DETAILED ACTION
Following applicant’s amendment filed 12/09/2025, claims 1-14 are pending with claim 2 withdrawn from consideration. It is noted that it appears claim 2 is intended to be cancelled rather than withdrawn because the entire text of the claim has been deleted. Claims 1 and 3-14 are treated on their merits.
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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to the the water line” (line 6 of the claim) should be “to the water line”. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 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 1 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 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 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 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 1, 4, 7-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent 2,650,180) in view of Moore (US Patent 865,927) and further in view of Olivier (FR 2748285).
Regarding Claim 1, Walker discloses an insulated self-supporting water hydrant apparatus (as shown in Figures 1-3) comprising: a rigid hollow molded exterior structure (including shells 12 and 14; it is noted that the limitation of “molded” is a product-by-process type which does not define over the structure disclosed by Walker; additionally it is noted that Walker discloses the shells 12 and 14 are formed of plastic which is known to be molded during manufacture) configured to stand upright with its lower end buried below ground level (although not specifically shown, the exterior structure is seen to be at least capable of standing upright with its lower end buried below ground level); a water line conduit 2 positioned inside the molded exterior 12, 14 (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) and configured to transport water (toward the faucet 4) through the interior of the hydrant apparatus (as shown in Figures 1 and 2); a faucet (including outlet of 4) connected to the water line conduit 2 that extends through and exits the molded exterior (when detachable cap 24 is removed, the faucet extends through and exits the molded exterior); a valve on the faucet (as shown in Figure 1, the faucet includes a valve controlled by the unnumbered handle); and an insulation (8 and 10) positioned inside the hydrant apparatus such that the insulation makes direct contact with the molded exterior 12, 14 and the water line conduit 2 (as shown in Figures 1-3).
Walker does not clearly disclose the water line conduit configured to transport water upwards through the interior of the hydrant apparatus; and a fitting positioned inside and near the bottom of the molded exterior connecting the water line conduit to an underground water source.
Moore teaches a hydrant with a casing 3 surrounding an underground line 1 and further teaches the water line conduit 1 configured to transport water upwards through the interior of the hydrant apparatus (as shown in the figure, from below pavement 4 to above the pavement 4); and a fitting (unnumbered 90 degree fitting shown in the Figure connecting 1 and 2) positioned inside and near the bottom of the casing 3 connecting the water line conduit 1 to an underground water source 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Walker such that the water line conduit transports water upwards via a fitting connected to an underground water source as taught by Moore for the purpose of providing a conventional connection arrangement of connecting the water conduit to a water source.
Walker further does not disclose the insulation is an expanding foam insulation.
Olivier teaches an insulating enclosure for a water line wherein the insulation 60 is an expanding foam insulation (such as polyurethane foam; page 5, 10th paragraph of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Walker such that the insulation is an expanding foam insulation as taught by Olivier for the purpose of utilizing a conventional insulation material known in the art to be suitable for insulation of water lines.
Regarding Claim 4, Walker in view of Moore is seen as further disclosing the molded exterior structure is of sufficient height such that its lower portion is buried at a sufficient depth to be below the frost line of a particular location where the apparatus is installed (this is seen to be achieved in the manner taught by Moore as shown in the Figure, the exterior structure extends to a depth of the underwater line 2 which is known in the art to be provided below the frost line to prevent freezing).
Regarding Claim 7, Walker further discloses the molded exterior 12, 14 has an opening at one end (opening at the rightward end as shown in Figure 1) and a removable rigid molded exterior end cap 24 (it is noted that the term “molded” is a product-by-process type limitation which does not define over the structure of Walker) to cover the opening of the molded exterior (as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Walker is seen as further disclosing the molded exterior 12, 14 is comprised of multiple segments each having a wider diameter at its lower end configured to connect to another segment of the molded exterior (this is seen to be formed by steps 38).
Walker does not specifically disclose the wider diameter is at the lower end. However, providing the wider diameters at the lower end requires a mere rearrangement of parts and it has been generally held that a mere rearrangement of parts is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Walker such that the wider diameter is at any end, including the lower end, for the purpose of utilizing an alternative, functionally equivalent connection arrangement of the exterior sections.
Regarding Claim 9, when making and using the device of Walker, Walker necessarily discloses a method for assembling an insulated self-supporting water hydrant apparatus, comprising placing a water line conduit 2 inside of a rigid hollow molded exterior structure 12, 14 (best shown in Figures 1 and 2; Walker discloses the exterior 12, 14 is formed of plastic which is known to be molded during manufacture; additionally, the claim limitation does not specifically require “molding” the exterior structure and therefore this limitation is seen to be a product-by-process type limitation which does not define over the structure of Walker); connecting a water source to the water line conduit 2 (there is inherently a water source connected to conduit 2); installing a faucet (including outlet of 4) with a faucet valve (as shown in Figure 1, the faucet includes a valve controlled by the unnumbered handle) to the water line conduit 2 such that it extends through and exits the molded exterior (when detachable cap 24 is removed, the faucet extends through and exits the molded exterior); and inserting an insulation (8 and 10) inside the molded exterior such that the insulation makes direct contact with the molded exterior 12, 14 and the water line conduit 2 (as shown in Figures 1-3).
Walker does not disclose connecting an underground water source to the water line conduit with a fitting positioned inside the molded exterior.
Moore teaches a hydrant with a casing 3 surrounding an underground line 1 and further teaches connecting an underground water source 2 to a line conduit 1 with the fitting positioned inside an exterior 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Walker such that the water line conduit transports water upwards via a fitting connected to an underground water source as taught by Moore for the purpose of providing a conventional connection arrangement of connecting the water conduit to a water source.
Walker further does not disclose the insulation is an expanding foam insulation.
Olivier teaches an insulating enclosure for a water line wherein the insulation 60 is an expanding foam insulation (such as polyurethane foam; page 5, 10th paragraph of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Walker such that the insulation is an expanding foam insulation as taught by Olivier for the purpose of utilizing a conventional insulation material known in the art to be suitable for insulation of water lines.
As described above, Walker is seen as disclosing a rigid hollow molded exterior structure 12, 14 as described above. Alternatively, in the event that it is not seen that the plastic structure 12, 14 is necessarily a rigid hollow molded exterior as claimed, the office takes official notice that molding plastics is very old and well known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Walker such that the plastic shells are molded as is known in the art for the purpose of utilizing an old and well-known manufacturing method for forming the plastic shells.
Regarding Claim 10, Walker does not specifically disclose cutting the molded exterior structure near its bottom end before installing the expanding foam insulation and the water line conduit.
However, cutting a component to the correct size before installing other elements within that component is notoriously old and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Walker such that the molded exterior structure is cut near its bottom end such that it is the correct size before installing the expanding foam insulation and the water line conduit as is old and well known in the art for the purpose of ensuring the exterior structure is the correct length for the desired application.
Regarding Claim 11, Walker does not specifically disclose how the insulation and water line conduit are installed inside the molded exterior structure. However, Walker does disclose a pre-fabricated opening (opening which is closed by the removable cap 24) covered by a removable rigid molded exterior end cap 24 (as shown in Figure 1; this cap is molded in the same manner as described above with respect to sections 12 and 14).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the opening of the exterior structure is shown to be sufficiently large for installation of the insulation and water line conduit through this opening and therefore allows for a straightforward assembly of the interior components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Walker such that the expanding foam insulation and the water line conduit are installed inside the molded exterior structure through the pre-fabricated opening covered by the removable rigid molded exterior end cap for the purpose of providing a straightforward assembly of the interior components.
Regarding Claim 14, Walker further discloses including assembling multiple connectible segments of the molded exterior (including 12 and 14).
Claim(s) 3, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent 2,650,180) in view of Moore (US Patent 865,927) and further in view of Olivier (FR 2748285) and further in view of Casey et al. (US Patent 11,326,335).
Regarding Claim 3, Walker does not disclose the molded exterior is comprised of low-density polyethylene material.
Casey teaches an outer container 110 comprised of low-density polyethylene material (col. 8, lines 4-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Walker such that the exterior structure is formed from low-density polyethylene as taught by Casey for the purpose of utilizing an art recognized equivalent material suitable for plumbing installations.
Regarding Claims 9-11 and 14, Walker is seen as disclosing a rigid hollow molded exterior 12, 14 as described above.
Alternatively, in the event that Walker is not seen as disclosing element 12, 14 is “molded” as claimed, Casey teaches an outer container 110 formed by rotational moulding (col. 8, lines 4-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Walker such that the exterior structure is molded as taught by Casey for the purpose of forming the exterior by a conventional method which is old and well-known in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent 2,650,180) in view of Moore (US Patent 865,927) and further in view of Olivier (FR 2748285) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solomon (US Patent 6,216,722).
Regarding Claim 4, Walker in view of Moore and further in view of Olivier is seen as disclosing all of the elements of this claim as described above. Alternatively, in the event that Moore is not seen as specifically teaching the molded exterior structure is of sufficient height such that its lower portion is buried at a sufficient depth to be below the frost line of a particular location where the apparatus is installed,
Solomon teaches a freeze resistant hydrant and further teaches a molded exterior structure 12 is of sufficient height such that its lower portion is buried at a sufficient depth to be below the frost line F of a particular location where the apparatus is installed (as shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Walker in view of Moore such that the exterior structure is of sufficient height such that its lower portion is buried at a sufficient depth to be below the frost line of a particular location where the apparatus is installed as taught by Solomon for the purpose of preventing freezing of the underground water line.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent 2,650,180) in view of Moore (US Patent 865,927) and further in view of Olivier (FR 2748285) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiggins (US Patent 10,822,775).
Regarding Claim 5, Walker does not disclose a portion of the water line conduit is comprised of flexible material to accommodate positioning the insulated self-supporting water hydrant in any direction respective to the direction of the underground water source.
Wiggins teaches an outdoor faucet and further teaches a tube 70 is comprised of a flexible material (PEX) capable of accommodating different positions of a fluid connection with a fitting 58 (the tubing is PEX, which is the same material as the material disclosed by applicant, and therefore is seen to perform in the same manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Walker such that the water line conduit is flexible as taught by Wiggins for the purpose of allowing the conduit to accommodate different positions. It is noted that the flexible material as taught by Wiggins is the same material as disclosed by applicant (PEX) and therefore is seen to perform in the same manner, including accommodating the position of the insulated self-supporting water hydrant in any direction respective to the direction of the underground water source.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent 2,650,180) in view of Moore (US Patent 865,927) and further in view of Olivier (FR 2748285) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ortel (US Patent 5,327,925).
Regarding Claim 6, Walker does not disclose the molded exterior is bell-shaped at the bottom end.
Ortel teaches an in ground plumbing enclosure 24 is bell-shaped at the bottom end (at 24.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Walker such that the bottom of the molded exterior is bell-shaped as taught by Ortel for the purpose of providing additional space at the bottom of the device, thereby making plumbing connections easier.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Walker (US Patent 2,650,180) in view of Moore (US Patent 865,927) and further in view of Olivier (FR 2748285) or Walker (US Patent 2,650,180) in view of Moore (US Patent 865,927) and further in view of Olivier (FR 2748285) and further in view of Casey et al. (US Patent 11,326,335) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Solomon (US Patent 6,216,722).
Regarding Claim 12, Walker does not disclose burying a lower portion of the insulated self-supporting water hydrant apparatus below the frost line of a particular location where the apparatus is installed.
Solomon teaches a freeze resistant hydrant and further teaches burying a lower portion of an insulated self-supporting water hydrant apparatus 10 below the frost line F of a particular location where the apparatus is installed (as shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Walker such that a lower portion of the apparatus is buried below the frost line of a particular location where the apparatus is installed as taught by Solomon for the purpose of preventing freezing of the underground water line.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Walker (US Patent 2,650,180) in view of Moore (US Patent 865,927) and further in view of Olivier (FR 2748285) or Walker (US Patent 2,650,180) in view of Moore (US Patent 865,927) and further in view of Olivier (FR 2748285) and further in view of Casey et al. (US Patent 11,326,335) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wiggins (US Patent 10,822,775).
Regarding Claim 13, Walker does not disclose the particular material of the water line conduit and therefore does not disclose using flexible material for the water line conduit to accommodate positioning the insulated self-supporting water hydrant in any direction respective to the direction of the underground water source.
Wiggins teaches an outdoor faucet and further teaches a tube 70 is comprised of a flexible material (PEX) capable of accommodating different positions of a fluid connection with a fitting 58 (the tubing is PEX, which is the same material as the material disclosed by applicant, and therefore is seen to perform in the same manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Walker such that the water line conduit is flexible as taught by Wiggins for the purpose of allowing the conduit to accommodate different positions. It is noted that the flexible material as taught by Wiggins is the same material as disclosed by applicant (PEX) and therefore is seen to perform in the same manner, including accommodating the position of the insulated self-supporting water hydrant in any direction respective to the direction of the underground water source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 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. Specifically, applicant argues that the new limitations of claims 1 and 9 including recitations that the expanding foam insulation makes direct contact with the molded exterior and the water line conduit define over the prior art. These arguments are not persuasive because newly applied Walker teaches an insulated faucet apparatus including insulation (8 and 10) in direct contact with an exterior structure (12, 14) and a water line 2.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Moore have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Moore is relied upon as a teaching of a fitting to connect the water line conduit with an underground water source as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Olivier have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Olivier is relied upon as teaching an expanding foam insulation while Walker teaches the claimed positioning of the insulation.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Casey have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Casey is relied upon for teaching a molded plastic material.
Conclusion
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753