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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon (US PG. Pub. 2013/0121761) in view of Vatter et al. (DE 202011107398).
Regarding claim 1 – Dixon teaches a channel (figs. 1-4(ii), 10 [paragraph 0200] Dixon states, “modular ducting section 10”) comprising an elongate slot (central slot 20 [paragraph 0200] Dixon states, “utility channels 20”) for receiving a length of a flexible conduit ([paragraph 0200 & 0152] Dixon states, “utility channels 20 adapted for carrying one or more utility lines (not shown)…utility lines adapted to supply the data/telecommunications utility service include any one of the following types of utility lines; copper cable, optical fibre cable or coaxial cable”), wherein the slot (central slot 20) comprises a base (lower surface of channel 10) and an opening (see opening within slot 20), the base and the opening extending along the length of the conduit for laying the flexible conduit into the opening and along the base and for removing the flexible conduit therefrom (figure 1 shows a 3-D view with the base and opening extending along the length as claimed) and a barrier (40 [paragraph 0222] Dixon states, “main channel cover 40”) blocking the opening (see fig. 4(ii)), wherein the channel (10) includes an elongate body having hollow cavities (right slot 20 and 30 [paragraph 0200] Dixon states, “channel 30”) on each side of the elongate slot (central slot 20), each of the hollow cavities comprising at least a part of a wall (fig. 3(i), 25 [paragraph 0213] Dixon states, “side walls 25”) that defines a sidewall of the elongate slot (claimed structure shown in figures 1-4(ii)).
Dixon fails to teach a barrier which is biased to block at least part of the opening in the absence of an externally applied force.
Vatter teaches channel (figs. 3-4 & 6 [paragraph 0001] Vatter states, “a floor channel system”) comprising an elongate slot (fig. 3, 1 [paragraph 0026] Vatter states, “lower channel part 1”) with an opening (opening in slot 1 shown having brush 4 thereon), and a barrier (4 [paragraph 0029] Vatter states, “outlet brush 4”) which is biased to block at least part of the opening in the absence of an externally applied force ([paragraph 0024] Vatter states, “This is made possible by the outlet brush which can be displaced into different positions”; claimed structure shown in figure 3 will have the required function).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the channel having an elongated slot having conduit within an opening therein with hollow cavities on each side of the elongated slot as taught by Dixon with the elongated slot having a barrier which is biased to block at least part of the opening in the absence of an externally applied force as taught by Vatter because Vatter states, “If connections for electrical installation devices have to be provided, the mounting takes place with an outlet brush strip which can be displaced, if necessary, via the brush carrier strip according to the invention in accordance with the requirement for the channel center. Height-adjustable floor coverings, stop strips, brush carrier strips make possible optimum leveling of the floor covering used in each case. The installation of the device and the access of the device are also made considerably easier by displaceable system carrier strips” [paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 2 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the channel according to claim 1 wherein the barrier (Vatter; fig. 3, 4) is a resiliently deformable seal (the brush 4 will deform when a cable is applied then return to its previous position).
Regarding claim 3 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the channel according to claim 2 wherein the resiliently deformable seal is a brush (Vatter; fig. 3, 4 [paragraph 0029] Vatter states, “outlet brush 4”).
Regarding claim 4 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the channel according to claim 1 wherein the barrier (Vatter; fig. 3, 4) is biased towards blocking the majority of the length of the opening of the slot (1; figure 3 shows the barrier 4 extending all along the opening).
Regarding claim 5 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the channel according to claim 1 formed in the elongate body (Dixon; see “elongate body” shown in figure 1) for embedding in ground surface ([paragraph 0158] Vatter states, “FIG. 4 is (i) a side view of the modular ducting section of FIG. 2 installed at a kerbside of a street”).
Regarding claim 7 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the channel according to claim 5 wherein the slot (Dixon; fig. 1, central slot 20) extends to at least one end of the elongate body (see “elongate body” shown in figure 1) and an end of the slot (central slot 20) is open at said end of the body (figure 1 shows the slot 20 being “open”).
Regarding claim 9 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach an arrangement comprising the channel according to claim 5 embedded within a ground surface (Dixon fig. 4(i) [paragraph 0158] Vatter states, “FIG. 4 is (i) a side view of the modular ducting section of FIG. 2 installed at a kerbside of a street”).
Regarding claim 10 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the arrangement according to claim 9 wherein the ground surface is a pavement (Dixon; fig. 4 [paragraph 0205] Dixon states, “the modular ducting sections 10 are preferably installed so that they lay end-to-end between, and running substantially parallel to, the road and a pavement”) or sidewalk.
Regarding claim 13 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach a method of constructing the arrangement according to claim 9, the method comprising embedding the channel (Dixon; fig. 4(i), 10) formed in the elongate body within the ground surface ([paragraph 0158] Vatter states, “FIG. 4 is (i) a side view of the modular ducting section of FIG. 2 installed at a kerbside of a street”), the channel (10) comprising the elongate slot (central slot 20) for receiving the length of the flexible conduit ([paragraph 0200 & 0152] Dixon states, “utility channels 20 adapted for carrying one or more utility lines (not shown)…utility lines adapted to supply the data/telecommunications utility service include any one of the following types of utility lines; copper cable, optical fibre cable or coaxial cable”), wherein the slot (central slot 20) comprises the opening extending along its length for laying the flexible conduit into the slot and for removing the flexible conduit therefrom (figure 1 shows a 3-D view with the base and opening extending along the length as claimed) and the barrier (Vatter; fig. 3, 4 [paragraph 0029] Vatter states, “outlet brush 4”) which is biased to block at least part of the opening in the absence of the externally applied force ([paragraph 0024] Vatter states, “This is made possible by the outlet brush which can be displaced into different positions”; claimed structure shown in figure 3 will have the required function).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Vatter et al. as applied to claim 5, further in view of Stahl, JR. et al. (US PG. Pub. 2020/0165815).
Regarding claim 6 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the channel according to claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the body comprises one or more laterally protruding tabs.
Stahl teaches a channel (fig. 6, 209 [paragraph 0036] Stahl states, “channel 209”) having a body (20) wherein the body comprises one or more laterally protruding tabs (34, 36 & 54 [paragraph 0027] Stahl states, “mounting tabs 34, 36 and 54”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the channel having an elongated body as taught by Dixon in view of Vatter with the elongated body having a laterally protruding tab as taught by Stahl because Stahl states, “The first housing member 20 is secured to the wall 200 using appropriate wall anchor hardware extending through the fixed mounting tabs 34, 36, 54” [paragraph 0037]. A laterally protruding tab allows securement of the channel to a mounting structure.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Vatter et al. as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR10214023).
Regarding claim 8 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the channel according to claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the opening of the slot is formed in a surface of the body which is a non-slip surface.
Kim teaches wherein the opening (opening covered by cover 100) of the slot (fig. 1, see slot shown in main body 200) is formed in a surface of the body which is a non-slip surface ([paragraph 0017] Kim states, “a cable trough for both sidewalks that can prevent slippage during walking”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the channel having an elongated body as taught by Dixon in view of Vatter with the body surface having a non-slip surface as taught by Kim because Kim states, “the present invention provides a cable trough for both sidewalks with significantly improved shock absorption, durability, and slip prevention compared to the conventional cable trough” [paragraph 033].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Vatter et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of G. D. Sutton (US Patent 329343).
Regarding claim 11 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the arrangement according to claim 10 but fails to teach wherein a longitudinal end of the body of the channel is flush with a kerb of the pavement or sidewalk or with an indent formed in such a kerb.
Sutton teaches wherein a longitudinal end of the body of the channel (fig. 1, C [column 1 lines 38-39] Sutton states, “C the hollow curb”) is flush with a kerb of the pavement or sidewalk (B [column 1 line 38] Sutton states, “B, the sidewalk”) or with an indent formed in such a kerb (figure 1 shows the channel C being flush with the kerb of the sidewalk B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement and channel with conduit therein with an elongated body as taught by Dixon in view of Vatter with the channel being flush with a kerb of a sidewalk as taught by Sutton because Sutton states, “For electric- wire purposes it possesses obvious advantages, as by its use the carriageway of streets need not be disturbed either for putting down the system or for purposes of repairs and additions of new wires or cables” [column 4 lines 62-67].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Vatter et al. as applied to claim 9, and further in view of H. J. Schlafly, Jr. (US Patent 3473339).
Regarding claim 12 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the arrangement according to claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the slot comprises a base, which slopes from one end to another.
Schlafly teaches an arrangement (fig. 5) having a channel (10 [column 2 line 41] Schlafly states, “trough 10”) with an elongated slot (see “elongated slot” in the channel 10) wherein the slot comprises a base (lower surface of the slot), which slopes from one end to another ([column 4 lines 16-20] Schlafly states, “Where the natural slope of the sidewalk provides for drainage of the conduit toward one end of the channel, the channel can be continued, empty of cable, so that water can drain out of the conduit through holes in the top of the channel”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement and channel with conduit therein with an elongated body as taught by Dixon in view of Vatter with the slot comprises a base that slopes from end to the other as taught by Schlafly because Schlafly states regarding this feature, “The conduit 31 is continued along the sloping sidewalk beyond point 30 a distance sufficient to allow accumulated water 32 to drain out of the conduit through holes 33 drilled in the top surface of the channel” [column 4 lines 24-28].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Vatter et al. as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Vigars et al. (GB2572752).
Regarding claim 14 – Dixon in view of Vatter teach the method according to claim 13, but fails to teach comprising embedding the channel within the ground surface within or on a concrete haunch.
Vigars teaches embedding a channel (see channels shown in figure 4b & 7) within the ground surface (see figure 7 showing channel embedded and flush within concrete haunch) within or on a concrete haunch ([page 3] Vigars states, “The conduit could take many forms (e.g. closed channel, open channel with cover(s), metal forms for setting into concrete or mortar, concrete forms for setting into pavement”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement and channel with conduit therein with an elongated body as taught by Dixon in view of Vatter with the channel within the ground surface within a concrete haunch as taught by Vigars because Vigars states, “the one or more electrical cables do not constitute an obstruction to users of the pavement or sidewalk region” [page 2].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
S. D. Locke (US Patent 355330) discloses an underground wire and steam street conduit.
Charon et al. (US PG. Pub. 2008/0156529) discloses an attachment system for cables and support for cables used in aeronautic construction.
Bykovskyi et al. (US PG. Pub. 2022/0379975) discloses a raceway for commercial cargo body.
Barker (US Patent 6702510) discloses a utility sidewalk.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN T SAWYER whose telephone number is (571)270-5469. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5pm.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 5712722342. 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.
/STEVEN T SAWYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847