DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 29 July 2026
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending;
Claims 21 is currently amended;
Claims 22-40 were previously presented;
Claims 21-40 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 29 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot since a new reference is being incorporated to reject the claims in view of the new limitation presented by applicant.
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.
Claims 21-32, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0220302) in view of Smith (U.S. Patent No. 7,306,399) and Crescenzi et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,602,023).
As to Claim 21, Cobb discloses a stormwater system, comprising:
An end cap (14) configured to attach to an end of a chamber body (Interior of 10) to form a lateral wall of a stormwater chamber (10) configured to contain stormwater and defined by the chamber body and the end cap, the end cap comprising:
A base (Annotated figure B, “base”);
A frame (Annotated figure B, “frame”);
One or more corrugations defined by one or more sets of alternating peaks (Annotated figure A, “peaks”) and valleys (Annotated figure A, “valleys”) emanating from the base and up to a lateral surface of the frame (Annotated figure B, “frame”. One half of the peripheral surface of the frame is a first lateral surface and the other half of the peripheral surface of the frame is a second lateral surface); and
One or more markings (Annotated figure B, “cutout markings”) on an outer surface of the end cap configured to guide a cutout location (Paragraph 0100: “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 13, the end wall may be formed with circular indicants for facilitating cutting of holes in the end wall to receive multiple specific pipe sizes”).
However, Cobb is silent about one or more curvilinear ribs disposed in one or more of the valleys, wherein the one or more curvilinear ribs form segments of an arc. Smith discloses one or more curvilinear ribs (Annotated Figure C, “ribs disposed in valleys”) disposed in one or more of the valleys, wherein the one or more curvilinear ribs form segments of an arc. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more curvilinear ribs disposed in one or more of the valleys, wherein the one or more curvilinear ribs form segments of an arc. The motivation would have been to reinforce the end cap.
Furthermore, Cobb as modified (See above paragraph) is silent about one or more teeth extending outwardly from the frame, wherein the one or more teeth are configured to engage with one or more latch valleys of the stormwater chamber. Crescenzi discloses one or more teeth (28) extending outwardly from a frame (20) of an end cap, wherein the one or more teeth (28) are configured to engage with one or more latch valleys (30) of a stormwater chamber (20). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more teeth extending outwardly from the frame, wherein the one or more teeth are configured to engage with one or more latch valleys of the stormwater chamber. The motivation would have been to attach the end cap to the chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
738
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Peaks and Valleys (Cobb)
PNG
media_image2.png
730
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Base and Frame (Cobb)
PNG
media_image3.png
621
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C. Ribs disposed in valleys (Smith)
As to Claim 22, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 21 (Refer to Claim 21 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more markings (Annotated figure B, “cutout markings”) comprise a raised surface (The portion of the markings over the peaks are a raised surface).
As to Claim 23, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 21 (Refer to Claim 21 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more markings (Annotated figure B, “cutout markings”) comprise an indented surface (The portion of the markings over the valleys are indented surfaces).
As to Claim 24, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 21 (Refer to Claim 21 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more markings (Annotated figure B, “cutout markings”) comprise a surface marking applied to the outer surface of the end cap (14).
As to Claim 25, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 21 (Refer to Claim 21 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more markings (Annotated figure B, “cutout markings”) comprise a substantially circular shape.
As to Claim 26, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 25 (Refer to Claim 25 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more markings (Annotated figure B, “cutout markings”) follow a curvature of the one or more corrugations.
As to Claim 27, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 21 (Refer to Claim 21 discussion). However, Cobb is silent further comprising one or more labels proximate to the one or more markings. Examiner takes official notice that it is notoriously well-known to use labels to identify things or provide instructions. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more labels proximate to the one or more markings. The motivation would have been to identify and provide instructions.
As to Claim 28, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 27 (Refer to Claim 27 discussion). However, Cobb as modified is silent about wherein the one or more labels indicate a pipe size or a pipe type associated with the one or more markings. Examiner takes official notice that it is notoriously well-known to use labels to identify things or provide instructions. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the one or more labels indicate a pipe size or a pipe type associated with the one or more markings. The motivation would have been to identify and provide instructions.
As to Claim 29, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 27 (Refer to Claim 27 discussion). However, Cobb as modified is silent about wherein the one or more labels comprise at least one of a numerical indication, an alphanumerical indication, a surface marking, an indentation, or a raised surface. Examiner takes official notice that it is notoriously well-known to use labels to identify things or provide instructions. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more labels with at least one of a numerical indication, an alphanumerical indication, a surface marking, an indentation, or a raised surface. The motivation would have been to identify and provide instructions.
As to Claim 30, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 21 (Refer to Claim 21 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein one or more ribs (Annotated Figure C, “ribs disposed in valleys”) disposed in one or more of the valleys are configured to increase a resistance of the frame to bending.
As to Claim 31, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 30 (Refer to Claim 30 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more markings (Annotated figure B, “cutout markings”) are disposed at a distance from the one or more ribs (Annotated Figure C, “ribs disposed in valleys”).
As to Claim 32, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 30 (Refer to Claim 30 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more markings (Annotated figure B, “cutout markings”) are disposed adjacent to the one or more ribs (Annotated Figure C, “ribs disposed in valleys”).
As to Claim 34, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 30 (Refer to Claim 30 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more ribs (Annotated Figure C, “ribs disposed in valleys”) are disposed on an interior of the end cap.
As to Claim 35, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 21 (Refer to Claim 21 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the peaks (Annotated figure A, “peaks”) and valleys (Annotated figure A, “valleys”) have a curvature configured to form a contoured outer surface of the end cap (14).
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0220302) in view of Smith (U.S. Patent No. 7,306,399); and further in view of Moore Jr et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,890,838).
As to Claim 33, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 30 (Refer to Claim 30 discussion). However, Cobb as modified is silent about wherein the one or more ribs are disposed on an exterior of the end cap. Moore Jr discloses one or more ribs (32) disposed in one or more of the valleys (26) in an exterior. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the one or more ribs on the exterior of the end cap. The motivation would have been to reinforce the end cap.
Claims 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0220302) in view of Smith (U.S. Patent No. 7,306,399); and further in view of Mailhot et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,672,583).
As to Claim 36, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 21 (Refer to Claim 21 discussion). However, Cobb as modified is silent about wherein the end cap further comprises one or more valley reinforcements. Mailhot discloses an end cap further comprising one or more valley reinforcements (60 or 54). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more valley reinforcements. The motivation would have been for additional strengthening of the cap.
As to Claim 37, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 36 (Refer to Claim 36 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more valley reinforcements (Mailhot: 60) taper along a width of the end cap.
As to Claim 38, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 36 (Refer to Claim 36 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more valley reinforcements (Mailhot: 60) taper along a height of the end cap.
As to Claim 39, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 36 (Refer to Claim 36 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more valley reinforcements (Mailhot: 54) extend over a top surface of the end cap (Mailhot: Figure 10).
As to Claim 40, Cobb as modified teaches the invention of Claim 36 (Refer to Claim 36 discussion). Cobb as modified also teaches wherein the one or more valley reinforcements (Mailhot: 54) extend over a rear surface of the end cap (Mailhot: Figure 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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 supervisor, AMBER ANDERSON can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights