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 without traverse of species VI, drawn to Figs. 10-11 in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-23 and 30-34 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected species I-V, VII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 23 is readable on species V, Fig. 9. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 004/24/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 27-29 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 24-26. 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).
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.
Claims 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (7,410,146).
Regarding claims 24 and 27, Huang discloses a drain for an above-ground pool, comprising: a drain hole; and a drain valve 120 including a female end 312, wherein the drain valve 120 is attached to the drain hole, the female end 312 configured to fit a male end 355 (hose connector), wherein the male end 355 is configured to fill the above-ground pool and the female end 312 is configured to drain the above-ground pool; wherein the drain 120 is configured for being affixed to and disposed around an aperture in a sidewall of the above-ground pool.
Regarding claims 25 and 28, the drain valve comprises a drain cap 210 with a twist tab (protrusions at the base 365), the drain ca 210p configured to rotatably engage with the drain valve to close the drain valve 120 and form a watertight seal.
Regarding claims 26 and 29, the drain cap 210 is further configured to rotatably disengage from the drain valve to open the drain valve 120.
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (2005/0000567).
Regarding claims 24 and 27, Wu discloses a drain 5 for an above-ground pool (Fig. 7), comprising: a drain hole; and a drain valve 4 including a female end 52, wherein the drain valve 4 is attached to the drain hole, the female end 52 (with internal threads) configured to fit a male end 21’, wherein the male end 21’ is configured to fill the above-ground pool and the female end 52 is configured to drain the above-ground pool; wherein the drain 5 is configured for being affixed to and disposed around an aperture in a sidewall of the above-ground pool.
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.
Claims 25-26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (2005/0000567) in view of Huang (7,410,146).
Wu disclose a drain for an above-ground pool as described above but does not teach a drain cap with a twist tab and the drain cap configured to rotatably engage with the drain valve to close the drain valve and form a watertight seal and to rotatably disengage from the drain valve to open the drain valve. Attention is directed to Huang which teaches the drain valve comprises a drain cap 210 with a twist tab (protrusions at the base 365), the drain ca 210 configured to rotatably engage with the drain valve to close the drain valve 120 and form a watertight seal and to rotatably disengage from the drain valve to open the drain valve 120. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to employ a drain cap with Wu drain in view of the teaching of Huang for closing the drain valve as a safety measure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Weinheimer et al. teach a drain valve having a female end 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 517-270-3735. 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.
HUYEN D. LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/HUYEN D LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights