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 .
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maggiacomo (US 20090285632).
Regarding claim 1, Maggiacomo (FIG 1) discloses “A downspout-to-curb drain assembly, comprising:
a downspout boot (18) defining an interior channel (interior) terminating in a downspout boot outlet (end of 17);
a trench drain assembly (27, 30; understood to read on a trench drain assembly as it is an underground runoff carrier) in fluid communication at a first (left) end thereof with the downspout boot interior channel and outlet (see FIG 1); and
a curb opening (32, 36) defining an interior channel in fluid communication with the trench drain assembly (see FIG 1) at a second (right) end thereof;
wherein the downspout boot outlet, trench drain assembly, and curb opening transport water runoff below grade (see 26).”
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maggiacomo in view of Dian (US 20180209132).
Regarding claim 2, Maggiacomo discloses “wherein the trench drain assembly comprises:
a grate (27) …”
Maggiacomo is silent regarding “including at least one grate locking assembly; and an elongated body comprising at least two interior supports for the grate.”
However, Dian (FIGs 1-10) teaches an in-ground drain with a ground-level top grate (analogous to Maggiacomo) with a grate receiving and fastening assembly (FIG 9), the assembly comprising “elongated body” sidewalls 12 with rails 16 and “interior support” surfaces to receive the grate 17 on the top of the drain.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the trench drain of Maggiacomo with the grate securing assembly of Dian, such that the combination teaches “including at least one grate locking assembly; and an elongated body comprising at least two interior supports for the grate”, to provide a reliable means for securing the grate to the drain, as is clearly desired in Maggiacomo.
Regarding claim 3, Dian (FIGs 1-10) as applied to claim 2 further teaches “wherein the grate includes at least one through-bore (at 19, see FIG 9) and at least one through-bore-adjacent lock bar stop (23) disposed on a bottom surface of the grate (see FIG 9).”
Regarding claim 4, Dian (FIGs 1-10) as applied to claim 2 further teaches “wherein the at least one grate locking assembly comprises a bolt (19, 76) passed through the through-bore (see FIG 9) and a lock bar (18) carried at an end of the bolt (see FIG 9).”
Regarding claim 5, Dian (FIGs 1-10) as applied to claim 2 further teaches “wherein the bolt is dimensioned to carry the lock bar at a spaced distance below the bottom surface of the grate (spaced via 78 being between 18 and 23) whereby turning the bolt causes the lock bar to engage the stop (stacked abutment in FIG 9);
further wherein the lock bar is dimensioned (via 32, 39 in FIG 3) such that an attempt to remove the grate will cause the lock bar to contact one of a grate stop (42) disposed on an interior of the elongated body or a bottom surface of the at least two interior supports (see FIG 5 or 6).”
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maggiacomo/Dian in view of Chromey et al (US 20150308092).
Maggiacomo/Dian are silent regarding “wherein the elongated body further comprises at least one exterior anchor configured to anchor the elongated body in a substrate.”
However, Chromey (FIG 1) teaches a trench drain analogous to Maggiacomo/Dian further comprising, extending from “elongated body” 101, 103, exterior anchors 107 that anchor the drain in a concrete “substrate” (paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the drain of Maggiacomo/Dian with “at least one exterior anchor configured to anchor the elongated body in a substrate”, as taught by Chromey, to provide means for securing the drain with the ground, as is desired in Maggiacomo/Dian.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Maggiacomo/Dian are further silent regarding “wherein the elongated body is a trench pan defining a channel having a substantially rectangular or square cross-sectional dimension.”
While this shape and structure per se could be known in the art, it would not be obvious to apply this to Maggiacomo/Dian as it would be an overly complex structural combination.
Regarding claim 8, Maggiacomo/Dian are further silent regarding “wherein the elongated body is a frame defined by adjacent walls, wherein each adjacent wall is defined by a pair of upright portions and a connecting portion.”
While this structure per se could be known in the art, it would not be obvious to apply this to Maggiacomo/Dian as it would be an overly complex structural combination.
Claim 9 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Maggiacomo/Dian are further silent regarding at least “the elongated body being a trench pan defining a channel having a substantially rectangular or square cross-sectional dimension…” in the context of the claim.
While this shape and structure per se could be known in the art, it would not be obvious to apply this to Maggiacomo/Dian as it would be an overly complex structural combination.
Claims 11-14 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, Maggiacomo/Dian are further silent regarding at least “the elongated body being a frame defined by adjacent walls, wherein each adjacent wall is defined by a pair of upright portions and a connecting portion…” in the context of the claim.
While this structure per se could be known in the art, it would not be obvious to apply this to Maggiacomo/Dian as it would be an overly complex structural combination.
Claims 16-20 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Daley (US 20220298797), Gomez (US 20220145637), Files (US 20160319531), Barton (US 8656947), Burns et al (US 20130328252), Clark (US 20130233398), Fithian et al (US 20080019776), and Rossi et al (US 5340234).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753