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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 January 2025 and 24 July 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 6 should include at least one reference character to identify the various structural element(s) illustrated in the figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
While not required, Examiner suggests changing “the at least one raised rib” as recited in line 2 of claim 13 to “the one or more raised ribs” to be consistent with terminology used elsewhere in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 - 8 and 18 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 4 recites the limitation "the center" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the center" in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the center" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 - 9, and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meincke (US 2014/0369757).
Regarding claim 1, Meincke discloses a drainage body surface unit comprising: a base (1); a column (spacer element 10) comprising a top end (end of column 10 adjacent the base 1) and a bottom end (opposite end of column 10; the bottom end having a smaller diameter than the top end), the column comprises an opening in the base and an inner surface extending between the top end to the bottom end of the column; wherein the inner surface of the column comprises one or more raised ribs (every-other trough 14) extending along a portion of the inner surface of the column (10) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0024 - 0027).
Regarding claim 2, Meincke further discloses the column (10) has a frustoconical shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Meincke further discloses the inner surface of the column (10) comprises a corrugated shape (formed by peaks 12 and troughs 14) and the one or more raised ribs (every-other trough 14) extends from the top end to the bottom end of the column (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0024 and 0027).
Regarding claims 4 - 6, Meincke further discloses the corrugated shape of the inner surface of the column comprises a plurality of spaced apart peaks (every-other trough 14 such that the peaks alternate with the ribs; see Fig. 2) that extend inward towards the center of the column (Figs. 1 - 3).
Regarding claim 7, Meincke further discloses the corrugated shape of the inner surface of the column (10) comprises one or more troughs (peaks 12) that extend outwards from the center of the column (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0024 - 0027).
Regarding claim 8, Meincke further discloses one or more of the raised ribs (every-other trough 14) is positioned in the one or more troughs (12) of the inner surface of the column (10) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, Meincke further discloses the one or more raised ribs (every-other trough 14 such that the ribs alternate with the peaks; see Fig. 2) is a plurality of raised ribs that are equally spaced apart on the inner surface of the column (10) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 16, Meincke further discloses the drainage body surface unit (10) is stacked on a second drainage body surface unit (10’) (Fig. 1 shows one base 1 stacked on a second base 1’; Fig. 3 illustrates one spacer element 10 stacked on a second spacer element 10’) (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs 0008, 0012, and 0029).
Regarding claim 17, Meincke further discloses a base (1) connected to a first end (end of column 10 adjacent the base 1) of a conical shaped column (10), and the conical shaped column comprising an opening centered in the base and the column extends perpendicular from the base to form a central area defined by a wall of the column, wherein the wall of the column (10) is corrugated (formed by peaks 12 and troughs 14) and comprises one or more raised ribs (every-other trough 14) extending from the opening of the column to an opposite end (opposite end of column 10; the bottom end having a smaller diameter than the top end) of the wall of the column (10) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0024 - 0027).
Regarding claim 18, Meincke further discloses the one or more raised ribs (every-other trough 14) extend inward from an inner surface of the wall towards the center of the conical column (10) (Figs. 1 - 2; paragraph 0024).
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.
Claims 10, 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meincke.
Regarding claim 10, Meincke fails to disclose the one or more raised ribs comprise a height of at least 0.5 mm. Examiner takes the position that the height of the one or more raised ribs lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Meincke fails to disclose the one or more raised ribs comprise a height in the range of 0.5 mm to 3 mm. Examiner takes the position that the height of the one or more raised ribs lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Meincke teaches a plurality of drainage body surface units (10, 10’) (Fig. 1). The embodiment of Fig. 1 of Meincke fails to disclose the drainage body surface unit is arranged in a trenching system with a second drainage body surface unit. Fig. 6 of Meincke, which represents Prior Art, teaches a drainage surface unit (10) is arranged in a trenching system with a second drainage body surface unit (10’) (Fig. 6; paragraphs 0002 - 0005). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed by the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Meincke with the first and second drainage body surface units as taught by Fig. 6 of Meincke to increase the water storage capacity of the drainage system.
Regarding claim 19, Meincke further discloses the one or more raised ribs (every-other trough 14) have a substantially constant maximum height (Fig. 1). Meincke fails to explicitly disclose the height being in the range of 0.5 mm to 3 mm. Examiner takes the position that the height of the one or more raised ribs lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 12 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meincke in view of Canney et al. (US 2012/0255624).
Regarding claim 12, Meincke fails to disclose one or more of the raised ribs comprises a gusset. Canney teaches one or more of the raised ribs comprises a gusset (unlabeled triangular structures located at the base end of spacer 20 comprising a corrugated wall 26, the base end of the spacer 20 has a larger diameter than the opposite end of spacer 20) (Figs. 21 and 22). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the one or more ribs as disclosed by Meincke with the gusset as taught by Canney to maintain the column in a centered position within the opening in base in which the column is placed to ensure that a space is maintained between adjacent drainage body surface units when in a stacked position, the space eliminates surface pressure between adjacent columns so that the columns can be separated easily.
Regarding claim 13, Meincke in view of Canney fails to explicitly teach the gusset is integrally formed from the at least one raised rib. Canney is silent regarding the connection between the gusset and the raised rib (gusset and raised ribs shown in Figs. 21 and 22). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the connection between the gusset and the raised rib as disclosed above such that the gusset is integrally formed from the at least one rib to provide a secure connection between the gusset and the at least one rib.
Regarding claim 14, Meincke fails to disclose the gusset is positioned at one end of the one or more raised ribs. Canney teaches the gusset (unlabeled triangular structures located as the base end of spacer 20) is positioned at one end of the one or more raised ribs (every-other peak of corrugations 26) (Figs. 20 - 22). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the one or more ribs as disclosed by Meincke with the gusset as taught by Canney to maintain the column in a centered position within the opening in base in which the column is placed to ensure that a space is maintained between adjacent drainage body surface units when in a stacked position, the space eliminates surface pressure between adjacent columns so that the columns can be separated easily.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meincke in view of Canney et al. and Adams et al. (US 2014/0291221). Meincke discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the one or more raised ribs comprises a gusset formed on the raised rib at an end opposite the opening of the conical column. Canney teaches one or more of the raised ribs comprises a gusset (unlabeled triangular structures located at the base end of spacer 20 comprising a corrugated wall 26, the base end of the spacer 20 has a larger diameter than the opposite end of spacer 20) (Figs. 21 and 22). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the one or more ribs as disclosed by Meincke with the gusset as taught by Canney to maintain the column in a centered position within the opening in base in which the column is placed to ensure that a space is maintained between adjacent drainage body surface units when in a stacked position, the space eliminates surface pressure between adjacent columns so that the columns can be separated easily. Canney fails to teach a gusset formed at an end opposite the opening of the conical column. Adams teaches a gusset (38) formed at an end (20b) opposite the opening of the conical column (20) (Figs. 3, 7, and 8; paragraphs 0117, 0122, and 0133) to absorb and transfer horizontal forces to and from the columns. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the gusset as taught above with the positioning of a gusset at an end opposite the opening of the conical column as taught by Adams to absorb and transfer horizontal forces to and from the columns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
9/24/2026
Prosecution Insights