chamfered edge in view of Corder’s chamfered edge based on obvious design choice as an alternate type of edge.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the chamfer has at least one reflecting element, Balint teaches a traffic marker that is installed on the surface of a roadway with reflectors on chamfered edges (reflector 22; Figures 1 and 2). In view of manholes commonly being on roadways, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chamfer of the resulting combination to include at least one reflecting element in view of Balint’s disclosure of positioning a reflector which effectively reflects light back to the eyes of a driver of a vehicle (column 1 lines 51-53) to increase visibility of the temporary manhole cover.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose a signaling element centered on said lamellar portion, CN ‘925 teaches a manhole cover and discloses a signaling element (42+43; Figure 1) centered on a plate portion of the manhole cover. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lamellar portion of the resulting combination to include a signaling element centered thereon in view of CN ‘925’s disclosure of the window having “warning light-reflecting” to “remind the pedestrian or vehicle” (first two paragraphs on page 2 of the English translation of the specification) to draw attention to the temporary manhole cover to passersby for safety.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the reverse side manhole cover includes clamping elastomers that protrude from a face of the reverse side and contact walls of the manhole, the manhole cover of the resulting combination has ribs on the reverse side (Legendre’s Figure 3) and wedges (Legendre’s 7, 10; Figure 2) protruding from the outer edges of the ribs which are useful in preventing the cover from working loose (column 2 lines 11-15). Miller discloses a jaw plate similar to the protruding wedges (for pressing into a wall) of the resulting combination and discloses a backing made of resilient friction-enhancing rubber (shown in Figure 1; column 5 lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wedges of the resulting combination to include “clamping elastomers” in the form of backings made of resilient friction-enhancing rubber as an additional measure to prevent the cover from working loose. The resulting combination yields clamping elastomers that protrude from a face of the reverse side and contact walls of the manhole (since the walls of the manhole, which make up the manhole shaft, are directly under the manhole cover). The resulting combination makes obvious that there are at least three clamping elastomers since Legendre shows eight wedges. The resulting combination includes a collective protection and signaling of manholes for building and civil works.
Regarding claim 11, the resulting combination includes luminous warning means in the signaling element (CN ‘925’s disclosure of the window having “warning light-reflecting” to “remind the pedestrian or vehicle”; first two paragraphs on page 2 of the English translation of the specification).
Regarding claim 12, while it appears that CN ‘925 discloses the signaling element is fixed to a manhole cover by protruding pegs that are received within tracks in the manhole cover but the resulting combination fails to disclose screws, the Examiner takes Official Notice that screws are well-known and commonly available. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pegs to be screws which would perform the same function of the pegs (slide within tracks) since screws are commonly available.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legendre in view of Sauriol, Corder, Balint, CN ‘925, and Miller as applied above to claim 8, further in view of Lorenz, US 8,454,263 B2.
Regarding claim 13, while the resulting combination fails to disclose at least one carrying handle, Lorenz teaches a manhole cover and discloses at least one lifting handle (Abstract) which is the same as at least one carrying handle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include at least one carrying handle in view of Lorenz’s disclosure for a user’s ease in lifting the manhole cover.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legendre in view of Sauriol, Corder, Balint, CN ‘925, and Miller as applied above to claim 8, further in view of Pulver, US 5,911,537.
Regarding claim 14, while the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose a non-slip finish on the surface, Pulver teaches a manhole cover and discloses that the planar top surface is non-slip containing a network of slots or grooves (column 4 lines 16-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the top surface of the resulting combination to have a non-slip finish on a top surface in view of Pulver’s disclosure as a safety measure.
Claims 8 (alternate rejection)-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruckel, US 10,208,449 B2 in view of Sauriol et al., US 3,920,347; Corder, US 9,573,086 B2; Balint et al., US 3,409,344; Haskins, US 9,982,411 B2; Legendre, US 3,046,853; and Miller, US 5,328,294.
Regarding claim 8, Ruckel teaches a means with which to cover an opening of a manhole (temporary manhole cover) by a portion of material of lamellar form (10, annular plate form as shown in Figures 1 and 1 A-A).
