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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: access chamber and access base. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1–6, 8, 10 and 18–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US PGPub 20170260734 A1) in view of Alpers et al. (USPN 4076040).
Regarding Claim 1, Skinner discloses a chamber base for an access chamber used in a below ground pipe installation, the chamber base comprising: a base body (14) comprising a bottom wall (70) and a side wall (74/76) extending up from the bottom wall (70), and a plurality of ports (15/17) formed in the side wall (74/76), and a flow path insert (12) formed separately from the base body (14) received within the base body (14), as seen in Fig. 3, the flow path insert (12) defining a flow path from one port (15) across the flow path insert (12) to at least one other port (17) on the side wall (74/76) and discloses the base body of concrete (Para. 81) but does not disclose the base body is molded of a polymeric material.
Alpers teaches the base body (20) is molded of a polymeric material (Col. 3, Lines 54–58, where the base body may be constructed of a high density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polymeric material with the invention of Skinner, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP §2144.07. Skinner uses concrete acceptable for below ground piping. Alpers teaches the use of high density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride or the like type of material as one material suitable for use for below ground piping (Col. 3, Lines 20–21). Since both Skinner and Alpers serve the same function, use for below ground piping, it is obvious that a polymeric material may be used for construction of below ground piping.
Per the Skinner–Alpers combination, Skinner’s base body is constructed of a polymeric material.
Regarding Claim 2, the Skinner–Alpers combination teaches at least one port (Skinner 15/17) of the plurality of ports (Skinner 15/17), is integrally molded with the base body (Skinner 14), as seen in Skinner Fig, 3.
Regarding Claim 3, the Skinner–Alpers combination teaches the plurality of ports (Skinner 15/17) comprises four ports (Skinner Para. 7, where “base structure may contain two or more non-coaxial openings”) that are integrally molded with the base body (Skinner 14), and the ports (Skinner 15/17) are spaced substantially equiangularly apart from each other (Skinner Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, the Skinner–Alpers combination teaches the base body (Skinner 14) further comprises a base support (Skinner 18) received within the base body (Skinner Para. 85) for strengthening the base body (Skinner 14) to resist deformation thereof when exposed to external pressure, and the base support (Skinner 18) is formed integrally with the base body (Skinner 14 and Para. 85).
Regarding Claim 5, the Skinner–Alpers combination teaches the base body (Skinner 14) further comprises at least one locating formation (Skinner 28), and the side wall of the flow path insert (Skinner 12) comprises at least one complementary locating formation (Skinner 310) for locating the flow path insert (Skinner 12) in a correct rotational position on the base body (Skinner 12), as described in Skinner Para. 122, where all movement is prevented.
Regarding Claim 6, the Skinner–Alpers combination teaches the flow path insert (Skinner 12) is integrally molded as a single piece from polymeric material (Skinner Para. 86).
Regarding Claim 8, the Skinner–Alpers combination teaches at least one port (Skinner 15/17) comprises a short cylindrical section with open ends forming a port opening (Skinner 15/17) in the side wall (Skinner 74/76) of the base body (Skinner 14) for coupling to an adjacent pipe (Skinner Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, the Skinner–Alpers combination teaches the base body (Skinner 14) further comprises a plurality of key formations (Skinner 42) on an outer surface of the side wall of the base body (Skinner 14) for keying the base body (Skinner 14) to a surrounding backfill.
Regarding Claim 18–20, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 1. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claims 18–20 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Skinner–Alpers combination.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US PGPub 20170260734 A1) in view of Alpers et al. (USPN 4076040), in further view of Gunter (USPN 5645367).
Regarding Claim 7, the Skinner–Alpers combination teaches the insert side wall (Skinner 64/66) of the flow path insert (Skinner 12) is configured to be received within the side wall (Skinner 64/66) with a working clearance (Skinner Para. 105 where the working clearance occurs when locating formation and the complementary locating formation interact) the Skinner–Alpers combination is silent regarding the manner in which the flow path insert and the chamber base are attached.
Gunter teaches affixing two polymetric materials located in the underground as one of many ways to secure two elements (Col. 10, Lines 41–47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection of a flow path insert and a chamber base of the Skinner–Alpers combination with welding as taught by Gunter in order to affix the two elements together.
Per the Skinner–Alpers–Gunter combination the connection of the flow path insert and the chamber base is done by welding.
The Skinner–Alpers–Gunter combination teaches the flow path insert (Skinner 12) is permanently fixed to the chamber base (Skinner Fig. 6) by welding the flow path insert to the chamber base (Skinner Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US PGPub 20170260734 A1) in view of Alpers et al. (USPN 4076040), in further view of Frawley et al. (GB 2357127 A).
Regarding Claim 9, the Skinner–Alpers combination teaches at least one port (Skinner 15/17) but does not teach the at least one port comprises a swivel arm that is able to swivel relative to the side wall.
Frawley teaches a swivel joint in order to accommodate piping alignment issues (Pg. 2, Lines 18–24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a piping connection of the Skinner–Alpers combination with a swivel connection as taught by Frawley in order to easily align the pipe to the chamber base.
The Skinner–Alpers–Frawley combination teaches the at least one port (Skinner 15/17) comprises a swivel arm (Frawley 10) that is able to swivel (Frawley Fig. 1) relative to the side wall (Skinner 64/66).
Claim(s) 11 and 13–17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US PGPub 20170260734 A1) in view of Johnson (USPN 5375887).
Regarding Claim 11, Skinner discloses an access chamber in a below ground pipeline (Para. 7) installation, the set of components comprising: a standard base body (14) comprising a bottom wall (70) and a side wall (74/76) and having at least one port (15/17) formed in the side wall (74/76); wherein each flow path insert (12) defines a different flow path (Fig. 3) for conveying liquid from at least one inlet port to an outlet port in use (Para. 180) but does not disclose a kit for forming an access chamber in a below ground pipeline installation.
Johnson teaches the use of a kit in order to provide a selection of options geared towards different sizes (Col. 1, Lines 45–50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an invention of the Skinner with a kit as taught by Johnson in order to provide a user with onsite options of the various components of the access chamber in a below ground pipeline installation.
Per the Skinner–Johnson combination any component within the access chamber in a below ground pipeline installation can be duplicated for the kit.
The Skinner–Johnson combination teaches a plurality of flow path inserts (Skinner 12) formed separately from the base body (Skinner 14) for being received within the base body (Skinner 14) with a close fit (Skinner Fig. 6), wherein each flow path insert defines (Skinner 12) a different flow path for conveying liquid from at least one inlet port to an outlet port in use (Skinner Para. 180).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in Claim 13 recited in claim(s) 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in Claim 14 recited in claim(s) 6.
Regarding Claim 15, the Skinner–Johnson combination teaches each flow path insert (Skinner 12) is formed by an injection molding operation (Skinner Para. 86).
Regarding Claim 16, the Skinner–Johnson combination teaches one of said plurality of flow path inserts (Skinner 12) is configured to form a flow path that connects to four ports (Skinner 15/17 and Para. 7, where “base structure may contain two or more non-coaxial openings”.) on the base body (Skinner 14) in use.
Regarding Claim 17, the Skinner–Johnson combination teaches a riser (Skinner 58) for mounting on an upper end of the side wall (Skinner 74/76), and a top member (Skinner 402/404) having a closable opening (Skinner 18, Fig. 42) therein for mounting on the riser (Skinner 58), or for mounting on an upper end of the base body (Skinner 14), as seen in Skinner Fig. 6, in use.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US PGPub 20170260734 A1) in view of Johnson (USPN 5375887), in further view of Alpers et al. (USPN 4076040).
Regarding Claim 12, the Skinner–Johnson combination teaches the standard base body (Skinner 14) is integrally pre–casted as a single integral body (Paras. 13 and 80) with the at least one port formed (Skinner 15/17) therein but does not disclose the base body molded of a polymeric material.
Alpers teaches the base body (20) is molded of a polymeric material (Col. 3, Lines 54–58, where the base body may be constructed of a high density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polymeric material with the invention of the Skinner–Johnson combination, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP §2144.07. Skinner uses concrete acceptable for below ground piping. Alpers teaches the use of high density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride or the like type of material as one material suitable for use for below ground piping (Col. 3, Lines 20–21). Since both Skinner and Alpers serve the same function, use for below ground piping, it is obvious that a polymeric material may be used for construction of below ground piping.
Per the Skinner–Johnson–Alpers combination, Skinner’s base body is constructed of a polymeric material.
The Skinner–Johnson–Alpers combination teaches the standard base body (Skinner 14) is integrally molded of a polymeric material as a single integral body (Skinner Paras. 13 and 80, where the base body is a single integral body) with the at least one port (Skinner 15/17) formed therein (Skinner Fig.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wright (USPN 3543453) and Predl (USPN 10273664 B2) disclose a base body and a flow path insert.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 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 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights