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 .
The claims received 3/13/2026 are entered.
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.
Claims 5-6 are 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 5 recites “define a normally air-tight condensate flow path” however the meaning is not clear. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). It is unclear whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the step to occur, or whether infringement occurs when the step actually occurs. MPEP 2173.05(p) II. The condition of the valve(s) being in one configuration vs another “normally” is a manner of operation.
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer (US 6,041,611).
Regarding claim 5, Palmer discloses a valve assembly comprising:
a unitary rigid tee shaped PVC structure (horizontal passage and vertical passage as arranged in figure 1 form a tee shape; 4:45-47 discloses PVC) configured to receive water from a garden hose (3:61 “standard garden hose”) having a primary condensate flow path between a first inline opening and a second inline opening (shown in annotated figure), and a branch passage (identified below) extending substantially perpendicular to the primary condensate flow path, the tee shaped structure being configured to receive water from a garden hose (3:61 “standard garden hose”) and an air conditioner condensate line (12a; 1:9-10), and configured to output the water to a drain line (12b); and
one or more valves (16 and 18) disposed on the tee shaped structure, wherein the one or more valves are configured to regulate a flow of water to the drain line from at least one of the garden hose and the air conditioner condensate line; and
wherein the tee shaped structure and the one or more valves collectively define a normally air-tight condensate flow path through the primary condensate flow path during normal HVAC operation, such that negative pressure integrity of the AC condensate line is maintained when the valve associated with the branch passage is in a closed position. Additionally, regarding limitations drawn to air tightness, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. Here the valves of Palmer may be configured to be closed in operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Palmer discloses the one or more valves comprise a garden hose valve (valve 16 is a valve for controlling flow from the garden hose) and a PVC ball valve (4:51-55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US 6,041,611) in view of Coogle (US 8,156,956).
Regarding claim 1, Palmer discloses a valve assembly for an AC condensate line (12a), the assembly comprising:
garden hose connector having a female end for accepting a garden hose (24 is a female thread form; 4:61-67), attached to a PVC tee connector (7:59 discloses PVC; the shape as shown in figure 1 includes a tee shape), and a shut-off valve (16) between the female end and PVC tee; the PVC tee connector having a first opening for accepting the garden hose valve (as shown in figure 1 said elements are connected), a second opening designed to be connected an inlet from an AC drain line (from 12a), and a third opening designed to be connected to an AC drain line exit (to 12b);
wherein the shut-off valve (16), when in a closed position, maintains an air-tight seal at the first opening of the PVC tee connector so as to preserve negative pressure integrity of the AC condensate line during normal HVAC operation. Additionally, regarding limitations drawn to air tightness, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. Here the valve(s) of Palmer may be configured to be closed in operation.
Palmer lacks male threads of the connector connecting to female threads of the PVC tee. Coogle shows a connector for utilizing a garden hose (1:52) to flush a condensate drain line (1:10-15) where a connector includes a male threads (at end 5) connecting to female threads of the tee fitting (3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a threaded connection to attach said components as taught by Coogle in order to allow for disassembly for repair and replacement.
Regarding claim 2, Palmer and Coogle disclose the female threaded portion of the PVC tee connector comprises a threaded coupling attached to the PVC tee (as modified above the female thread form is within the PVC coupling arrangement of Palmer).
Regarding claim 3, Palmer, as modified, discloses the valve assembly of claim 1, but lacks that the shutoff valve 16 is made of brass.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that brass is an old and well known material for use in plumbing valves. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Palmer with a brass valve in order to observe high durability.
Regarding claim 4, Palmer discloses a ball valve assembly (18) having a first opening designed to be connected to the second opening of the PVC tee connector, a second opening designed to be connected to an AC drain line inlet (12a), and a ball valve between the first and second openings of the ball valve (4:47-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding II.A. a fourth line does not preclude a tee shape.
Regarding II.B. applicant discusses air tightness, however the configuration of the valves to open/close and thus achieve air-tightness corresponds to operation of the device.
Regarding II.C. applicant asserts a structural difference but does not assert a claim limitation that Palmer fails to meet.
Regarding II.D. applicant argues features not claimed. To the extent applicant incorporates a thread form in a different manner than the reference, such a distinction is not claimed.
Regarding II.E. for the reasons above applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding III.A. applicant asserts that Coogle is “fundamentally different”. First the rejection is directed to the claims. Second the argument rings hollow in view of Coogle being a flushing system for air conditioning drainage pipes.
Regarding III.B. applicant purports that there is no proper motivation to combine. However as expressed above the motivation is to provide a particular thread form in order to allow for disassembly for repair and replacement.
Regarding III.C. applicant does not assert a particular claimed feature that is lacking
Regarding III.D. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding III.E. applicant discusses a custom manufactured GHT thread form. The claim does not require the same scope as is argued.
Regarding III.F. applicant discusses a custom manufactured GHT thread form. The claim does not require the same scope as is argued.
Regarding III.G. applicant discusses a custom manufactured GHT thread form. The claim does not require the same scope as is argued. Moreover the examiner refers applicant to “Amazon.com Brass shut-off valve (3/29/2021)” previously cited and attached
Regarding III.H. applicant argues modification would destroy the principle of operation; however the modification is to a threaded connection.
Regarding V.A.B.C.D. applicant argues unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, skepticism of experts, etc. However applicant bears the burden of establishing a nexus between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention. In particular that the product includes the claimed features and is coextensive with them. MPEP 716.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amazon.com Brass shut-off valve (3/29/2021)
Charron (US 5,735,307) shut off valve
Hapton, Sr. (US 7,669,834) ball valve
Combeau (US 5,232,200) ball valve
Hengesbach (Des. 325,621( float control valve
McHugh (US 4,993,453) valve and arrangement
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799