DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s communication filed 24 May 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry et al. (US 20220178483 A1), hereinafter referred to as Terry et al., in view of Westberry (US 6965079 B2), hereinafter referred to as Westberry.
Regarding claim 1, Terry et al. teaches an apparatus for a water plumbing system constructed of electrically non-conductive pipes, comprising: an electrically conductive fixture installed axially inline with first and second axially-aligned electrically non-conductive pipes of said plumbing system.
Terry et al. does not teach an integral electrically conductive element that extends into one of the first and second electrically non-conductive pipes in contact with water therein to establish an extended surface area contact between said electrically conductive fixture and the water in said one electrically non-conductive pipe, and at least one grounding lug disposed on an exterior periphery of said electrically conductive fixture for ground wire connection to earth ground to thereby establish a local earth ground reference for the water in said plumbing system.
Westberry does teach an integral electrically conductive element (column 3, lines 23-24: electrical transfer rod 24) that extends into one of the first and second electrically non-conductive pipes (column 3, line 8: outlet pipe 16) in contact with water therein to establish an extended surface area contact between said electrically conductive fixture (column 3, line 6: fitting 12) and the water in said one electrically non-conductive pipe (16), and at least one grounding lug (column 3, lines 26-30: adaptor fitting 26) disposed on an exterior periphery of said electrically conductive fixture (12) for ground wire connection to earth ground (column 3, lines 55-56: grounding rod 34 penetrating the earth 36) to thereby establish a local earth ground reference for the water in said plumbing system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrically conductive fixture of Terry et al. with an integral electrically conductive element as taught by Westberry because the integral electrically conductive element of Westberry enables the grounding of a plumbing system made from non-conductive materials (Westberry column 1, lines 49-61).
Regarding claim 2, Terry et al. in view of Westbrook teaches the water grounding apparatus of claim 1, wherein said electrically conductive fixture incorporates a water shutoff valve (112) (Terry et al. paragraph 32: the movement of the actuator 112 is moved to block the fluid passageway).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry et al. in view of Westberry, in further view of Kang et al. (US 20210071787 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kang et al.
Regarding claim 3, Terry et al. in view of Westberry teaches the water grounding apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that said integral electrically conductive element is a sleeve of electrically conductive material that extends into said one electrically non-conductive pipe, where the water in said electrically non-conductive pipe is in contact with both an inner periphery of said sleeve and an outer periphery of said sleeve.
Kang et al. does teach that said integral electrically conductive element may be a sleeve of electrically conductive material that extends into said one electrically non-conductive pipe, where the water in said electrically non-conductive pipe is in contact with both an inner periphery of said sleeve and an outer periphery of said sleeve (Kang et al. Fig. 6 and paragraphs 51-53: extension member 130 is in a cylindrical shape with an outer diameter less than the inner diameter of member 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the integral electrically conductive element of Terry et al. in view of Westberry from a cylinder as taught by Kang et al. because a cylinder provides a stable electrical connection (Kang et al. paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 4, Terry et al. in view of Westberry teaches the water grounding apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that said integral electrically conductive element is a flexible coil electrically conductive material that extends into said one electrically non- conductive pipe.
Kang et al. does teach that said integral electrically conductive element may be a flexible coil (20) electrically conductive material that extends into said one electrically non- conductive pipe (see Kang et al. Figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 37-38: the elastic member 20 is a coil spring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the integral electrically conductive element of Terry et al. in view of Westberry from a spring as taught by Kang et al. because a coil maximizes the current-carrying surface area of the element (Kang et al. paragraph 39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in the claim a second electrically conductive fixture installed axially inline with a second electrically non-conductive pipe of said plumbing system remote from said first electrically non-conductive pipe, wherein said second electrically conductive fixture includes a grounding lug electrically connected to a device in said building to provide an earth ground reference for such device through the water in said electrically non-conductive pipes.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goodson (US 20170214185 A1)
Burns (US 4106832 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John B Freal whose telephone number is (571)272-4056. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:00.
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, Timothy J Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
/JOHN B FREAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847