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 § 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 1-20 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. In independent claims 1 and 14, “two attachment points on opposite sides of the channel” is unclear and indefinite as it is unclear as to which “channel” the applicant is referring. In claim 1, there are two channels, “a flow channel” and “a channel through which the cable can move”. In claim 1, the examiner assumes that the applicant is referring to the “channel through which the cable can move”. In claim 2, the examiner assumes the applicant is referring to the “flow channel”, but this does not apply to claim 6, as when the drain valve clamp bracket is “L-shaped”, it does NOT have “two attachment points on opposite sides of the channel”. In claim 7, it is unclear as to which “channel” the applicant is referring. In claim 14, there is only “a flow channel”, so the examiner assumes that the applicant is referring to the “flow channel”, but then in claim 17, if the drain valve clamp bracket is “L-shaped”, it does NOT have “two attachment points on opposite sides of the channel” as it is spaced away. In claim 18, which channel has the seals?
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) 1, 4 and 12-13, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodworth GB 1402262 in view of Jones US 4,238,975.
Regarding claim 1, Woodworth discloses a drain valve assembly comprising:
an assembly housing (p.2, lines 33-61);
a drain valve 26 having a valve housing through which a flow channel is defined from an inlet port 27 and an outlet port 30, and a valve part 31 moveable relative to the valve housing between a closed position between the inlet port and the outlet port and an open position displaced from between the inlet port and the outlet port;
an override cable 32 having a first end attached to the valve part (Figs. 1-3) and a second end remote from the drain valve (Fig. 1, at 36), the cable positioned to move in a substantially vertical direction when a pulling force is applied (at 36), to bring the valve to the open position, and being biased to return the valve to the closed position when the pulling force is removed from the cable; and characterized by comprising:
a cable clamp bracket 35 fitted around the cable and defining a channel (Fig. 1, see 35) through which the cable can move in the substantially vertical direction and having a flange part providing two attachments points (Fig. 1, see 35) to secure the clamp bracket relative to the assembly housing and to prevent rotation of the clamp bracket relative to the assembly housing. Woodworth lacks two attachment parts on opposite sides of the channel.
Jones discloses a cable clamp bracket 8 having two attachment parts on opposite sides of the channel (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable clamp bracket of Woodworth to have attachment points on opposite sides of the channel as disclosed by Jones as a matter of simple substitution of attachment points and/or to provide a more secure connection as there is a connection on each side as opposed to a single side.
Regarding claim 4, Woodworth discloses the drain valve is biased to the closed position by means of a spring 49.
Regarding claims 12-13, Woodworth lacks a P-clamp having a single attachment point defining a channel through which the cable extends/securing the drain valve to a fluid line leading to the inlet port. Jones discloses a P-clamp 8 having a single attachment point (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the P-clamp having a single attachment point as disclosed by Jones to define a channel through which the cable extends/secure the drain valve to a fluid line leading to the inlet port of Woodworth as a matter of “obvious to try” a P-clamp at these parts of Woodworth to better clamp down the device of Woodworth and/or as a matter of simple substitution of connection features and/or to better secure the cable and/or drain valve of Woodworth.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodworth GB 1402262 in view of Jones US 4,238,975 in view of Hahnl US 8,327,635.
Regarding claim 3, Woodworth lacks the cable is attached to the moveable valve part by means of a pin. Hahnl discloses a pin (and ring arrangement, see Figs. 1-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pin (and ring arrangement) as disclosed by Hahnl to attach the cable to the moveable part of Woodworth as a matter of simple substitution of connection features and/or to provide a secure connection between 2 things.
Claim(s) 5, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodworth GB 1402262 in view of Jones US 4,238,975 in view of Tolk et al. US 1,557,390.
Regarding claim 5, Woodworth lacks the cable clamp bracket further comprises one or more plug fillers extending through the clamp bracket into the channel. Tolk discloses plug fillers 28 and/or 32. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use plug fillers of Tolk extending through the clamp bracket into the channel of Woodworth to provide a tight fit and tighten looseness in the clamp bracket of Woodworth.
Claim(s) 8, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodworth GB 1402262 in view of Jones US 4,238,975 in view of Johnson et al. US 4,365,530.
Regarding claim 8, Woodworth lacks spacers between the cable clamp bracket and the assembly housing. Johnson discloses spacers 112 for a bracket 114. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spacers as disclosed by Johnson for the bracket of Woodworth as a matter of “obvious to try” if space was needed between the bracket and the assembly housing of Woodworth and/or to provide space between the bracket and the assembly housing of Woodworth so that the bracket is not touching the assembly housing that could cause damage to the bracket or assembly housing as the spacers could cheaply be replaced as opposed to the bracket and/or assembly housing.
Claim(s) 2, 6-7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodworth GB 1402262 in view of Jones US 4,238,975 in view of Sovitzky US 3,195,561.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 9, 14 (see Woodworth in view of Jones above), 17-18,and 20, Woodworth lacks a drain valve clamp bracket fitted around the drain valve and having a flange part providing two attachments points on opposite sides of the channel to secure the drain valve clamp bracket relative to the assembly housing and to prevent skewed installation of the drain valve clamp bracket relative to the assembly housing. Sovitzky discloses a (drain valve) bracket 26, that is L-shaped and metal, fitted around the drain valve and having a flange part 38 providing two attachments points (holes in 38 and col. 4, lines 38-42) on opposite sides of the channel (see Fig. 2, the holes are on opposite sides of the channel 27 which is part of the valve) to secure the drain valve clamp bracket relative to the assembly housing and to prevent skewed installation of the drain valve clamp bracket relative to the assembly housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the L-shaped metal bracket of Sovitzky to secure the drain valve of Woodworth as a matter of simple substitution of securing features and/or to provide added securement to keep the drain valve securely in place.
Regarding claim 7, Woodworth lacks a seal within the channel. Sovitzky discloses a seal 30 within the channel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a seal as disclosed by Sovitzky within the channel of Woodworth to use seals anywhere in Woodworth to reduce or stop fluid leakage and/or cushion pieces of the device of Woodworth.
Regarding claim 9, Woodworth lacks the cable clamp bracket being metal. Sovitzky discloses a bracket 26, that is metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bracket of Woodworth metal as disclosed by Sovitzky as a matter of simple substitution of materials and/or metal is known to be strong and durable to make a lasting holder.
Regarding claims 10-11, Woodworth lacks screws at each of the attachment points (although 2 holes are shown in Fig. 1 in the bracket). Sovitzky discloses screws at each of the attachment points on a bracket (col. 4, lines 38-42, (see Fig. 3, at 34 and 38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use screws as disclosed by Sovitzky at the attachment points of Woodworth as a matter of simple substitution of connections and/or to use screws as they are well known to provide a cheap, easy and secure connection between two pieces.
Regarding claim 16, Woodworth discloses the drain valve is biased to the closed position by means of a spring 49.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodworth GB 1402262 in view of Jones US 4,238,975 in view of Sovitzky US 3,195,561 in view of Hahnl US 8,327,635.
Regarding claim 15, Woodworth lacks the cable is attached to the moveable valve part by means of a pin. Hahnl discloses a pin (and ring arrangement, see Figs. 1-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pin (and ring arrangement) as disclosed by Hahnl to attach the cable to the moveable part of Woodworth as a matter of simple substitution of connection features and/or to provide a secure connection between 2 things.
Claim(s) 19, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodworth GB 1402262 in view of Jones US 4,238,975 in view of Sovitzky US 3,195,561 in view of Johnson et al. US 4,365,530.
Regarding claim 19, Woodworth lacks spacers. Johnson discloses spacers 112 for a bracket 114. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spacers as disclosed by Johnson for the device of Woodworth as a matter of “obvious to try” if space was needed between the bracket and the assembly housing of Woodworth and/or to provide space between the bracket and the assembly housing of Woodworth so that the bracket is not touching the assembly housing that could cause damage to the bracket or assembly housing as the spacers could cheaply be replaced as opposed to the bracket and/or assembly housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments to the 112 rejections, the applicant has created new 112 rejections such that the application cannot be examined properly. It appears clarification and claim amendments are needed as well as an RCE for the examiner to consider the application again. Regarding the 102 rejections to Woodsworth, the examiner has removed these due to the new claim amendments that were not included in the claims previously about “on opposite sides of the channel”, but this has created 112 issues as there are multiple channels claimed as well certain embodiments not having two attachment points on opposite sides of the channel, depending on how it is interpreted. The 103 rejections have been changed thus the examiner cannot respond to the arguments which are based off of the 102 rejections and the new 112 rejections also need to be amended and fixed with an RCE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Low, Campbell and Thunderbolt disclose brackets on a valve.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-4921 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921
Prosecution Insights