DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 12, and 13 have been amended and claim(s) 7-10 and 16-20 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 is objected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable 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, 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, wherein the floor drain assembly is positioned adjacent to a free edge of the balcony; and 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), wherein the floor drain assembly is positioned adjacent to a free edge of the balcony (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, wherein the floor drain assembly is positioned adjacent to a free edge of the balcony; 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.
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 of 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, 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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the combination of Dangerfield and Caputi is improper because it yields a structure that is both functionally deficient and physically incompatible, has been carefully considered.
The applicant provides that Caputi's spaced channels (9') are specifically designed to permit distributed dripping, which would allow water to reach the building facade rather than being directed away from it as required by the claims. However, this argument was not found persuasive since Caputi clearly states that the intention is to protect the façade (to avoid the runoff and the consequent degradation of said fronts; abstract). Whether it is dripping water or flowing water, the façade is nonetheless protected by both the spaced channels 9 and the angled tray 3.
In addition, the applicant argues that Caputi's protruding plates (10) would interfere with and prevent proper seating of Dangerfield's drain insert, rendering the combined system inoperable. The applicant argues that [i]f one was to combine the edge assembly of Caputi with the drain assembly of Dangerfield one would still need to find a way to block the small drainage channels (9') [since the] gaps or small drainage channels (9') would still allow fluids to flow onto the vertical face of the free edge of a balcony. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The channels 9’ allow water to flow between them -- that water would still continue to the angled tray 3 and drain the water away from the façade. In other words, the water would not drip through the channels 9’ then into the façade itself. In the office action, the plates 10 of Caputi are the flange attachment in the combination, and would be secured to a balcony edge in the same manner as the applicant’s flange hangs over the wall section at 12/29A (figure 3), thus the water runoff would flow both over the plates 10 and between the channels 9’ (over the structural wall section e.g. 12/29A) and both flows would lead to the angled tray 3. Therefore, the combination is clear and is not relying on impermissible hindsight.
With regards to the argument regarding the claimed voids, the applicant attests that in the combination the gaps or small drainage channels (9') would still allow fluids to flow onto the vertical face of the free edge of a balcony. However, as in the case of Caputi, the face 2 is adhered directly to the front face of the structure 11 – in the combination, the gaps or channels (9') would also be positioned on structure 11, meanwhile within that structure 11 would be embedded the floor grate of Dangerfield. Thus, the so-called gaps or channels (9') would sit on top of the surface 11, and water would flow: on top of that surface 11, over the plates 10, down the angled tray 3, and away from the façade. Therefore, since the structural limitations of the claim are met, the rejection is proper, and the combination would still be capable of directing fluids away from and not onto the vertical face of the free edge of a balcony.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F 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
Prosecution Insights