DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 6/11/2025, are acknowledged by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1- 4, 8, 9, 12-16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2)as being anticipated by Janesky US 5881762 (“Janesky”).
Regarding Claim 1, Janesky discloses a water containment system (10, fig. 1) comprising: a peripheral dam (10) formed of one or more arcuate longitudinal wall sections (11, 12) that are configured to be secured in an assembled position in use around a water tank (23, see fig. 3), the peripheral dam (10) defining an open tank-valve-or-pit-receiving base; and a drain port (21, col. 2 lines 51-58 describes the drain port 21 and drain hose 22) defined in the peripheral dam (10).
Regarding Claim 2, Janesky discloses the peripheral dam (10) forms a ring when in the assembled position (see fig. 3) (col. 2 lines 29-40 and col. 2 lines 66- col. 3 line 8 describe the peripheral dam and its wall sections).
Regarding Claim 3, Janesky discloses the peripheral dam (10) is formed of a split ring (see fig. 1 with splits 17, 18, 19, and 20) (col. 2 lines 29-40 and col. 2 lines 66- col. 3 line 8 describe the peripheral dam and its wall sections).
Regarding Claim 4, Janesky discloses the one or more arcuate longitudinal wall sections (11, 12) comprise flexible or resilient extruded sections (“present assemblies preferably are molded from synthetic thermoplastic molding compositions such as of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyacrylamide, polyvinyl chloride, polyacrylic esters, or the like or from lightweight polymer foams such as of polystyrene, phenolic resin, polyurethane resin, or the like.” Col. 2 lines 59-65).
Regarding Claim 8, Janesky discloses the peripheral dam comprises a drain wall section (12) that defines the drain port (21) (21, col. 2 lines 51-58 describes the drain port 21 and drain hose 22).
Regarding Claim 9, Janesky discloses axial ends of the drain wall section (12) are configured to, in the assembled position (fig 3), mate with axial ends of adjacent of the one or more arcuate longitudinal wall sections (11)(wall section 11 end 19A mates with drain wall section 12 end 20A, and wall section 11 end 17A mates with drain wall section 12 end 18A, see fig. 1 and col. 2 lines 29-40).
Regarding Claim 12, Janesky discloses the drain port is formed at least in part by a lateral peripheral flange (21, fig. 3 illustrates drain port 21 as protruding in a lateral direction from the wall section 12)(col. 2 lines 51-58 “an end-threaded drain tube 21 adapted to be threadably-engaged by the fitting of a garden hose 22 to enable the water accumulated within the walled enclosure 10 surrounding the base of an appliance, such as a water heater 23, to drain off to a remote site, as illustrated by FIG. 3, in the event that the leakage is excessive and immediate repairs are not possible.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Janesky discloses the lateral peripheral flange (21) is a threaded collar (21, fig. 3 illustrates drain port 21 as protruding in a lateral direction from the wall section 12)(col. 2 lines 51-58 “an end-threaded drain tube 21 adapted to be threadably-engaged by the fitting of a garden hose 22 to enable the water accumulated within the walled enclosure 10 surrounding the base of an appliance, such as a water heater 23, to drain off to a remote site, as illustrated by FIG. 3, in the event that the leakage is excessive and immediate repairs are not possible.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Janesky discloses the peripheral dam (10) secured in the assembled position on a ground surface encircling a water tank (23)(col. 2 lines 41-49 “The undersurfaces of the base flanges 13, 14 are bonded to the surface of the appliance-supporting floor, such as by means of a continuous bead or coating of adhesive such as caulk, epoxy resin or other water-resistant bonding material which is also applied to the faces 17A and 18A and to the faces 19A and 20A to form a water-tight, base-surrounding, leak-collecting enclosure which is installed rapidly, inexpensively and without any interruption in the operation of the appliance.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Janesky discloses the drain port (21) is secured to a drain line (22, hose) that runs to a drain (remote drain, claim 3 “transverse drain opening through the upright wall section thereof, adapted to be connected to a conduit for draining excess water from within the enclosure to a remote drain”).
Regarding Claim 16, Janesky discloses the peripheral dam (10) is secured by adhesive to one or more of itself and the ground surface (col. 2 lines 41-49, “The undersurfaces of the base flanges 13, 14 are bonded to the surface of the appliance-supporting floor, such as by means of a continuous bead or coating of adhesive such as caulk, epoxy resin or other water-resistant bonding material which is also applied to the faces 17A and 18A and to the faces 19A and 20A to form a water-tight, base-surrounding, leak-collecting enclosure which is installed rapidly, inexpensively and without any interruption in the operation of the appliance”).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed that the device will perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02. Janesky discloses a water containment system (10, fig. 1) comprising: a peripheral dam (10) formed of one or more arcuate longitudinal wall sections (11, 12) that are configured to be secured in an assembled position in use around a water tank (23, see fig. 3), the peripheral dam (10) defining an open tank-valve-or-pit-receiving base; and a drain port (21, col. 2 lines 51-58 describes the drain port 21 and drain hose 22) defined in the peripheral dam (10).
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.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janesky US 5881762 (“Janesky”) in view of Mustee et al. US 5452739 (“Mustee”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Janesky discloses each of the one or more arcuate longitudinal wall sections (11, 12).
Janesky discloses the claimed invention, except a double wall that defines a hollow interior in a triangular cross-sectional wall profile.
Mustee teaches a double wall (fig. 3) that defines a hollow interior in a triangular cross-sectional wall profile.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date to have modified the walls, as disclosed by Janesky, by using a double wall that defines a hollow interior in a triangular cross-sectional wall profile, for the purpose of creating a stable wall cross section.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janesky US 5881762 (“Janesky”) in view of Ridgeway, Jr. et al. US 6135133 (“Ridgeway”).
Regarding Claim 7, Janesky discloses the claimed invention, except a base of each of the one or more arcuate longitudinal wall sections comprises adhesive-receiving channels.
Ridgeway teaches base (73, 83) of each of the one or more arcuate longitudinal wall sections (78, 79) comprises adhesive-receiving channels (81b for base and 81a for vertical walls).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date to have modified the walls and the connection between walls, as disclosed by Janesky, by overlapping walls at joints and placing adhesive at overlapping joints, as taught by Ridgeway, for the purpose of bonding two wall layers. This increases the modulus of elasticity of a wall member thereby increasing the stiffness of the wall and decreasing the wall’s deflection cause by fluid depth in a dam.
Claims 10 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janesky US 5881762 (“Janesky”) in view of Whittaker US 5645103 (“Whittaker”).
Regarding Claim 10, Janesky discloses the claimed invention, except the axial ends of the drain wall section are configured to mate with the axial ends of adjacent of the one or more arcuate longitudinal wall sections by a tongue and groove connection.
Whittaker teaches axial ends (upper surface 8 of lower wall 6) of the drain wall section (see fig. 1) are configured to mate with the axial ends of adjacent of the one or more arcuate longitudinal wall sections (lower surface 22 of upper wall 4) by a tongue and groove connection (23) (col. 2 lines 46-57, “The vertically extended splash guard 4 is shown having an upward wall member 20 atop a receiving notch 22. The receiving notch 22 is formed by a pair of fork-like retaining ears 23.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date to have modified the dam walls, as disclosed by Janesky, with an upper wall connected with a tongue and groove joint, as taught by Whittaker, for the purpose of allowing a simple means to increase a wall height of a dam by simply placing an upper wall with a groove on a lower dam wall. Tongue and groove connections also create a fluid seal.
Regarding Claim 17, Janesky discloses the peripheral dam secured in the assembled position on a ground surface.
Janesky discloses the claimed invention, except the peripheral dam encircling a sump pit.
Whittaker teaches a peripheral dam (8) encircling a sump pit (catch basing 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date to have modified the interior of the peripheral dam, as disclosed by Janesky, by including a sump pit, as taught by Whittaker, for the purpose of collecting fluid inside a peripheral dam when the depth of fluid is less than the height of a wall drain. This prevents rotting of a floor surface caused by pooling water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daphne Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-9966 and fax number is (571) 273-9966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9 AM-6 PM (eastern).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor either Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/DAPHNE M BARRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753