While Ruckel fails to disclose, next to the perimeter of the lamellar portion, a plurality of holes that cooperate with screws for fixation on the manhole, Sauriol teaches a manhole cover and discloses that it may be desirable to semi-permanently lock the manhole cover within the manhole opening by bolting the cover down (column 2 lines 57-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruckels’s lamellar portion to have a plurality of holes that cooperate with screws for fixation on the manhole in view of Sauriol’s disclosure that it may be desirable to semi-permanently lock the manhole cover; that would minimize the chance of the manhole cover from being removed by unauthorized persons. The resulting combination makes obvious that the holes are near the perimeter because that is where the manhole shaft is, to be able to attach the manhole cover.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose the lamellar portion including a chamfer, Corder teaches a drain cover and discloses a chamfered edge (8; Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeCroix’s edge to have a chamfered edge in view of Corder’s chamfered edge based on obvious design choice as an alternate type of edge.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the chamfer has at least one reflecting element, Balint teaches a traffic marker that is installed on the surface of a roadway with reflectors on chamfered edges (reflector 22; Figures 1 and 2). In view of manholes commonly being on roadways, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chamfer of the resulting combination to include at least one reflecting element in view of Balint’s disclosure of positioning a reflector which effectively reflects light back to the eyes of a driver of a vehicle (column 1 lines 51-53) to increase visibility of the temporary manhole cover.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose a signaling element, Haskins teaches a temporary manhole cover and discloses that it is known in the art to station a signaling element (cone in Figure 10 – prior art) adjacent the manhole to provide a visual warning (column 1 lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lamellar portion of the resulting combination to include a signaling element in view of Haskins’s disclosure to draw attention to the temporary manhole cover to passersby for safety. While the resulting combination does not explicitly disclose “centered on”, it has been held that rearrangement of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to center the signaling element on the lamellar portion if construction/maintenance workers leave the manhole but must return later to finish working, to place the signaling element on top of the temporary manhole cover as a visual warning to draw attention to the temporary manhole cover.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the reverse side manhole cover includes clamping elastomers that protrude from a face of the reverse side and contact walls of the manhole, the manhole cover of the resulting combination has ribs on the reverse side (Ruckel’s Figures 1, 1 B-B, and 4). Legendre teaches a manhole cover with an underside having ribs and wedges (Legendre’s 7, 10; Figure 2) protruding from the outer edges of the ribs which are useful in preventing the cover from working loose (column 2 lines 11-15). Miller discloses a jaw plate similar to the protruding wedges of the resulting combination and discloses a backing made of resilient friction-enhancing rubber (shown in Figure 1; column 5 lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ribs of the resulting combination to include wedges in view of Legendre’s disclosure to prevent the cover of the resulting combination from working loose in view of Legendre’s disclosure as discussed above, and to include “clamping elastomers” in the form of backings made of resilient friction-enhancing rubber in view of Miller’s disclosure as discussed above as an additional measure to prevent the cover from working loose. The resulting combination yields clamping elastomers that protrude from a face of the reverse side and contact walls of the manhole (since the walls of the manhole, which make up the manhole shaft, are directly under the manhole cover). The resulting combination makes obvious that there are at least three clamping elastomers since the ribs (Ruckel’s 20 and 40) of the resulting combination have four ends. The resulting combination includes a collective protection and signaling of manholes for building and civil works.
Regarding claim 9, the resulting combination includes the manhole cover comprising on a face in contact with the manhole, a plurality of openings (filled by bolts 90 as shown in Ruckel’s Figures 1 and 1 A-A) that cooperate with stops (Ruckel’s 90+30+50; to prevent a worker’s entire body from falling through; column 1 lines 43-45) retained by these openings by a tightening adjustment.
Regarding claim 10, the resulting combination includes, on the face in contact with the manhole, a plurality of reinforcing ribs (Ruckel’s 20 and 40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Boersma, US 10,487,492 B2 is cited for teaching legs that can be adjusted in different locations on a drain cover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671