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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 08/1/26 is acknowledged.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3351705 A1 to BOURGEOIS in view of CA 2674599 A1 to Sobel.
Regarding claim 1, Bourgeois discloses a partial inground pool system comprising a plurality of wall panels P configured to extend vertically above and below a ground level position [0001] and abut together horizontally (fig. 10), each wall panel P having a plurality of wall stiffeners 1, or struts, disposed thereon, the wall stiffeners each extend vertically along the wall panels and outwards therefrom to a first width; and a plurality of backer brackets 2,19 (clm 11), or vertical upright and upper portion, positioned on opposing ends of each wall panel, each backer bracket 2 extending vertically downward from a top of the wall panels to the ground level position and outwards therefrom to the first width (fig. 12). Bourgeois is silent as to the pool being modular. Instead, Bourgeois indicates the pool may be above ground, semi-buried or buried. Sobel teaches a modular (abstract) system 10 (fig. 1) having walls 13 and panels 12.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bourgeois as taught by Sobel such that a modular pool reduces installation time, provides material flexibility and lowers costs for labor, manufacturing and purchasing.
BOURGEOIS:
PNG
media_image1.png
490
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SOBEL:
PNG
media_image2.png
428
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
586
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourgeois and Sobel as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of IT RM20030404 A1 to Bonnin et al and US Patent 3,298,038 to O’Connell et al.
Regarding claim 2, Bourgeois modified by Sobel does not disclose a horizontally extending L-shaped edge cap disposed against the wall stiffeners and backer brackets at the ground level position; a support board material positioned against the wall stiffeners and backer brackets and supported by the edge cap; and a finish material positioned against the support board material and supported by the edge cap. Instead, Bourgeois indicates joists 21 to support the struts 1 and brackets 2, 19 and further indicates the walls P and blades L are made from wood planks or a synthetic material where the lowest blade L is made from a synthetic material to prevent rotting. However, Bonnin teaches a horizontally L shaped member disposed against other frame components such as, wall stiffeners 8 and brackets 5 (fig. 1) in the entire panel from the top to the bottom but is silent as to the positioning at a ground level. Further, O’Connell teaches a support board material 21 and a finish material 19 [col. 1, lines 69-70]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Bourgeois and Sobel as taught by Bonnin such that frame members to support the wall panels would increase the overall structural integrity of the walls forming the perimeter and foundation of the pool. Further a support board material and finish material would provide thermal protection to the pool interior as well as protection from the environment, and aesthetic beauty, with a finish material.
BONNIN:
PNG
media_image4.png
506
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
O’CONNELL:
PNG
media_image5.png
363
231
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bourgeois further discloses wherein the wall stiffeners are equally spaced (fig. 10).
Regarding claims 5-6, Bourgeois modified by Sobel, Bonnin in view of O’Connell does not disclose the support board material comprises a cement board and the finish material comprises at least one of stone or cement. Instead, O’Connell indicates the support board material 21 is made from bead board and the finish material 17, 19 is made from aluminum. O’Connell teaches that any suitable material is appropriate [col. 1, lines 69-70]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a variety of material options because Applicant has not disclosed that cement board, stone or cement provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected O’Connell’s device, and applicant' s invention, to perform equally well with either material because both materials provide insulation and durability and would perform the same function of preventing the pool from leakages, vast thermal changes and would provide structural integrity. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Bourgeois in view of Sobel and O’Connell to obtain the invention as specified in the claims because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
PNG
media_image6.png
456
290
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,7-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
More specifically, US 20230383557 A1 to Maiuccoro is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a methods for forming using wall panels 12 and wall inserts 14 for modular panels.
PNG
media_image7.png
436
536
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. 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, David Angwin can be reached 571-270-3735. 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.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights