DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 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 1 specifies “providing a baseplate” and “producing tubular sections”. Are these the same baseplate and tubular sections as those previously mentioned in the claim or new ones. This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the range". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitarelli (U.S. 20200370300).
In re Claims 1 and 5, Vitarelli teaches using a digital model to produce a roof drain element by additive manufacturing using a 3D printer. (Paragraph 0027) A digital model of what is being manufactured is required in order for the 3D printer to produce an object. Therefore, a digital model of the roof drain element would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. Vitarelli teaches roof drain element (1) with a baseplate (5) having upper/top and lower/bottom major surfaces and at least one rectangular hollow tubular section (4) extending outwardly (upward and away) from the upper major/top surface of the baseplate (5). (Figures 1-7)
In re Clam 3, Vitarelli teaches the at least one hollow tubular section (4) has first and second end openings (top and bottom) and a fluid channel (2) extending along the longitudinal direction of the hollow tubular section. (Figures 1-7)
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie (U.S. 20200284037) in view of Vitarelli (U.S. 20200370300).
In re Clams 1 and 5, Leslie teaches a roof drain element (1000,2000,3000) with a baseplate (108, 116, 138) having upper and lower major surfaces and at least one circular hollow tubular section (102,118,302) extending outwardly (downward and away) from the upper major surface of the baseplate. (Figures 1-8B)
Leslie does not teach using a digital model to produce a roof drain element by additive manufacturing using a 3D printer.
Vitarelli teaches a roof drain element (1) with a baseplate (5) having upper/top and lower/bottom major surfaces and at least one hollow tubular section (4) extending outwardly (upward and away) from the upper major surface of the baseplate. (Figures 1-7) Vitarelli further teaches using a digital model to produce a roof drain element by additive manufacturing using a 3D printer. (Paragraph 0027) Vitarelli mentions 3D printing. A digital model of what is being manufactured is required in order for the 3D printer to produce an object. Therefore, a digital model of the roof drain element would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In re Clam 2, Leslie has been previously discussed but does not specifically teach a baseplate having a thickness of 0.5-10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have a baseplate thickness of 0.5-10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This assures that the baseplate is thick enough to be durable.
In re Clam 3, Leslie teaches at least one hollow tubular section (102,118,302) has first and second end openings and a fluid channel extending along the longitudinal direction of the hollow tubular section. (Figures 1-8B)
In re Claims 4, Leslie teaches the fluid channel of each hollow tubular section (102,118,302) extends though the baseplate. (Figures 1-8B)
In re Clam 7, Leslie has been previously discussed but does not specifically teach a wall thickness having a thickness of 0.25-10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have a wall thickness of 0.25-10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The assures that the hollow tubular section is thick enough to be durable.
In re Claim 8 and 9, Leslie teaches that the baseplate (108, 116, 138) of sump drain (100) is made from a polymer elected from polyvinylchloride, polyolefins, halogenated polyolefin, ethylene vinyl acetate copolyrner, rubbers, and ketone ethyl esters and at least one organic filler. (Paragraph 0029) (Figures 1-8B)
Leslie does not teach that the polymer is at least 35% weight percentage or that the filler is 0.5% weight percentage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention for the polymer to be at least 35% weight percentage or that the filler is 0.5% weight percentage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Polymer percentages in this range ensure that the plastic is flexible and not too brittle. Filler percentages in this range stiffens the material and increase material stiffness without making it too brittle.
In re Claim 10, Leslie has been previously discussed but does not teach that the inorganic filler has a median particle size in a range of 0.1-50 um. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inorganic filler with a median particle size in a range of 0.1-50 um, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Particle sizes in this range enhance the durability of the plastic
In re Claim 11, Leslie has been previously discussed but does not teach that the inorganic filler is calcium carbonate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have an inorganic filler of calcium carbonate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 Calcium carbonate is an inexpensive filler that promotes white coloration while reducing the risk of warping and buckling as the plastic parts cure.
In re Claim 14, the modified Leslie has been previously discussed. The sump drains systems (100) may be sealed using polymethyl methacrylate material. Paragraph 0058). This would inhibit water flow to the outlet. The sump drainage system (600) may employ mechanical seals (240) and swelling seal (242) on rainwater outlets. (Paragraphs 75-76) (Figures 1-8B)
In re Claim 15, the modified Leslie has been previously discussed and disclosed obtaining the roof drain elements of Claim 1. This element is secured to the roof substrate by fasteners (218) via the upper and/or lower surface of the base plate. Substituting adhesive for fasteners would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date as this involves substitution of one fastener or attachment means for another. Furthermore, the examiner takes official notice that using adhesive sealant with drains is well known and conventional in the art. (Figures 1-8B)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie (U.S. 20200284037) in view of Vitarelli (U.S. 20200370300) and in further view of Lopez (U.S. 20120047818).
In re Claim 13, Leslie has been previously discussed but does not specifically teach roof drainage elements with polymeric materials with a flame retardant.
Lopez teaches a roof drainage element (10) made of polymer with a flame retardant. (Paragraph 0036,0037)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Leslie with fire retardant, as taught by Lopez. The fire-retardant material will inhibit fire that may catch in accumulated debris.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a method for producing a roof drain with the combination of characteristics specified in the independent claim. Of particular note is the requirement that calcium carbonate constitutes at least at least 15 wt. % the total weight of at least one inorganic filler. The drain element comprises at least two rectangular hollow tubular sections that are adjacent and connected to each other through a common side. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights