DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 12/26/2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-15) and Species 1 (figure 9) in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 7-10 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Group II and Species 2. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 12/26/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) and Species 1 (figure 9) in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both independent claims require the leg portion and lip to direct fluids, and that one is more specifically for a floor drain as would be expected on a typical balcony. The argument is not found persuasive since claim 1 is drawn towards a balcony drain and claim 16 towards a floor drain capable of use in combination with a balcony, and therefore the subcombination could include use for separate utilities and therefore give rise to a potential examination burden. With regards to the argument that the Species both require an insert releasably disposed in the elongate channel section, citing a granted patent in which the examiner was able to examine without a serious search burden, the examiner does not specifically disclose find this argument persuasive since both species are independent and distinct, as shown by the figures 9 and 10 which illustrate different structural qualities which are not obvious variants of each other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, at line 13, the recitation “coupleable”, is understood to mean --couplable--.
Regarding claim 13, at line 4, the recitation “the angle the lip”, is understood to mean -- the angle of the lip --.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12, is/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 applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, at lines 1-2 / 22 and 4-5, respectively, the recitation “and like outwardly extending external aspects of a / the building structure floor drain assembly” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In particular the limitation “and the like” renders the claim indefinite because the list of potential alternatives can vary and ambiguity arises.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but 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 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, the limitation “wherein the endcap has a pair of apertures located adjacent to opposing end portions of the endcap, when the endcap is located to enclose an end of the trough of the elongate channel section each aperture is aligned with an end of the longitudinal slot located within the wall sections and adapted to receive a fastener therein, the endcap is affixed to the elongate channel section by an adhesive disposed in the recess and the fastener” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this configuration. In addition, such a configuration would require impermissible hindsight or piecemeal reconstruction to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
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 of this title, 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) 1-4, 6, and 11-13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangerfield (U.S. Patent No. D923,758) in view of Caputi (WO 2024/062508).
Regarding claim 1, Dangerfield teaches a floor drain assembly (floor grate assembly; title) comprising: an elongate channel section (figure 7) forming a longitudinally extending trough (see annotated figure 7 below), the trough having a floor with a first interior surface shape (annotated figure 1) and a pair of wall sections (walls on opposite sides of the floor; annotated figure 7) extending substantially vertically upward from opposing longitudinal edges of the floor (annotated figure 7); an insert (annotated figure 7) releasably disposed in the elongate channel section (figure 1) to overlie the trough floor (figure 1), the insert having a planar top wall (annotated figure 7) with a pair of side walls (annotated figure 7) extending orthogonally from opposing longitudinal edges of the top wall (annotated figure 7); at least one outlet assembly (annotated figure 7) having a central mounting portion (top portion; annotated figure 7) with a surface shape that is the same as the first interior surface shape of the floor (annotated figure 7), the at least one outlet assembly including a conduit (annotated figure 7) extending from a bottom surface of the central mounting portion (annotated figure 7) that is capable of being couplable to a plumbing system; and an elongate edge assembly (annotated figure 7) extending longitudinally from one of the pair of wall sections of the elongate channel section (annotated figure 7).
Dangerfield does not specifically disclose a balcony and outwardly extending building structure; wherein the floor drain assembly is positioned adjacent to a free edge of the balcony and like outwardly extending external aspects of the building structure; the edge assembly comprising: a flange extending orthogonally from an upper edge of the wall section and a leg portion extending downwardly from a longitudinal edge of the flange; the leg portion having a lip extending outwardly at an angle from a distal end of the leg portion; the leg portion and lip of the elongate edge assembly positioned to direct fluids away from a vertical face of the free edge.
Caputi teaches a balcony (abstract) and outwardly extending building structure floor drain assembly (figure 3); wherein the floor drain assembly is positioned adjacent to a free edge of the balcony and like outwardly extending external aspects of the building structure (figure 3); the edge assembly comprising: a flange (10) extending orthogonally from an upper edge of the wall section (in the combination, it is understood that the flange of Caputi would be oriented extending orthogonally from an upper edge of the wall section of Dangerfield); and a leg portion (at 2.F) extending downwardly from a longitudinal edge of the flange (figure 3); the leg portion having a lip (3) extending outwardly at an angle from a distal end of the leg portion (figure 3); the leg portion and lip of the elongate edge assembly positioned to direct fluids away from a vertical face of the free edge (figure 3).
Therefore, from the teaching of Caputi, 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 drain assembly of Dangerfield to include a balcony and outwardly extending building structure; wherein the floor drain assembly is positioned adjacent to a free edge of the balcony and like outwardly extending external aspects of the building structure; the edge assembly comprising: a flange extending orthogonally from an upper edge of the wall section and a leg portion extending downwardly from a longitudinal edge of the flange; the leg portion having a lip extending outwardly at an angle from a distal end of the leg portion; the leg portion and lip of the elongate edge assembly positioned to direct fluids away from a vertical face of the free edge, as taught by Caputi, in order to further direct precipitation drainage overflow away from a building façade to prevent water damage to the structure.
Regarding claim 2, Dangerfield teaches the first interior surface shape is formed as any one of a substantially planar flat floor, a V-shaped floor, or any shape which allows the fluid to drain from the elongate channel section and into the at least one outlet assembly (V-shaped floor; figure 7).
Regarding claim 3, Dangerfield teaches the pair of wall sections further comprises a longitudinal slot (annotated figure 7) located within each wall section and positioned on the floor side of each wall section (annotated figure 7), the longitudinal slot extends along the length of each wall section and is spaced apart a distance from the opposing longitudinal edges of the floor (as illustrated, the slot is between the vertically extending lips, which is spaced apart a distance from the opposing longitudinal edges of the floor; annotated figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Dangerfield teaches an endcap (annotated figure 7) that is sized to substantially enclose an end of the trough of the elongate channel section (figure 1), the endcap has a recess (annotated figure 7) extending around a peripheral edge of the endcap, the recess is shaped to correspond to a cross-sectional shape of the elongate channel section (as illustrated, the flanges extending laterally from the cap are recessed inwardly and correspond to a cross-sectional shape of the elongate channel section; annotated figure 7).
Regarding claim 6, Dangerfield teaches the planar top wall of the insert further comprises a plurality of slots (annotated figure 7) configured to allow a flow of fluids and debris into the elongate channel section (it is understood that the slots are capable of allowing a flow of fluids and debris into the elongate channel section), and the pair of side walls of the insert have a height substantially equal to a height of the pair of wall sections of the elongate channel (annotated figure 7), wherein the planar top wall of the insert is aligned to sit flush with a top edge of the pair of wall sections of the elongate channel when the insert is disposed in the elongate channel section (figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Dangerfield teaches the elongate edge assembly extends longitudinally from one of the pair of wall sections of the elongate channel section (annotated figure 7) and on the other one of the pair of wall sections is adapted to abut against a finish flooring material (it is understood that the other one of the pair of wall sections is capable of abutting against a finish flooring material).
Regarding claim 12, Dangerfield as modified teaches the flange and the leg portion of the elongate edge assembly form a void with one of the pair of wall sections of the elongate channel section (in the combination, modifying Dangerfield to include the flange and leg portion of Caputi, would form a void underneath and with one of the pair of wall sections of the elongate channel section) capable of receiving a finish flooring material mounted on the vertical face of the free edge of the balcony and like outwardly extending external aspects of the building structure.
Regarding claim 13, Caputi in the combination discloses the lip extends outwardly at an obtuse angle with respect to the distal end of the leg portion (figure 3), the angle the lip extends outwardly facilitates the fluid runoff (figure 3), but does not specifically disclose the obtuse angle is in the range of 120 to 160 degrees with respect to the distal end of the leg portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the obtuse angle is in the range of 120 to 160 degrees with respect to the distal end of the leg portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the obtuse angle is in the range of 120 to 160 degrees with respect to the distal end of the leg portion, in order to provide the optimal distance away from the building to optimize protection against water damage.
Claim(s) 14 and 15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangerfield (U.S. Patent No. D923,758), in view of Caputi (WO 2024/062508), and in view of Schluter (U.S. Patent No. 11,536,016).
Regarding claim 14, Dangerfield does not specifically disclose the elongate channel section, the elongate edge assembly and the insert are made of a metal material.
Schluter discloses a floor drain (abstract) made of a metal material (col. 6, lines 10-15).
Therefore, from the teaching of Schluter, 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 drain assembly of Dangerfield such that disclose the elongate channel section, the elongate edge assembly and the insert are from a metal material, as taught by Schluter, in order to provide a strong material that is also capable of withstanding outdoor changes in inclement weather.
With regards to the limitation that the product is manufactured and formed as a single section by extrusion or bending processes, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Dangerfield as modified teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 15, Dangerfield does not specifically disclose the endcap is made of a metal material.
Schluter discloses a floor drain (abstract) made of a metal material (col. 6, lines 10-15).
Therefore, from the teaching of Schluter, 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 drain assembly of Dangerfield such that disclose the endcap is made from a metal material, as taught by Schluter, in order to provide a strong material that is also capable of withstanding outdoor changes in inclement weather.
With regards to the limitation that the product is manufactured and formed as a single section by extrusion, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Dangerfield as modified teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to balcony drainage in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633