DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action Final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/787,487.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 1-21 are examined.
Continuation Application First Action Final
This is a Continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/697,332. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. The claims filed with the present application are identical to the claims filed on 03/17/2022 and rejected on 01/29/2024 within U.S. App. 17/697,332 and thus such rejections are applied again herein as they are considered proper. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 31, 35, 37 and 46 depicts multiple views, perspectives and/or embodiments within the same figure when each view or embodiment should be provided with a different figure number. Furthermore, figures 32-46 are hand drawn and hard to see or read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 defines “and the second side to facilitating attachment,” which is awkwardly written and recommended to define --the second side to facilitate --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-21 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 4 defines “a fabric attached to each of the plurality of drainage cores,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether a fabric element is to attach to each and every drainage core, as taught in the embodiment of figure 17 of the present application, or whether each drainage core comprises a respective fabric attached thereto, as taught in the embodiment of figure 34 of the present application. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, either of such interpretations can be used to reject such limitations as will be explained below. Furthermore, claims 5-21 are rendered indefinite for their dependencies upon claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 4-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glasser (GB 2056236).
Regarding claim 4, Glasser discloses a drainage and ventilation system, the system comprising:
a plurality of drainage cores (#4; see figure 6), each drainage core is comprised of a sheet having a first end (the end facing out of the page of figure 6), a second end (the end facing into the page of figure 6) a first side (the top side of figure 6), a second side (the bottom side of figure 6), and a plurality of dimples (#5/6) disposed between the first end, the second end, the first side, and the second side (see figures 3 and 6), the plurality of dimples extending outwardly from the sheet (see figures 3 and 6, where the dimples extend outwardly from the second side to the first side) and defining a plurality of passages (the passages formed within elements #5 and #6), the plurality of passages including first passages (the passages formed by elements #5) extending from the first end to the second end (see figures 3 and 6, where the passages #5 extend from the opposing ends of the cores in a lengthwise manner) and second passages (the passages formed by elements #6) extending from the first side to the second side (see figures 3 and 6, where the passages #6 extend in a width direction from the first side to the second side); and
a fabric (#8 and #9) attached to each of the plurality of drainage cores (see figures 3 and 6, where a fabric layer #8/9 is applied to both sides of each core and attached to one another in order to form an integral outer surface for the system);
wherein the plurality of first passages and the plurality of second passages receive and convey a flow of at least one of liquid, air and gas through the plurality of drainage cores (the system is configured to convey water through the cores).
Regarding claim 5, Glasser discloses at least one of the first end, the second end, the first side, and the second side of the sheet of each of the plurality of drainage cores includes a flat section (the flat portions at the top of the projections #5 or at the bottom of the recesses #6) facilitating attachment of one of the plurality of drainage cores to an adjacent one of the plurality of drainage cores (figure 6 depicts how the edge regions #45 of two cores are to overlap one another in order to attach such elements to one another, where such cores #4 can comprise of flat portions as explained above or can comprise of flat sections formed by the flat inclined portions of each projection as depicted in figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Glasser discloses the fabric is wrapped around and individually encloses each of the plurality of drainage cores (see figure 3, where the fabric formed by elements #8 and #9 individually wrap around each core #4, where adjacent cores can be attached to one another as depicted in figures 5 and 6), the fabric further including an extending portion (#44/47) that extends beyond at least one of the first end, the second end, the first side, and the second side (see figure 6) to facilitating attachment of one of the plurality of drainage cores to an adjacent one of the plurality of drainage cores (see figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, Glasser discloses a fabric ribbon (#44/47) coupled to one of the plurality of drainage cores, the fabric ribbon facilitating attachment of the one of the plurality of drainage cores to an adjacent one of the plurality of drainage cores (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Glasser discloses the plurality of drainage cores is disposed in soil (#52; see figure 7), and wherein the flow of the at least one of liquid, air, and gas through the plurality of drainage cores is received from the soil (see figure 7, where water is configured to travel through the soil #52 and into the drainage system, and where the fabric #8/9 is configured to prevent particles from getting into the drainage system with the water).
Regarding claim 10, Glasser discloses a plurality of drainage conduits (#49/50) disposed in the soil (see figure 7), at least one of the plurality of drainage conduits is coupled to one of the plurality of drainage cores to receive and convey the flow of the at least one of liquid, air and gas through the plurality of drainage conduits (see page 6, ll. 95-108).
Claim(s) 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGuckin et al. (U.S. Patent 4,943,185).
Regarding claim 4, McGuckin et al. disclose a drainage and ventilation system, the system comprising:
a plurality of drainage cores (#36), each drainage core is comprised of a sheet having a first end (the left end of figure 4), a second end (the right end of figure 4) a first side (the top side of figure 4), a second side (the bottom side of figure 4), and a plurality of dimples (#48) disposed between the first end, the second end, the first side, and the second side (see figures 3 and 4), the plurality of dimples extending outwardly from the sheet (see figures 3 and 4) and defining a plurality of passages (the passages formed between dimples #48), the plurality of passages including first passages (the horizontal passages between adjacent dimples #48 of figure 3) extending from the first end to the second end (see figure 3) and second passages (the vertical passages formed between the dimples #48 of figure 3) extending from the first side to the second side (see figures 3 and 4); and
a fabric (#38) attached to each of the plurality of drainage cores (see figure 4);
wherein the plurality of first passages and the plurality of second passages receive and convey a flow of at least one of liquid, air and gas through the plurality of drainage cores (the system is configured to convey water or air through the cores).
Regarding claim 12, McGuckin et al. disclose the plurality of drainage cores is disposed in soil (#28/26; see figure 1), and wherein the plurality of dimples each include an interior cavity (the cavity as depicted in figure 4 which is filled with material #54), a portion of the interior cavities of the plurality of dimples is filled with an adhesive to enhance the shock absorbing properties of the soil having the plurality of drainage cores disposed therein (material #54 that fills cavities is disclosed as being a granular rubber which is adhered to such cavities with an adhesive, thus, meeting such adhesive and shock absorbing features as broadly defined; see col. 5, ll. 17-55).
Regarding claim 13, McGuckin et al. disclose the portion of the interior cavities of the plurality of dimples are filled with a mixture of the adhesive and a granular rubber (see col. 5, ll. 17-55, which disclose material #54 comprises of granular rubber adhered within such cavities using an adhesive).
Regarding claim 14, McGuckin et al. disclose the portion of the interior cavities of the plurality of dimples are filled with the adhesive and a surface of the drainage core is coated with the adhesive (see col. 5, ll. 17-55, which disclose material #54 comprises of granular rubber adhered within such cavities and where figure 4 depicts the material #54 is also adhered to the outer, top surface of the cores #36 as well, thus meeting such “coated” limitations as defined since the cores are coated with adhesive to adhere the material #54 thereto).
Claim(s) 4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (KR 200197089).
Regarding claim 4, Han discloses a drainage and ventilation system, the system comprising:
a plurality of drainage cores (#13), each drainage core is comprised of a sheet having a first end (the end facing out of the page of figure 2), a second end (the end facing into the page of figure 2) a first side (the left vertical surface of figure 2), a second side (the right vertical surface of figure 2), and a plurality of dimples (the U-shaped dimples as depicted in figure 2) disposed between the first end, the second end, the firs side, and the second side (see figure 2), the plurality of dimples extending outwardly from the sheet and defining a plurality of passages (the passages formed within the cavities of the dimples as well as between the dimples), the plurality of passages including first passages (the passages within the dimples) extending from the first end to the second end (see figure 2) and second passages (the passages between the dimples) extending from the first side to the second side (see figure 2); and
a fabric (#12) attached to each of the plurality of drainage cores (see figure 2 and 6, where a fabric layer #12 is applied to the first side of each core);
wherein the plurality of first passages and the plurality of second passages receive and convey a flow of at least one of liquid, air and gas through the plurality of drainage cores (the system is configured to convey water or air through the cores).
Regarding claim 16, Han discloses the plurality of drainage cores is disposed in a structure (#10; see figure 1, where the cores are to be attached to the inner surface of the tunnel #10), and wherein the plurality of dimples each include an interior cavity (the U-shaped cavity formed by the dimples), a portion of the interior cavities of the plurality of dimples is filled with at least one of an adhesive and a cement-based material (material #15 is cement based mortar), the at least one of the adhesive and the cement-based material receiving and adhering a finish material (#15’) to the plurality of drainage cores (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Han discloses the finish material includes at least one of plaster, stucco, tile, brick, and masonry veneer (the finish material #15’ is a cement based plaster as explained in the English translation on page 2).
Regarding claim 18, Han discloses the plurality of drainage cores is disposed in a structure (#10), and the system further includes a lath sheet (#14) affixed to each of the plurality of drainage cores on a surface opposite from the attached fabric (see figure 2), the lath sheet receiving and retaining at least one of an adhesive and a cement-based material (#15), the at least one of the adhesive and the cement-based material receiving and adhering a finish material (#15’) to the plurality of drainage cores (see figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasser in view of Isaac (GB 2334739).
Regarding claim 7, Glasser discloses the extending portion of the fabric can be sewn at a seam #10 and #11 as well as along seam lines to attach adjacent fabrics to one another and thus do not specifically disclose use of a plurality of eyelets which are adapted to receive a fastener as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Isaac, that instead of sewing, detachable connecting elements or ties can be used to attach a geotextile to other elements or to itself, where eyelets or sewn loops can be used in order to reinforce such holes for receiving such ties. See page 5, ll. 14-23. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used eyelets and ties in place of the seam lines of Glasser et al., as taught in Isaac, in order to allow for easier tying of adjacent fabrics and drainage cores with one another without special tools or skills and also since such attachment methods, i.e. sewing and eyelets and ties, are interchangeable with one another to yield the predictable result of attaching a geotextile fabric to other elements of the assembly as known in the art.
Claim(s) 4, 9-11, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondas (U.S. Patent 9,045,874) in view of Hubert (U.S. Patent 6,691,472).
Regarding claim 4, Kondas discloses a drainage and ventilation system, the system comprising:
a plurality of drainage cores (each core #10 formed by panels #12 and #14 and supports #16), each drainage core is comprised of a sheet having a first end (the end extending out of the page of figure 2), a second end (the end extending into the page of figure 2) a first side (#12), a second side (#14), and defining a plurality of passages (the passages formed between supports #16 as well as the passages extending through apertures #24 of the panels), the plurality of passages including first passages (the channels formed vertically within the cores between supports #16 as depicted in figure 2) extending from the first end to the second end and second passages (the apertures #24 extending through the panels of figure 1) extending from the first side to the second side (see figures 3 and 6); and
a fabric (#44) attached to each of the plurality of drainage cores (see figure 6, where a fabric layer #44 is applied to panel #12 of each core);
wherein the plurality of first passages and the plurality of second passages receive and convey a flow of at least one of liquid, air and gas through the plurality of drainage cores (the system is configured to convey water or air through the cores).
However, Kondas does not disclose the use of dimples provided between the sides and ends of the cores as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Hubert, that such drainage cores can comprise of dimples #12 so as to form projections which provide additional strength to the drainage core yet still allow drainage through the core as needed. See col. 2, ll. 48-62. Figure 1 of Hubert depicts the dimples form a grid such that a plurality of passages which form a plurality of rows and columns can be formed. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the drainage core of Kondas to comprise of a plurality of dimples used to define the passages as defined, as taught in Hubert, in order to increase the strength of the drainage core element while still allowing drainage within such a core.
Regarding claim 9, Kondas in view of Hubert render obvious the plurality of drainage cores is disposed in soil (see figure 6 of Kondas at #1), and wherein the flow of the at least one of liquid, air and gas through the plurality of drainage cores is received from the soil (see figure 6 of Kondas, where water can pass through the soil #1, through the fabric #44, and into the drainage core #10).
Regarding claim 10, Kondas in view of Hubert render obvious a plurality of drainage conduits (Kondas; #30) disposed in the soil (see figure 6 of Kondas), at least one of the plurality of drainage conduits is coupled to one of the plurality of drainage cores to receive and convey the flow of the at least one of liquid, air and gas through the plurality of drainage conduits (see figure 6 of Kondas).
Regarding claim 11, Kondas in view of Hubert render obvious an air exchange unit (Kondas; #170) in communication with at least one of the plurality of drainage cores (see figure 16 of Kondas).
Regarding claim 19, Kondas in view of Hubert render obvious the plurality of drainage cores is disposed in an interior of a structure, and wherein the plurality of drainage cores provides portions of at least one of walls, floors, and ceilings for the structure (Col. 8, ll. 28-34 of Kondas disclose that other advantages of the drainage core wall assembly is that the cores can be used to form the interior walls of the foundation as well, thus meeting such interior walls limitations as defined. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret, for example, figure 16 of Kondas as being instead provided on the interior of the wall, as taught in such a passage of Kondas such cores can be provided on either the exterior or interior of the walls of the structure and it would have been obvious to have used such drainage cores within the interior of the walls of figure 16 of Kondas in order to provide proper drainage therein and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).).
Regarding claim 20, Kondas in view of Hubert render obvious at least one of the plurality of drainage cores is coupled to at least one of a heating, venting and air conditioning (HVAC) system (Kondas; #170) and a fire suppression system to distribute a flow of at least one of conditioned air and fire retardant material therefrom throughout the structure (Figure 16 of Kondas depicts the drainage cores can be coupled to HVAC unit #170 in order to allow the flow of air therethrough. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the embodiment of figure 16 of Kondas as comprising of an HVAC unit attached to the interior positioned cores as taught in claim 19 above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the interior placed cores of Kondas in view of Hubert, as explained above in the rejection of claim 19, to an HVAC unit as depicted in figure 16 of Kondas in order to add moisture and a fixed temperature to the HVAC unit while reducing the moisture at the foundation locations).
Regarding claim 21, Kondas in view of Hubert render obvious the plurality of drainage cores is disposed in an exterior of a structure (see figures 6 and 16 of Kondas), and wherein the plurality of drainage cores provides at least one of exterior sheathing, a rain screen and roofing underlayment thereof (figures 6 and 16 of Kondas depict the drainage cores can be considered an exterior sheathing thereof).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuckin et al. in view of Parker (U.S. Publication 2003/0200707).
Regarding claim 15, McGuckin et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a pad disposed in the soil above the plurality of drainage cores. However, the claim is so broadly written that such a pad can be considered any element placed above the drainage core, whether it be a walkway pad that is placed adjacent to the wall of the building structure where the drainage cores are placed or an asphalt driveway pad placed thereabove. Parker teaches that such drainage cores #100 with a porous fabric #170 can be positioned on the sides of a foundation pad #260, where a concrete floor pad #280 can be positioned above such drainage cores in the soil #295/#300. Alternatively, Parker teaches in paragraph 8 that such drainage cores can be also used adjacent roadways or sidewalk formations and thus be positioned within the soil and below the road pad or sidewalk pad positioned in the soil but exposed for traffic use. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned a pad within the soil of the assembly of McGuckin et al., such as a sidewalk, driveway, or floor pad as taught in Parker, in order to allow for support of traffic or other objects adjacent the building structure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 4, 5, 8-11 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,008,750 in view of McGuckin et al.
Claim 4 of the present invention is broader than claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 since claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 includes first and second drainage cores and a fabric attached thereto, except claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 does not specifically disclose a plurality of dimples which form first and second passages as defined. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by McGuckin et al., that such drainage cores can be constructed so as to comprise of dimples #48 which form a plurality of vertical and horizontal passages through the sheet and it would have been obvious to have included such passages and dimples within claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 in order to increase the flowrate while providing strength to such cores.
Claim 5 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 in view of McGuckin et al., where McGuckin et al. teach the obviousness of providing such flat sections to attach adjacent cores to one another in figure 4.
Claim 8 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 in view of McGuckin et al., where McGuckin et al. teach the obviousness of a fabric ribbon #60 as defined.
Claim 9 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 in view of McGuckin et al., where figure 1 of McGuckin et al. teach the obviousness of providing such a system within soil in order to allow the flow of water or air.
Claim 10 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 in view of McGuckin et al., where it would have been obvious to have included more than one conduit within claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 in order to increase the length of such a conduit and direct the excess water where needed and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 11 of the present application is defined in claim 22 of U.S. Patent ‘750 in view of McGuckin et al. as explained above.
Claim 21 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘750 in view of McGuckin et al., where McGuckin et al. teaches the obviousness of providing such cores on the exterior of a structure as depicted in figure 1.
Claims 4, 5, 8-11 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,668,066 in view of McGuckin et al.
Claim 4 of the present invention is broader than claim 1 or 8 of U.S. Patent ‘066 since claim 1 or 8 of U.S. Patent ‘066 includes first and second drainage cores and a fabric attached thereto, except claim 1 or 8 of U.S. Patent ‘066 does not specifically disclose a plurality of dimples which form first and second passages as defined. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by McGuckin et al., that such drainage cores can be constructed so as to comprise of dimples #48 which form a plurality of vertical and horizontal passages through the sheet and it would have been obvious to have included such passages and dimples within claim 1 or 8 of U.S. Patent ‘066 in order to increase the flowrate while providing strength to such cores.
Claim 5 of the present application is defined in claim 1 or 8 of U.S. Patent ‘066 in view of McGuckin et al., where McGuckin et al. teach the obviousness of providing such flat sections to attach adjacent cores to one another in figure 4.
Claim 8 of the present application is defined in claim 1 or 8 of U.S. Patent ‘066 in view of McGuckin et al., where McGuckin et al. teach the obviousness of a fabric ribbon #60 as defined.
Claim 9 of the present application is defined in claim 1 or 8 of U.S. Patent ‘066 in view of McGuckin et al., where figure 1 of McGuckin et al. teach the obviousness of providing such a system within soil in order to allow the flow of water or air.
Claim 10 of the present application is defined in claim 5 or 14 of U.S. Patent ‘066 in view of McGuckin et al., where claims 5 and 14 of U.S. Patent ‘066 teach use of a plurality of such conduits.
Claim 11 of the present application is defined in claim 7 or 13 of U.S. Patent ‘066 in view of McGuckin et al.
Claim 21 of the present application is defined in claim 1 or 8 of U.S. Patent ‘066 in view of McGuckin et al., where McGuckin et al. teaches the obviousness of providing such cores on the exterior of a structure as depicted in figure 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are allowed.
Conclusion
This is a Continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/697,332. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635