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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 16/695,300 and 17/494,867, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. In particular, the prior-filed applications fail to provide adequate support for at least the limitations of independent claims 1, 4 and 7 wherein all of the independent claims claim components not present in either of the prior-filed applications.
The instant application is a continuation-in-part of 17/494,867 (filed on October 10th, 2021 and now abandoned), which itself is a continuation-in-part of 16/695,300 (filed on November 26, 2019 and issued patent as US 11,685,525 B2 on June 27, 2023). As set forth in MPEP § 2152.01, if an application is a continuation-in-part of an earlier U.S. application or international application, any claims in the new application not supported by the specification and claims of the parent application have an effective filing date equal to the actual filing date of the new application. Any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112 by the earlier parent application have the effective filing date of that earlier parent application.
The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis and not an application-by-application basis. Different claims in the same application may be entitled to different effective filing dates.
As set forth above, the claims currently pending in this application are not fully supported by the specification and claims of the parent applications, and therefore have an effective filing date equal to the actual filing date of the new application (i.e. May 2, 2024).
The disclosure of prior-filed application 16/695,300 was published as US 2021/0155345 A1 on May 27, 2021; and the disclosure of prior-filed application 17/494,867 was published as US 2022/0024585 A1 on January 27, 2022. Since these publication dates are more than one year before the effective filing date (May 2, 2024) of the invention currently claimed, the published documents are available as prior art under at least the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and are not subject to the exceptions under 35 U.S.C.102(b)(1).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (h) (3) because figures 2B and 2C, which are partial cutaways (i.e. cross-sectional views) of portions of figure 2A, do not contain any oblique hatch lines to distinguish between different components. Applicants are advised to review 37 CFR 1.84 (h) (3) and correct the drawings accordingly.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
paragraphs [0036] and [0037] refers to "piercing surface 47", but none of the figures are marked with item 47.
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.
Claim 4 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 4 recites “An apparatus for removing a test seal part from a vent positioned on a roof of a structure, wherein the system includes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terminology “system” in the claim. For purpose of compact prosecution, the terminology “system” will be “apparatus” will be interpreted as synonymous and claim 4 will be interpreted as describing a system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reimer et al. (US7347218B1) hereinafter Reimer.
Regarding claim 1, Reimer discloses a test seal part (column 3, line 25: “test plug 34”; figure 1, 4 & 5: 34) for a vent (column 3, line 25: “vent”, figure 1: 10) positioned on a roof of a structure (column 3, line 11-12: “a vent 10 positioned on a roof 12 of a structure”, figure 1: 12), wherein the test seal part includes:
a cap portion (column 3, line 25: “test plug 34”; figure 1, 4 & 5: 34) configured to sealably connect on a part of a vent pipe (column 3, line 24-26: “In a testing orientation, the apparatus 22 and test plug 34 cooperate to seal the vent 10, allowing the plumbing system to be pressurized.”); and
a rupturable surface (claim 8: “test plug comprises a frangible disc shaped body”; figure 1 & 5: 48) connected to said cap portion (column 3, line 25: “test plug 34”; figure 1, 4 & 5: 34).
Regarding claim 2, Reimer discloses a test seal part according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses that the said cap portion (column 3, line 25: “test plug 34”; figure 1, 4 & 5: 34) includes a cylindrical member (claim 9: “test plug further comprises cylindrical sidewall extending about a periphery of said disc shaped body”; claim 17: “ test plug further comprises a cylindrical side wall for sealingly engaging an inner wall of the vent”) and said rupturable surface (claim 8: “test plug comprises a frangible disc shaped body”; figure 1 & 5: 48) spans an area between said cylindrical member (claim 9: “cylindrical sidewall extending about a periphery of said disc shaped body” indicating the rupturable disc shaped body spans an area between the cylindrical sidewall).
Regarding claim 3, Reimer discloses a test seal part according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses that
said rupturable surface (claim 9: “test plug comprises a frangible disc shaped body”; figure 1 & 5: 48) includes a rupturable member (claim 8: “test plug comprises a frangible disc shaped body”; figure 1 & 5: 48) which is integrally connected to said cap portion.
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 (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 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimer et al. (US7347281B1) hereinafter Reimer in view of Hessian (US5520219A) .
Regarding claim 4, Reimer discloses an apparatus for removing a test seal part (column 3, line 25: “test plug 34”; figure 1, 4 & 5: 34) from a vent (column 3, line 25: “vent”, figure 1: 10) positioned on a roof of a structure (column 3, line 11-12: “a vent 10 positioned on a roof 12 of a structure”, figure 1: 12), wherein the system includes:
a cap portion (column 3, line 25: “test plug 34”; figure 1, 4 & 5: 34) configured to sealably connect on a part of a vent pipe (column 3, line 24-26: “In a testing orientation, the apparatus 22 and test plug 34 cooperate to seal the vent 10, allowing the plumbing system to be pressurized.”); and
a rupturable surface (claim 8: “test plug comprises a frangible disc shaped body”; figure 1 & 5: 48) connected to said cap portion (column 3, line 25: “test plug 34”; figure 1, 4 & 5: 34);
Reimer does not disclose a rupturing device disposed on said rupturable surface in a manner to rupture said rupturable surface upon force being applied thereto.
Hessian teaches about using hammer (rupturing device) to break or rupture the rupturable surface (column 5, line 38 – 39: top portion 30, figure 2: 30) of vent test cap (column 5, line 37 – 40: “It is also recognized that the novel break away test cap 22 top portion 30 may be removed by other forces, such as striking it with a hammer.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rupturing device or hammer taught by Hessian to rupture the rupturable surface (claim 8: “frangible disc shaped body”; figure 1 & 5: 48) of Reimer allowing a simpler mechanism of removing vent cap remotely post pressure testing of plumbing vent pipe as compared to trying to use a hook or loop to remove the test cap which would also require specific design feature of the top portion of the cap to be gripped by hook or loop.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimer in view of Hessian as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Patrick et al. (US20180022456A1) hereinafter Patrick.
Regarding claim 5, Reimer in view of Hessian discloses the apparatus for removing a test seal part from a vent positioned on a roof of a structure according to claim 4 as set forth above. Reimer in view of Hessian does not disclose the apparatus includes remote controlled apparatus having an unmanned aerial vehicle operably connected to said rupturing device, and a remote controller for controlling said unmanned aerial vehicle to cause positioning said rupturing device over said rupturable surface and rupturing thereof.
Patrick teaches a UAV for delivering payload at specific location (Title, Abstract, Figure 2A, 2B: UAV 200, payload 208) with option to be controlled by a remote control (paragraph [0112]: describes the UAV being able to be controlled with a remote control to navigate to a specific location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the remote-controlled UAV taught by Patrick to carry the rupturing device disclosed by Reimer in view of Hessian and position the rupturing device accurately on the rupturing surface disclosed by Reimer using the remote control taught by Patrick.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimer in view of Hessian and Patrick as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kuk (US20190152600A1).
Regarding claim 6, Reimer in view of Hessian and Patrick discloses the apparatus for removing a test seal part from a vent positioned on a roof of a structure according to claim 5 as set forth above. Reimer in view of Hessian and Patrick does not disclose the apparatus for removing a test seal part that includes a locating device on said test seal part and providing said remote controlled apparatus with a complementary locating device for aiding in location and rupturing of said rupturable surface.
Kuk teaches a UAV or unmanned automated device for fastening hook (Title, Abstract, Figure 2: 100) with transmitters attached to the unloading location (Figure 2: 160) for transmitting position signal of unloading location (paragraph [0055]: “The unloading transmitters 160 are fixed to the ground to generate ultrasonic signals and position information thereof”) and receivers (paragraph[0037]: “receivers 130”; Figure 2: 130) attached to a UAV (paragraph [0037]: “propulsion unit 120”; Figure 2: 120) for receiving the position signal transmitted by the transmitter (paragraph[0037]: “The propulsion unit 120 can adjust the position depending on the position of the object 10, on the basis of position signals received by the receivers 130.”) so that the UAV can unload the load accurately on a preset location (paragraph [0056]: “on the basis of the position signals, transmitted by the unloading transmitters 160 and received by the receivers 130, so that the object 10 is accurately unloaded on a preset location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for removing a test seal part from a vent positioned on a roof of a structure disclosed by Reimer in view of Hessian and Patrick to attach a locating device or position transmitter on the test seal part and equip the remote control with a complementary locating device or position signal receiver for accurately locating the test seal and dropping the rupture device. Such modification will facilitate the accurate positioning and dropping of rupture device on the rupturing surface of test seal remotely and without any need of visual confirmation.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowther (US20040108121A1) in view of Patrick et al. (US20180022456A1) hereinafter Patrick.
Regarding claim 7, Lowther discloses a rupturing device or slide hammer (Title, Abstract, Figure1) for use in rupturing a rupturable surface (Abstract: “The impact head may be fitted with various types of tips. Each of the tips has particular advantages in applying force to a targeted object.”), which includes:
a rupturing head (paragraph [0044]: “interchangeable tips 40”; Figure 1: 40, Figure 19: 84, Figure 20: 127) operably connected to a first end configured with a surface for connection or gripping (paragraph [0040] and [0044]: explain how interchangeable tips 40, 84 or 127 can be connected or attached to one end of plunger 14 by being screwed or locked to the impact section 36 and the other end of plunger 14 being attached to a gripping means or handle 32) and having a piercing surface (Figure 19: 84, Figure 20: 127). Lowther does not disclose an unmanned vehicle being used for gripping or carrying the rupture head.
Patrick teaches a UAV for delivering payload at specific location (Title, Abstract, Figure 2A, 2B: UAV 200, payload 208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an unmanned vehicle such as taught by Patrick to be connected to the rupturing head disclosed by Lowther for the rupturing head to be delivered to desired location remotely when needed.
Regarding claim 8, Lowther in view of Patrick discloses a rupturing device according to claim 7 as set forth above. Lowther further discloses the rupturing device having an actuatable slug (paragraph [0040]: “plunger 14”; Figure 1 – 3: 14) which when released impacts said rupturing head ([Abstract] and paragraph [0007] and [0040]: explain how the force of the sliding plunger 14 is transmitted to the interchangeable tip 40 or 84 or 127 through the impact head 16; Figure 1 – 3, 19, 20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210155345 A1 discloses a plumbing vent cap remote removal system using a remote-controlled UAV. US 5224515 A discloses a pierceable tube closure made from elastomeric material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-0113. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Wed 9:00am-7:00pm and Thurs 8:30am-2:30pm EST.
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 supervisors, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/FAISAL AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights