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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method claims are directed to a method of using the device recited in at least independent claim 1. This is not found persuasive because restrictions may be made between a process and an apparatus for its practice, and as indicated by the examples given in the Office Action mailed 11/13/2025, the claimed apparatus can be used to perform another and materially different process. MPEP 806.05(e).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 be found allowable, claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 8 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “third pain body end” has an apparent typographical error. 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 7, 8, 16, and 17 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.
Claims 7 and 16 recites the limitation "the jetter guide tube." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, these claims have been interpreted as depending from claim 2.
Claims 8 and 17 recite the limitation "the first main body end, second main body end and third pain body end of the tee joint." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if these limitations are intended to refer to the previously recited “tee joint first end,” “tee joint second end,” and “tee joint third end.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldwin (US 9,856,023).
Regarding claims 1, and 10, Baldwin discloses a hydro jetter system comprising: a hydro jetter connector device including: a main body that includes: a tee joint, the tee joint having a primary section and a secondary section that is perpendicular to the primary section, the primary section having a tee joint first end and a tee joint second end opposite the tee joint first end, and the secondary section having a tee joint third end (Figures 1, 1A: 60); a drain tube having a drain tube first end and a drain tube second end opposite the drain tube first end, the drain tube first end being connected to the tee joint first end, the drain tube second end being configured to connect to a drainpipe (portion of element 60 at element 62, and/or element 70); and a jetter tube having a jetter tube first end and a jetter tube second end opposite the jetter tube first end, the jetter tube first end being connected to the tee joint second end (portion of element 60 at element 64, and/or including portion of element 65 adjacent element 64); an end cap connected to the jetter tube second end, the end cap having an end cap opening into which a jetter line is inserted (inlet end of element 65; see col. 3, lines 55-61); a jetter including the jetter line that is inserted into the end cap opening, wherein the jetter line extends through the hydro jetter connector device (20, 130); and a wet dry vacuum including a vacuum line, wherein the vacuum line is connected to the tee joint third end (66, 68, 80).
Note that use of the hydro jetter system or hydro connector device with a drainpipe is intended use and capable of being met by the prior art. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCleary et al. (US 2004/0149324).
Regarding claims 1, and 10, McCleary discloses a hydro jetter system comprising: a hydro jetter connector device including: a main body that includes: a tee joint, the tee joint having a primary section and a secondary section that is perpendicular to the primary section, the primary section having a tee joint first end and a tee joint second end opposite the tee joint first end, and the secondary section having a tee joint third end (Figures 1, 4: 6); a drain tube having a drain tube first end and a drain tube second end opposite the drain tube first end, the drain tube first end being connected to the tee joint first end, the drain tube second end being configured to connect to a drainpipe (9); and a jetter tube having a jetter tube first end and a jetter tube second end opposite the jetter tube first end, the jetter tube first end being connected to the tee joint second end (portion of element 6 at the inlet side on the left, and/or including portion of element 5 adjacent element 6); an end cap connected to the jetter tube second end, the end cap having an end cap opening into which a jetter line is inserted (inlet end of element 5 and/or element 2); a jetter including the jetter line that is inserted into the end cap opening, wherein the jetter line extends through the hydro jetter connector device (1); and a wet dry vacuum including a vacuum line, wherein the vacuum line is connected to the tee joint third end (paragraph 34).
Note that use of the hydro jetter system or hydro connector device with a drainpipe is intended use and capable of being met by the prior art. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claims 4, and 13, McCleary discloses wherein the drain tube first end is connected to the tee joint first end using a reducer adapter (8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin (US 9,856,023) or McCleary et al. (US 2004/0149324) in view of Born (US 5,988,188).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Baldwin or McCleary is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a curved jetter guide piece formed on the drain tube second end.
Born discloses a method and apparatus to remove obstructions from sewers having a nozzle (18) connected to a push wand (14), and an elbow or sweep section (34) is connected to a down-leg extension to direct the nozzle toward the obstruction (col. 5, lines 36-58).
Because it is known in the art to have an elbow or sweep, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, directing the nozzle toward an obstruction or region to be treated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a curved jetter guide piece formed on the drain tube second end.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin (US 9,856,023) or McCleary et al. (US 2004/0149324).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Baldwin or McCleary is relied upon as above. Baldwin further discloses that the cap may be rubber (col. 3, lines 46-61), but does not expressly disclose wherein the tee joint is made of rubber. McCleary does not expressly disclose wherein the tee joint and end cap are each made of rubber. The Examiner takes Official Notice that rubber is a well-known and conventional material in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baldwin and/or McCleary to use rubber as claimed, and the results would be predictable.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Baldwin or McCleary is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the drain pipe and jetter tube are made of polyvinyl chloride. The Examiner takes Official Notice that polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is a well-known and conventional material in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baldwin and/or McCleary to use polyvinyl chloride as claimed, and the results would be predictable.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Baldwin or McCleary is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first main body end, second main body end and third pain body end of the tee joint each have a nominal diameter of about 1 and 1/2 inches. It is established that changes in size or proportion are obvious to a PHOSITA. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A) – Changes in Size/Proportion. Absent unexpected results or persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the tee joint as claimed, and the results would be predictable.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Baldwin or McCleary is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the drain tube has a length that is about 6 inches. It is established that changes in size or proportion are obvious to a PHOSITA. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A) – Changes in Size/Proportion. Absent unexpected results or persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the drain tube as claimed, and the results would be predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 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: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the hydro jetter system as defined by the combination of claims 1 and 2/11. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Baldwin (US 9,856,023) or McCleary et al. (US 2004/0149324), to further include a jetter guide tube having a guide tube first end and a guide tube second end, the guide tube second end having a curved guide piece; wherein the jetter guide tube extends through the main body, with the guide tube first end being inserted into the end cap opening, and the curved guide piece of the guide tube second end extending beyond the drain tube second end.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571) 272-1414. 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711