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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase "A corrugated pipe is described herein" is implied language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b)(I)(C). A suggestion is to delete the phrase.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
Claim 3 recites “a first liner vent opening is defined within the liner” which the drawings only show vent openings in the valleys and not the liner 104.
Claim 4 recites “a second liner vent opening is defined in the liner between the first and second sidewalls of the first valley”.
Claim 5 recites “a third liner vent opening is defined in the liner extending into or between the first and second sidewalls of the second valley”.
Claim 11 recites “a first liner vent opening defined within the liner”.
No new matter should be entered.
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
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 14-15, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the first and second gasket corrugations a corrugation length” which appears to be missing a verb and a suggestion is “the first and second gasket corrugations define a corrugation length”.
Claim 4 recites “a second liner vent opening is defined in the liner between the first and second sidewalls of the first valley”, however, the liner vent openings described in applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0050]-[0051] describes the liner vent openings are between the sidewalls of different corrugations that leads to the voids 134, 136, 138, or 139 and not between the same sidewalls of a single corrugation/valley in order to have the advantage of equalizing pressure. Therefore, the limitation should be “a second liner vent opening is defined in the liner between one of the first and second sidewalls of the first valley and one of a first and second sidewall of a second valley defined by the second gasket corrugation” because a second liner vent opening would lead to the intermediate void 136 and the first liner vent of claim 3 appears to be directed to the leading void 134 such that these liner vent openings are consistent with applicant’s specification and the drawings.
Claim 8 recites “the second gasket,” and should be “the second gasket corrugation,”.
Claim 8 recites “and fluidly couple the intermediate void to the leading void when the pipe is in use.” and should be “and configured to fluidly couple the intermediate void to the leading void
Claim 9 recites “one or more void openings are formed in the leading face and the first gasket corrugation and the openings” and should be “one or more vent openings are formed in the leading face and the first gasket corrugation, and the vent openings” to be consistent with the specification and the rest of the claims.
Claim 10 recites “the second gasket,” and should be “the second gasket corrugation,”.
Claim 10 recites “one or more void openings are formed in the liner and the openings” and should be “one or more vent openings are formed in the liner, and the vent openings”.
Claim 14 recites “wherein a first vent opening is defined within the leading face” and should be “wherein the vent opening defines a first vent opening
Claim 15 recites “wherein a first vent opening is defined within the leading face” and should be “wherein the vent opening defines a first vent opening
Claim 17 recites “a first valley” and should be “a third valley” to be consistent with other labels with regard to respective valleys and corrugations.
Claim 18 recites “the third gasket,” and should be “the third gasket corrugation,”.
Claim 18 recites “the vent openings fluidly couple the medial, intermediate, and leading voids when the pipe is in use” and should be “the vent openings are configured to fluidly couple the medial, intermediate, and leading voids
Claim 19 recites “the first and second gasket corrugations a corrugation length” which appears to be missing a verb and a suggestion is “the first and second gasket corrugations define a corrugation length”.
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 5-8 and 16-18 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 5 recites “wherein the second gasket corrugation defines a second valley having first and second sidewalls,…a third liner vent opening is defined in the liner extending into or between the first and second sidewalls of the second valley” which is unclear because a third liner vent opening would require a previously recited third corrugation with sidewalls, however, claim 1 only recited first and second corrugations. Therefore, it is unclear if a third gasket corrugation was intended to initially be introduced in claim 5 or in a previous claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “one of the first and second sidewalls of the second valley and one of a first and second sidewall of a third valley defined by a third gasket corrugation.” for similar reasons above to the claim objection to claim 4.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the first, second, third, fourth and fifth vent openings and the first, second, and third vent openings” which appears to be redundant and unclear of the second instance of “the first, second, and third vent openings” are the same or different in line 1 of claim 6 or intended to be the liner vent openings. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the first, second, third, fourth and fifth vent openings and the first, second, and third liner vent openings” since three liner vent openings were previously recited and are different from the vent openings.
Claim 16 recites “comprising a second gasket corrugation adjacent to the first gasket corrugation, the second gasket corrugation is circumferentially positioned around the spigot and defines a second valley having first and second sidewalls,” which is unclear if this is the same or different limitation from claim 12 in which claim 16 depends from. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “comprising
Claim 18 recites “, further wherein an intermediate void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the second gasket, and the liner, wherein the third vent opening and the fourth vent opening extend into the intermediate void, and further” which is unclear if this is the same or different limitation from the one recited in claim 16 from which claim 18 depends from. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 112th second paragraph.
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 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lupke et al. (US 2010/0032046 A1, hereinafter “Lupke”).
In regard to claim 1, Lupke discloses a corrugated pipe (Fig. 7 shows a corrugated pipe) comprising:
a spigot having a leading face and a trailing end (See image below, indicated spigot has a leading face and a trailing end similar to applicant’s invention), the trailing end coupled to a pipe body at a connection corrugation (See image below, the trailing end is integrally formed and coupled to the pipe body similar to applicant’s invention), the leading face opposite the trailing end (See image below), the spigot having a lesser peak diameter than the pipe body (See image below, the spigot has a lesser peak diameter than the pipe body which have larger corrugations similar to the applicant’s invention), the spigot extending a spigot distance from the leading face to the trailing end (See image below, a spigot distance can be defined from the leading face to the trailing end); and
a liner extending along an interior surface of the spigot and the pipe body (See image below, indicated liner extends along an interior surface of the spigot and the pipe body similar to the applicant’s invention), the liner defining a fluid flow path (See image below, indicated liner defines a fluid flow path similar to applicant’s invention), the spigot further comprising:
first and second gasket corrugations that are circumferentially positioned around the spigot (Fig. 7 and see image below, the indicated spigot has at least two peaks and two valleys that define at least first and second corrugations), the first and second gasket corrugations in contact with the liner (See image below, indicated contact are the two valleys of the corrugations in contact with the liner similar to the applicant’s invention),
PNG
media_image1.png
259
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first and second gasket corrugations defines a corrugation length from the pipe body (See image below, the first and second gasket corrugations have at least the indicated corrugation length to the trailing end where it starts to transition to the pipe body), the corrugation length less than half of the spigot length (See image below, the corrugation length is less than half of the spigot length).
PNG
media_image2.png
252
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 1, wherein a gasket is circumferentially positioned within at least one of the first and second gasket corrugations (Fig. 7, one of the gaskets “OR” is circumferentially positioned within at least one of the first and second gasket corrugations as shown).
In regard to claim 3, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 1, wherein at least one of a first vent opening is defined within the leading face (Figs. 7-9, at least one holes 136 define a first vent opening within the leading face) or a first liner vent opening is defined within the liner (In [0070] discloses if the pipe is not used for drainage, the holes can be through the liner).
In regard to claim 4, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 3, wherein the first gasket corrugation defines a first valley having first and second sidewalls (See image below), and a second liner vent opening is defined in the liner between one of the first and second sidewalls of the first valley and one of a first and second sidewall of a second valley defined by the second gasket corrugation (See image below, a second liner vent opening can be defined as shown in order allow trapped air to escape as described in [0067]-[0070] which discloses the reformed corrugations can have trapped air which having the venting holes allow the trapped air to escape and in situations not used for drainage, the venting holes can be in the liner for the air to escape).
PNG
media_image3.png
241
525
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 11, Lupke discloses a corrugated pipe defining a spigot, the corrugated pipe comprising:
a spigot having a leading face and a trailing end, the trailing end coupled to a pipe body at a connection corrugation, the leading face opposite the trailing end; and
a liner extending along an interior surface of the spigot and the pipe body, the liner defining a fluid flow path, the spigot further comprising:
a first gasket corrugation that is circumferentially positioned around the spigot (See claim 1 above that requires all the limitations of “A corrugated pipe…around the spigot”), the first gasket corrugation defining a first valley having first and second sidewalls (See claim 4 above that requires all the limitations of “the first gasket corrugation…second sidewalls”); and at least one of:
a vent opening defined within the leading face (See claim 3 above that requires all the limitations of “a vent opening defined within…the leading face”); or
a first liner vent opening defined within the liner (See claim 3 above that requires all the limitations of “a first liner vent opening defined within the liner”).
In regard to claim 12, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 11, comprising a second gasket corrugation adjacent to the first gasket corrugation (Fig. 7, there are at least two peaks and valleys that define the spigot, therefore, the peak and valley further away from the leading face defines a second gasket corrugation adjacent the first gasket corrugation), the second gasket corrugation is circumferentially positioned around the spigot (Fig. 17, the second gasket corrugation is circumferentially positioned around the spigot) and defines a second valley having first and second sidewalls (Fig. 17, the second valley further away from the leading face has first and second sidewalls similar to applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 13, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 12, wherein at least one of the first and second gasket corrugations are in contact with the liner (Fig. 7, the first and second gasket corrugations are in contact with the liner at the valleys similar to the applicant’s invention).
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.
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 4, 11, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke (US 2010/0032046 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 3, but does not expressly disclose second and third vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley, respectively.
In Figs. 7-9 of Lupke and the description in paragraphs [0067]-[0070] discloses the vent holes 136 can be either formed on top of the peaks of the corrugations, on the sidewall facing the bell, or on the liner below the peaks in order to allow the trapped air in each corrugated peak to flow outside. However, Lupke does not expressly disclose vent openings on each sidewall of each peak such that second and third vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valleys of Lupke to try having second and third vent openings defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley with a reasonable expectation of success because there are a finite number of solutions to forming vent holes in the corrugations of the spigot of Lupke and in [0068] of Lupke also supports any number of holes to be used. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tried having vent holes on both sidewalls of each peak of corrugations in the spigot instead of just one side such that second and third vent openings are formed within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley in order to have the advantage of increased reliability to releasing the trapped air and further reduced resistance of air trapped in the peaks as described in [0067] of Lupke.
Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lupke to duplicate the vent holes on one sidewall of the peaks of corrugation to be on both sidewalls defining the peak in order to have at least the advantage of reliability of releasing trapped air and reduced amount of resistance of the trapped air.
In regard to claim 11, