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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 26-27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauwerdink et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,111,663) in view of Muderlak et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,222,247).
Regarding claim 21, Rauwerdink et al. disclose a drain structure (Figs. 1-6), comprising: a drain bent pipe (202) configured to drain a urinal trough (212), the drain bent pipe (202) comprising: a bent pipe main body (222); a first bent pipe end (224) connected to a first end (Fig. 2) of the bent pipe main body (222); a second bent pipe end (226) connected to a second end (Fig. 2) of the bent pipe main body (222); and an internal thread (Fig. 4, Column 6 lines 49-61) disposed in the first bent pipe end (224); and a connecting sleeve (234) configured to (Column 6 lines 49-61) connect the urinal trough (212) to the drain bent pipe (202), the connecting sleeve (234) comprising: a sleeve main body (Fig. 4) including an external thread (Column 7 lines 25-34) configured to be screwed into the first bent pipe end (224); a sleeve top ring (Fig. 4) configured to be connected to an upper end (Fig. 4) of the sleeve main body (234); and a first sealing ring (240) configured to be disposed on a bottom surface (Fig. 4) of the sleeve top ring (Column 7 lines 25-34); and a first mounting area (declining surface under the top ring, Fig. 4) disposed on the bottom surface (Fig. 4) of the sleeve top ring and configured to receive the first sealing ring (240), but lacks disclosure wherein the first mounting area is a first mounting groove.
Muderlak et al. teach a drain structure (Figs. 1-6) comprising a connecting sleeve (240) having a top ring (Fig. 5) and a sealing ring (243), wherein the sealing ring (243) is disposed on a bottom surface of the top ring (Fig. 5) and within a mounting groove (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal ring mounting area of Rauwerdink et al. with a sealing ring groove as taught by Muderlak et al. for the advantage of retaining the sealing ring in a fixed location, and such a modification would be considered an obvious matter of design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 26, Rauwerdink et al. disclose the drain structure (Figs. 1-6), wherein the bottom surface of the sleeve top ring (top flange of 234) is a conical surface (Fig. 4), and wherein a radius (Fig. 4) of the conical surface is decreased in a top-to-bottom direction of the sleeve top ring (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 27, Rauwerdink et al. disclose the drain structure (Figs. 1-6), further comprising: a filter cover (236) configured to be detachably connected to a top portion (Column 6 line 49-Column 7 line 6) of the connecting sleeve (234), the filter cover (236) comprising a plurality of filter cover through holes (Fig. 4) spaced from each other.
Regarding claim 29, Rauwerdink et al. disclose the drain structure (Figs. 1-6), further comprising: a flexible gasket (238) configured to be connected (Column 7 lines 25-34) to a top surface (400, Fig. 4) of the first bent pipe end (224).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauwerdink et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,111,663) in view of Muderlak et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,222,247), and further in view of Groskey (U.S. Patent No. 5,090,276).
Regarding claim 22, Rauwerdink et al. disclose the essential features of the claimed invention but lacks disclosure of two sleeve wall protrusions disposed on an inner surface of the sleeve main body and facing towards each other.
Groskey teaches a drain structure (Figs. 1-5) comprising a drain pipe (52) that is threadably connected to a connecting sleeve (30), wherein the connecting sleeve (30) comprises two sleeve wall protrusions (projections 38 in between notches 40, Fig. 1) disposed on an inner surface (36) of the sleeve (30) and facing towards each other (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sleeve of Rauwerdink et al. with a sleeve having protrusions as taught by Groskey for the advantage of enabling the sleeve to be installed in an expeditious manner by a relatively unskilled person, without risking any damage (Column 2 line 65-Column 3 line 3).
Regarding claim 23, Groskey (modified above) teach wherein the two sleeve wall protrusions (projections 38 in between notches 40, Fig. 1) are integrally formed (Fig. 1) on the inner surface of the sleeve (30).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauwerdink et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,111,663) in view of Muderlak et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,222,247), and further in view of Mitchell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,401,266).
Regarding claim 28, Rauwerdink et al. disclose the drain structure (Figs. 1-6), further comprising: a plurality of elastic jaws (what appear as elastic jaws in the bottom portion of 236 in Fig. 2) connected to a bottom portion of the filter cover (236), the plurality of elastic jaws spaced from each other and configured to (Column 6 line 49-Column 7 line 6) are clamped with the sleeve main body (134), but lacks clear disclosure of a plurality of elastic jaws spaced from each other to clamp with the sleeve.
Mitchell et al. teach a drain structure (Figs. 1-6) having a connecting sleeve (10) with a top portion (Fig. 5) that is detachably connected to a filter cover (16 and 18), wherein the filter cover (16 and 18) has a plurality of elastic jaws (36) connected to a bottom portion (18) of the cover (16 and 18), the plurality of jaws (36) spaced from each other (Fig. 4) and configured to clamp (Column 2 lines 17-48) to the sleeve (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the connecting means of the filter cover of Rauwerdink et al. with a plurality of elastic jaws as taught by Mitchell et al. since they are considered art recognized equivalents in the art of couplers, that perform the same function of enabling the filter cover to be connected to the connecting sleeve, and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauwerdink et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,111,663) in view of Muderlak et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,222,247), and further in view of Izzi, Sr. (U.S. Patent No. 4,482,161).
Regarding claim 30, Rauwerdink et al. disclose the essential features of the claimed invention but lack disclosure of an annular position limiting groove disposed on the top surface of the first bent pipe end; and a gasket convex ring disposed on a bottom surface of the flexible gasket, the gasket convex ring extending downwardly, wherein the gasket convex ring is configured to be disposed in the annular position limiting groove.
Izzi, Sr. teach a drain structure (Figs. 1-4) comprising a drain pipe (18) with a first end (20), wherein the first end (20) has an annular position limiting groove (groove at 33, Fig. 1) disposed on the top surface of the end (20), and a gasket (30) having a gasket convex ring (31) disposed on a bottom surface of the gasket (30) and extending downwardly (Fig. 1), wherein the gasket convex ring (31) is disposed in (Column2 line 60-Column 3 line 6) the annular position limiting groove (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gasket assembly of Rauwerdink et al. with a gasket assembly as taught by Izzi, Sr. for the advantage of having a gasket that frictionally grips the flange of the end of the drain pipe and provides compressible sealing engagement (Column 1 line 67-Column 2 line 13).
Regarding claim 31, Izzi, Sr. (modified above) teach wherein a top surface (Fig. 2) of the flexible gasket (30) includes a corrugated surface (35 & 38).
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauwerdink et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,111,663) in view of Muderlak et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,222,247), and further in view of Donnelly (Pub. No. US 2015/0115596).
Regarding claim 32, Rauwerdink et al. disclose the drain structure (Figs. 1-6), further comprising: an adapter pipe (208) configured to be connected to the second bent pipe end (226) through a union (510), but lacks disclosure wherein the union is a clamp.
Donnelly teach a drain structure (Figs. 1-22) comprising a drain pipe (12) having a second end (56) connected to (paragraphs 78-79) an adapter pipe (14) via a clamp (18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the union of Rauwerdink et al. with a clamp as taught by Donnelly since they are considered art recognized equivalents in the art of couplers, that perform the same function of connecting the drain pipe to an adapter pipe, and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 33, Donnelly (modified above) teach wherein the second pipe end (56) is configured to be inserted into (Fig. 6) the adapter pipe (14), and wherein a second sealing ring (54) is configured to be disposed between an outer surface (Fig. 6) of the second pipe end (56) and an inner surface of the adapter pipe (14).
Regarding claim 34, Donnelly (modified above) teach a second mounting groove (groove retaining O-ring 54, Fig. 6) disposed on the outer surface (Fig. 6) of the second pipe end (56) and configured to (paragraph 78) receive the second sealing ring (54).
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 Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM 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 can be reached by phone. Craig 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights