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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-11, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20160121227 (hereinafter “DeCaro”).
Regarding claim 1, DeCaro discloses a water play area installation (Abstract), comprising:
a water reservoir tank installed at least partially underground (Figs. 9 and 10, 116);
an equipment enclosure positioned above the water reservoir tank (Figs. 9 and 10, 50);
a water distribution manifold that supports water distribution from the equipment enclosure to at least one water spray element in a water play area (Fig. 4, 36; Para. 0024);
a water waste line extending from the water play area to the water reservoir tank (Figs. 7 and 10, 112); and
a drain having a port that collects water from the water play area and channels the water through the water waste line (Fig. 7, 40).
Regarding claim 5, DeCaro further discloses the equipment enclosure is positioned as an underground vault configuration (Para. 0041).
Regarding claim 6, DeCaro further discloses the equipment enclosure further comprises a water purifying component pre-installed into the equipment enclosure (Fig. 9, 126 – under BRI, filter is interpreted to read on a water purifying component).
Regarding claim 9, DeCaro further discloses the water distribution manifold comprises a water line that is connected to the water reservoir tank (Fig. 9, 41; Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 10, DeCaro discloses a method of installing a water operations support assembly (Figs. 9 and 10), comprising:
constructing an equipment enclosure (Figs. 9 and 10, 50);
connecting a plurality of pre-installed operations support components to the equipment enclosure (Para. 0040; Fig. 9, 118);
installing a water reservoir tank at least partially underground (Figs. 9 and 10, 116);
positioning an equipment enclosure above the water reservoir tank (Fig. 10, vault 50 + lid 138 are positioned above reservoir 116).
Regarding the limitation of “pre-installed”, under BRI the examiner is taking the stance that because the final product of DeCaro has all of the components as claimed, and all of the components are assembled accordingly prior, this reads on “pre-installed” to the final construction of the product.
Regarding claim 11, DeCaro further discloses the water reservoir tank is pre-installed with a plurality of pipes to connect the water reservoir tank to the pre-installed operations support components (Fig. 9, pipes shown connecting between 116 and 118). The limitation of “pre-installed” is being interpreted as stated supra in claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, DeCaro further discloses the plurality of pre-installed operation support components includes a water distribution manifold (Fig. 4, 36 and Fig. 9, 41; Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 14, DeCaro further discloses connecting a water spray element to the water distribution manifold (Para. 0024).
Regarding claim 15, DeCaro further discloses the plurality of pre-plumbed operations support components are configured to allow water to flow in a continuous cycle (Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 17, DeCaro discloses a water play area system (Abstract), comprising:
a water reservoir tank (Figs. 9 and 10, 116);
an equipment enclosure positioned directly above the water reservoir tank (Figs. 9 and 10, 50);
a series of operations support components connecting the equipment enclosure to the water reservoir tank (Para. 0040; Fig. 9, 118);
a water distribution manifold configured to support water distribution from the equipment enclosure to at least one water spray element in a water play area (Fig. 4, 36; Para. 0024);
a waste line spanning from the water play area to the water reservoir tank (Figs. 7 and 10, 112);
a drain with a port that collects water from the water play area and channels the water through the waste line to the water reservoir tank (Fig. 7, 40);
wherein the water is pumped through a water pump system such that the water is reused within the water play area system (Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 18, DeCaro further discloses the underground water reservoir tank comprises a bottom section and a top section (See annotated Fig. 10 below), the bottom section being buried partially underground and the top section substantially level with ground level.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, DeCaro further discloses the equipment enclosure (Fig. 10, 50) is positioned directly above the top section (See annotated Fig. 10 above) of the underground water reservoir tank such that the top section acts as a floor for the equipment enclosure. Under BRI, the lid (Fig. 10, 138) of the vault/reservoir provides a flat, walkable surface that could be considered a floor.
Regarding claim 20, while DeCaro discloses the operations support components are pre-installed to the equipment enclosure prior to installation of the equipment enclosure (Under BRI, the operations support components within Fig. 9, 118 are connected to the equipment enclosure, which reads on being pre-installed as this connection is made prior to use of the enclosure) and are configured to direct water to different locations (Fig. 9; Para. 0040).
Additionally, regarding “pre-installed”, the examiner notes that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See in re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the final product is merely an equipment enclosure that has operations support components.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCaro, as applied to claims 1 and 10, and in further view of US 7980914 (hereinafter “Blais”).
Regarding claim 2, the embodiment of DeCaro the water distribution vault is described to have a lid, but does not explicitly show the water reservoir tank comprises a tank lid exposed above ground level in Fig. 10, additionally. However, DeCaro states that there may be more than one cover if desired (Para. 0041). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add another cover to the water reservoir tank portion to prevent spillage across other parts of the vault.
Additionally, Blais also discloses a splash pad system with a water holding tank that has removable lid to allow access to cleaning of debris in the tank (Col. 3, lines 48-51). Thus, it would be obvious to have a lid over the water reservoir to prevent overflow/spillage while allowing access to the tank to remove debris.
Regarding claim 3, modified DeCaro further discloses that the equipment enclosure has a plurality of walls that form a perimeter, and the tank lid is positioned within the perimeter (Fig. 9, 50).
Regarding claim 12, the embodiment of DeCaro the water distribution vault is described to have a lid, but does not explicitly disclose that the water reservoir tank has a tank lid, and positioning the equipment enclosure comprises positioning the equipment enclosure over the tank lid in Fig. 10, additionally. However, DeCaro states that there may be more than one cover if desired (Para. 0041). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add another cover to the water reservoir tank portion to prevent spillage across other parts of the vault.
Additionally, Blais also discloses a splash pad system with a water holding tank that has removable lid to allow access to cleaning of debris in the tank (Col. 3, lines 48-51). Thus, it would be obvious to have a lid over the water reservoir to prevent overflow/spillage while allowing access to the tank to remove debris.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCaro, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 20090072685 (hereinafter “Bundza”).
Regarding claim 4, though DeCaro discloses all the limitations of claim 1, including a concrete base pad (Fig. 1, 10; Para. 0019), it is silent regarding the equipment enclosure is mounted to a concrete support pad positioned above ground level. Bundza, in the analogous art of equipment installation protection, discloses an enclosure secured to a concrete anchor pad to combat buoyancy forces during a flood (Para. 0058). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to mount the enclosure of DeCaro to a concrete pad, as taught by Bundza, in order to prevent damage to the enclosure during flooding.
Claims 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCaro, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 5849199 (hereinafter “Jack”).
Regarding claim 7, DeCaro discloses all the limitations of claim 1, it does not disclose the equipment enclosure further comprises a water chemical treatment system pre-installed into the equipment enclosure. Jack, in the analogous art of recreational water attractions, discloses that is well known in the field to have a chemical regulation system in order to sanitize and balance the pH of the water (Fig. 1, 9; Col. 1, lines 31-37). Thus, it would be obvious to provide the water play installation of DeCaro with a water chemical treatment system, as taught by Jack, to sanitize and balance the pH of the water for users.
Regarding claim 8, modified DeCaro further discloses the water chemical treatment system comprises a pH adjustment reservoir (Jack: Fig. 1, 10) and associated pump (Jack: Fig. 1, 8). Reasons for combination are as stated supra in claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCaro, as applied to claim 10, and further in view of US 20040134260 (hereinafter “Pampinella”).
Regarding claim 16, DeCaro discloses all the limitations of claim 10, but does not disclose testing the plurality of pre-installed operation support components prior to connecting the plurality of pre-installed operations support components to the equipment enclosure. Pampinella, in the analgous art of plumbing, discloses that it is common in the industry to test pipes for leaks prior to use to comply with government regulations (Para. 0003). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to test the components individually before installing to prevent water damage and comply with regulations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights