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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (has PRO 63495287, filed on April 10, 2023; has PRO 63602368, filed on November 22, 2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 3, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the filter.” This limitation lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the second plurality of apertures are different in size.” This limitation is unclear because the claim does not identify what the second plurality of apertures are different in size from. Applicant may amend the claim to identify the reference aperture set for the size comparison.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the second plurality of apertures are different in size.” This limitation is unclear because the claim does not identify what the second plurality of apertures are different in size from. Applicant may amend the claim to identify the reference aperture set for the size comparison.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 recites that the upper grate piece and the lower grate piece are removably coupled to each other. Claim 9 already recites the same limitation. Therefore, Claim 20 does not further limit the subject matter in a distinct manner.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERRY (US20210047817A1).
Regarding Claim 1, BERRY discloses a drain cover for common floor drains, residential walkout basement stairwell drains, and similar pipe drains having perforated covers susceptible to debris clogging (¶[0002]). The drain cover is described with reference to a cylindrical drain cover, but can have virtually any geometric shape, including square, pentagonal, and hexagonal shapes (¶[0028]).
The two-stage structure includes a first-stage outer cover having an upstanding perimeter wall capped by a dome-shaped top and first liquid passage openings that provide initial filtering for water heading to the drain. The second stage includes an inner filter member that fits over the existing flat drain grate and within the outer cover, with second liquid passages that further filter debris passing through the first liquid passage openings (¶¶[0032]-[0033]). The outer first-stage filter and inner second-stage filter can be interconnected for removal together by a centrally located vertical post extending down from the inside of the first-stage top to connect with a centrally located hub on the second stage, mechanically linking the inner filter member and outer cover (¶[0037]).
FIG. 2 illustrates the outer cover support structure, including support bridge 12 terminating in support feet 13 that provide lateral stability to outer cover 5, and supporting ribs 14 formed into bottom side 15 of outer cover 5 to enhance structural rigidity and resist flexing or fracture under downward force (¶[0040]-[0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2 of BERRY
FIG. 4 illustrates inner filter 11, which includes second openings 21, including second round holes 22 and perimeter passages 23, that are smaller than first openings 8 and act as a finer screen for debris passing with draining liquid toward drain 3. Liquid passing through or under outer cover 5 must pass through second openings 21 in inner filter 11 before reaching drain 3 (¶[0044]-[0045]). The underside structure of inner filter 11 further includes ribs 28 that hold filtering surface 29 away from drain mounting surface 2 or preexisting drain cover 1 to maintain a gap for liquid flow (¶[0050]).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
1100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4 of BERRY
FIG. 7 illustrates vertical post 25 (i.e., an alignment and support block) formed integrally on the underside of outer cover 5 (i.e., an upper grate piece) and laterally supported by buttressing ribs 32. Vertical post 25 includes terminal lip 33 that engages an internal groove formed below terminal lip 34 in center hub 27 of inner filter 11, mechanically connecting inner filter 11 to outer cover 5 so that the relative positioning of inner filter 11 to outer cover 5 is controlled during installation and operation. The center hub 27 includes guide pin 31 extending downwardly through a passage of existing drain cover 1 (i.e., a lower grate piece) to limit lateral displacement from wind, flowing liquid, or foot impact (¶¶[0052]-[0053]). As shown in FIG. 7, outer cover 5 remains spaced from inner filter 11, maintaining an air gap between the outer cover and inner filter.
PNG
media_image3.png
660
1173
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 7 of BERRY
Regarding Claim 2, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 1. FIG. 7 of BERRY illustrates the inner filter 11 positioned between the outer cover 5 and the existing drain cover 1 (¶[0053]).
Regarding Claim 3, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 1. FIG. 7 of BERRY illustrates the inner filter 11 positioned between the vertical post 25 and the existing drain cover 1, with the guide pin 31 extending downwardly from the center hub 27 through a passage of the existing drain cover 1 to limit lateral displacement (¶[0053]).
Regarding Claim 9, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 1. BERRY discloses that the outer cover 5 can be temporarily attached to the inner filter 11 using a non-permanent attachment system that permits the outer cover 5 to be separated from the inner filter 11 without tools to facilitate cleaning debris from the surfaces and passages (¶[0054]).
Regarding Claim 11, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 1. FIG. 7 of BERRY illustrates the guide pin 31 extending downwardly from the center hub 27 through a passage of the existing drain cover 1 to limit lateral displacement (¶[0053]).
Regarding Claim 12, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 11. FIG. 7 of BERRY illustrates the inner filter 11 including the center hub 27 and the guide pin 31 extending downwardly through a passage of the existing drain cover 1, with the inner filter 11 positioned between the vertical post 25 and the existing drain cover 1 to limit lateral displacement (¶[0053]).
Regarding Claim 13, BERRY discloses a drain cover for common floor drains, residential walkout basement stairwell drains, and similar pipe drains having perforated covers susceptible to debris clogging (¶[0002]). The drain cover is described with reference to a cylindrical drain cover, but can have virtually any geometric shape, including square, pentagonal, and hexagonal shapes (¶[0028]).
The two-stage structure includes a first-stage outer cover having an upstanding perimeter wall capped by a dome-shaped top and first liquid passage openings that provide initial filtering for water heading to the drain. The second stage includes an inner filter member that fits over the existing flat drain grate and within the outer cover, with second liquid passages that further filter debris passing through the first liquid passage openings (¶¶[0032]-[0033]). The outer first-stage filter and inner second-stage filter can be interconnected for removal together by a centrally located vertical post extending down from the inside of the first-stage top to connect with a centrally located hub on the second stage, mechanically linking the inner filter member and outer cover (¶[0037]).
FIG. 2 illustrates the outer cover support structure, including support bridge 12 terminating in support feet 13 that provide lateral stability to outer cover 5, and supporting ribs 14 formed into bottom side 15 of outer cover 5 to enhance structural rigidity and resist flexing or fracture under downward force (¶[0040]-[0041]).
FIG. 4 illustrates inner filter 11, which includes second openings 21, including second round holes 22 and perimeter passages 23, that are smaller than first openings 8 and act as a finer screen for debris passing with draining liquid toward drain 3. Liquid passing through or under outer cover 5 must pass through second openings 21 in inner filter 11 before reaching drain 3 (¶[0044]-[0045]). The underside structure of inner filter 11 further includes ribs 28 that hold filtering surface 29 away from drain mounting surface 2 or preexisting drain cover 1 to maintain a gap for liquid flow (¶[0050]).
FIG. 7 illustrates vertical post 25 (i.e., an alignment and support block) formed integrally on the underside of outer cover 5 (i.e., an upper grate piece) and laterally supported by buttressing ribs 32. Vertical post 25 includes terminal lip 33 that engages an internal groove formed below terminal lip 34 in center hub 27 of inner filter 11, mechanically connecting inner filter 11 to outer cover 5 so that the relative positioning of inner filter 11 to outer cover 5 is controlled during installation and operation. The center hub 27 includes guide pin 31 extending downwardly through a passage of existing drain cover 1 (i.e., a lower grate piece) to limit lateral displacement from wind, flowing liquid, or foot impact (¶¶[0052]-[0053]). As shown in FIG. 7, outer cover 5 remains spaced from inner filter 11, maintaining an air gap between the outer cover and inner filter.
Regarding Claim 14, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 13. FIG. 7 of BERRY illustrates the guide pin 31 extending downwardly from the center hub 27 through a passage of the existing drain cover 1 to limit lateral displacement (¶[0053]).
Regarding Claim 15, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 13. FIG. 7 of BERRY illustrates the inner filter 11 positioned between the vertical post 25 and the existing drain cover 1, with the guide pin 31 extending downwardly from the center hub 27 through a passage of the existing drain cover 1 to limit lateral displacement (¶[0053]).
Regarding Claim 20, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 1. BERRY discloses that the outer cover 5 can be temporarily attached to the inner filter 11 using a non-permanent attachment system that permits the outer cover 5 to be separated from the inner filter 11 without tools to facilitate cleaning debris from the surfaces and passages (¶[0054]).
Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERRY.
Regarding Claim 4, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 1. BERRY discloses that the drain cover can have virtually any geometric shape, including square, pentagonal, and hexagonal shapes (¶[0028]).
Regarding the limitation “a pyramidal structure,” this limitation is considered a matter of design choice involving the shape of the upper grate piece. The particular shape of a component is an obvious matter of design choice absent evidence that the claimed shape is critical or produces an unexpected result (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding Claim 5, BERRY makes obvious the drain cover apparatus of Claim 4. BERRY discloses the centrally located vertical post extending down from the inside of the first-stage top to connect with the centrally located hub on the second stage, mechanically linking the inner filter member and the outer cover (¶[0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, BERRY makes obvious the drain cover apparatus of Claim 5. BERRY discloses the first openings 8, the first slots 9, and the first holes 10 in the outer filtering cover 5 that permit liquid passage and block debris from entering the drain 3 (¶[0039]).
Regarding Claim 8, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 1. BERRY discloses that the outer cover 5 can be temporarily attached to the inner filter 11 using a non-permanent attachment system that permits the outer cover 5 to be separated from the inner filter 11 without tools to facilitate cleaning debris from the surfaces and passages (¶[0054]).
Regarding the limitation “coupled together by one or more magnets,” this limitation is considered a matter of design choice involving the selected coupling mechanism for the linked outer cover, inner filter, and existing drain cover assembly. Given BERRY’s linked assembly, using magnets would have been a predictable attachment choice because magnets provide removable coupling without tools.
Regarding Claim 10, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 1. FIG. 7 of BERRY illustrates the vertical post 25 formed integrally on the underside of the outer cover 5 and laterally supported by the buttressing ribs 32 (¶[0053]).
Regarding the limitation “adds weight to the drain cover apparatus,” since the disclosed vertical post is a structural component of the drain cover apparatus, the disclosed vertical post necessarily has mass and therefore has the functional capability of adding weight to the drain cover apparatus (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Regarding Claim 16, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 13. BERRY discloses that the drain cover can have virtually any geometric shape, including square, pentagonal, and hexagonal shapes (¶[0028]).
Regarding the limitation “a pyramidal structure,” this limitation is considered a matter of design choice involving the shape of the upper grate piece. The particular shape of a component is an obvious matter of design choice absent evidence that the claimed shape is critical or produces an unexpected result (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding Claim 17, BERRY makes obvious the drain cover apparatus of Claim 16. BERRY discloses the centrally located vertical post extending down from the inside of the first-stage top to connect with the centrally located hub on the second stage, mechanically linking the inner filter member and the outer cover (¶[0037]).
Regarding Claim 19, BERRY discloses the drain cover apparatus of Claim 1. BERRY discloses that the outer cover 5 can be temporarily attached to the inner filter 11 using a non-permanent attachment system that permits the outer cover 5 to be separated from the inner filter 11 without tools to facilitate cleaning debris from the surfaces and passages (¶[0054]).
Regarding the limitation “a plurality of magnets positioned near an outer edge of the lower grate piece,” this limitation is considered a matter of design choice involving the selected coupling mechanism and its placement. Given BERRY’s linked assembly, using a plurality of magnets positioned near an outer edge of the lower grate piece would have been a predictable attachment choice because magnets provide removable coupling without tools and perimeter placement provides distributed removable coupling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights