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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending and subject to examination in this Office action.
Specification
The first paragraph of the specification should be amended as follows to correct a typographical error:
[0001] This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/490,916 by Bunker II, et al., entitled “DRIP
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 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.
Claims 1-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Crum (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0163330).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 10, Crum describes a utility shed (10) comprising:
a vertical exterior surface defining an opening (i.e., window opening or sliding door opening illustrated in Fig. 1; ¶ [0039]); and
a drip gutter (16) in alignment with the opening with the drip gutter being disposed at a vertical distance of within one foot of a top of the opening (Fig. 1), the drip gutter comprising:
a vertical member (24);
a horizontal member (26) extending laterally outward from the vertical member,
wherein at least a portion of the vertical member extends upward above the horizontal member (Fig. 2); and
a vertical lip (20) extending upward from a surface of the horizonal member and laterally spaced apart from the vertical member such that an open-topped drainage channel is formed between the vertical member, the horizontal member, and the vertical lip (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, wherein: the vertical exterior surface comprises siding material; and the vertical member of the drip gutter is coupled with a surface of the siding material (Fig. 1; ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the vertical member is disposed on an exterior-facing surface of the siding material (Fig. 1; ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, wherein: the vertical member is disposed on an interior-facing surface of the siding material (Fig. 1; ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, wherein: the vertical exterior surface comprises trim material; and the vertical member of the drip gutter is coupled with a surface of the trim material (Fig. 1; ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, wherein: the vertical member is disposed on an exterior-facing surface of the trim material (Fig. 1; ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, wherein: the vertical member is disposed on an interior-facing surface of the trim material (Fig. 1; ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, wherein: the vertical exterior surface comprises siding material and trim material; and the vertical member of the drip gutter is disposed between the trim material and the siding material (Fig. 1; ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, wherein: the vertical exterior surface comprises exterior sheathing material and siding material; and the vertical member of the drip gutter is disposed between the exterior sheathing material and the siding material (Fig. 1; ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, wherein: the vertical member has a greater height than the vertical lip (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, wherein: a width of the horizontal member is greater than a height of the vertical lip (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, wherein: the horizontal member extends from the vertical member at an angle of between about 75 degrees and 105 degrees (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, wherein: the horizontal member slopes downward from the vertical member to the vertical lip (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, wherein: the drip gutter is a monolithic structure (see claim 2 of Crum).
Regarding claim 21, wherein: a length of the open-topped drainage channel is greater than a width of the open-topped drainage channel (Fig. 2).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Crum as applied above, and further in view of Gori (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0071425).
Regarding claim 16, Crum does not appear to expressly describe a rib located on the vertical member above the horizontal member. As evidenced by Gori, it was old and well-known in the gutter art to utilize a C-shaped rib located on the vertical member (82) above the horizontal member (86; see e.g., Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a rib oriented and positioned as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have bolstered the structural integrity of the gutter. Such combination of known prior art elements that merely yields predictable results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16.
Regarding claim 17, Gori describes a horizontal protrusion (84) that extends from a same surface of the vertical member as the horizontal member, the horizontal member being spaced apart from the horizontal protrusion by a vertical distance, wherein the horizontal protrusion extends a shorter distance than the horizontal member (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, wherein: the vertical distance is between about 0.125 inches and 0.75 inches (see e.g., Gori Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, wherein: the horizontal protrusion comprises a vertical portion that extends toward the horizontal member (see e.g., Gori Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, wherein: the vertical portion is coupled with the horizontal member (see e.g., Gori Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 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 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 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635