DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 19 August 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it is a screen shot of a video and the video cannot be considered from this amount of information. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mallela et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0173397).
Mallela discloses a utility access system having a base (22), a plurality of sidewalls (14) which define a cavity (16) with an opening at a top thereof and a rim (20). There is a lid (18) configured to close the opening (Figure 1, for example). Each of the sidewalls includes first ribs (not labeled, at lead line 40, Figure 2, for example) extending outwardly away from the base to the rim (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 4). There are second ribs (not labeled, adjacent to and above 32, Figure 2, for example) extending inwardly towards the rim (Figures 2, 4 and 5, for example).
Figure 5 shows the arrangement of claims 2 and 10.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, knockouts (26) are within the scope of fins.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, looking to Figure 2, it can be seen that there are fins at the top of each of the second (interior) ribs.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, there is a webbed footer (Figures 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, Mallela is a unitary structure.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 20, as exemplified by the structure, the vault is formed as claimed.
Regarding claims 21-23, Mallela appears to be flared inwardly as claimed.
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 5, 8, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallela et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0173397), as applied above.
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 19, the shapes are generally elongated isosceles trapezoids (Figure 1, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fully configured the ribs in this manner in order to obtain reinforcement as desired.
Regarding claim 8, Mallela broadly discloses plastic as the material of construction but does not specify HDPE. The examiner takes Official notice that HDPE is a well-known material of construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used HDPE as the material of Mallela in order to obtain a durable and inexpensive access system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach access vaults.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights