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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ribbed section of the elbow per claim 7 and the one or more extenders per claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,975,805 to Horn in view of US 5,375,891 to Sicotte et al. in view of US 2004/0182015 A1 to Roe et al.
Regarding claim 1, Horn discloses a downspout extension assembly (8, 14, Fig.1 and 2) for attaching to an existing downspout (6) of a building, the assembly comprising: an elbow (8), the elbow comprising a first tubular body defining an angled hollow channel (Fig.4), the first tubular body having an inlet (top of 8, Fig.1) and an outlet (bottom of 8, Fig.1, 4) such that the outlet is positioned at an angle of less than 180 degrees relative to the inlet (Fig.1), a downspout extension (14), the downspout extension comprising a second tubular body (14, Fig.4) defining a linear hollow channel having first (18) and second ends (16), the first end including a cutout (22) in an upper wall of the second tubular body and a pair of apertures (30), each aperture of the pair of apertures passing through first and second side walls of the second tubular body (30, Fig.4), the pair of apertures corresponding to the connector (28) of the elbow (Fig.4), and wherein the downspout extension is releasably mounted to the elbow by inserting a connector through a corresponding aperture of the pair of apertures of the downspout extension (Fig.4) to rotatably mount the downspout extension to the elbow (Fig.1 and 2), and when the downspout extension is rotatably mounted to the elbow, the downspout extension rotates about a rotational axis (axis of 28) extending between the pair of apertures to move the downspout extension between a storage position (Fig.1) that is adjacent and substantially parallel to the downspout of the building, and a deployed position (Fig.2) that is substantially perpendicular to the downspout of the building.
Horn discloses a connector extending between the pair of apertures of the downspout extension adjacent to the outlet of the elbow but does not disclose a pair of connectors protruding from, and integrally formed with, an exterior surface of the first tubular body, the pair of connectors located adjacent to the outlet of the elbow and each connector of the pair of connectors positioned on opposite sides of the outlet.
Further Horn appears to disclose what one would deem to be a semi-rigid material, but does not specifically disclose a semi-rigid, resilient material.
Sicotte et al. disclose a pair of connectors (12, Fig.1) protruding from, and integrally formed with, an exterior surface of the first tubular body (18), the pair of connectors located adjacent to the outlet of the tubular body (Fig.1) and each connector of the pair of connectors positioned on opposite sides of the outlet (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the elbow of Horn with integral connectors as taught by Sicotte et al. so to enable the downspout extension to be secured with the elbow without the need for additional fasteners, thereby reducing the amount of parts and the time needed to assemble the downspout.
Roe et al. disclose a downspout extension manufactured from a semi-rigid, resilient material (Paragraphs [0022] and [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed for the components of the assembly of Horn from a semi-rigid, resilient material such as EPMD as taught by Roe et al. so to form the elbow and the extension from materials which can be crushed or bent but will return back to proper form, therefore preventing damage to the components and also preventing clogging or blocked drainage from crushed portions of the tubes.
Regarding claim 2, Horn discloses wherein the angle between the inlet and the outlet of the elbow is 90 degrees (Fig.1)
Regarding claim 3, Sicotte et al. disclose a hinge pin as a connector which typically includes an elongate post and a stop at the free end of the post (12), and wherein a diameter of the corresponding aperture of the downspout extension is less than a width of the stop and greater than a width of the post (the head of the hinge pin, prevents the aperture from popping off and becoming easily dislodged from the hinge pin).
If one argues that Sicotte et al. does not specifically disclose a post and stop hinge pin connector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided Horn with connectors comprising a pin and a stop so to enable the apertures to be inserted over the stop and therein preventing the aperture from being easily removed from the connectors.
Regarding claim 4, Sicotte et al. disclose wherein the post has a circular cross-section (12).
Regarding claim 5, Horn discloses wherein both the outlet of the elbow and the first end of the downspout extension have a square cross-section (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 6, Horn discloses a square cross-section but does not specifically disclose a circular cross-section.
Sicotte et al. disclose wherein both the outlet of the elbow and the first end of the downspout extension have a circular cross-section (Fig.5B).
Downspouts and other portions of draining systems are well known to have both circular and square cross-sectional shapes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the elbow with a circular cross-section in order to be secured to a downspout having a circular cross section, thereby creating a clean connection between tubular elements.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Horn does not disclose wherein the first tubular body of the elbow includes a pleated section or a ribbed section located between the inlet and the outlet.
Sicotte et al. disclose wherein the first tubular body of the elbow includes a pleated section/ribbed section with a plurality of ribs (27) located between the inlet and the outlet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the elbow of Horn with a pleated section/ribbed section having a plurality of ribs as taught by Sicotte et al. so to provide the elbow with flexibility and the ability to change angles without permanent deformation of the elbow or without adding additional angled pieces to the assembly.
Regarding claim 9, Horn discloses wherein the inlet of the elbow is sized to slide onto, so as to mount onto, an outlet of the downspout of the building (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Horn does not disclose wherein the elbow includes at least two apertures passing through the first tubular body and positioned adjacent to the elbow inlet, the two apertures sized to receive corresponding fasteners for fastening the elbow to the downspout.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided apertures in the inlet area of the elbow of Horn so to effectively provide a fastener through the elbow and into the downspout since rivets are a well-known fastener for downspouts which require pre-drilled holes.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Horn in view of Sicotte et al. disclose wherein an interior surface of the first tubular body is smooth (interior of the elbow will not have protrusions, since providing an interior that is not smooth will cause the elbow member to catch debris and clog).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,975,805 to Horn in view of US 5,375,891 to Sicotte et al. in view of US 2004/0182015 A1 to Roe et al. in view of US 2016/0281364 A1 to Lolio Jr.
Regarding claim 13, Horn does not disclose wherein the assembly further comprises one or more extenders, each extender of the one or more extenders comprising a third or subsequent tubular body defining a linear hollow channel having first and second ends, the first end of the extender attachable to the second end of the downspout extension by a deformable sleeve; and wherein the one or more extenders are each manufactured of a semi-rigid, resilient material.
Lolio discloses one or more extenders (10, Fig.4), each extender of the one or more extenders comprising a third or subsequent tubular body (40) defining a linear hollow channel (30) having first and second ends (top and bottom ends), the first end of the extender attachable to the second end of the downspout extension by a deformable sleeve (20); and wherein the one or more extenders are each manufactured of a semi-rigid, resilient material (Paragraphs [0018] and [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided multiple extenders to the assembly of Horn so to enable the downspout to extend and drain to distances beyond the area of the building in which the downspout is connected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635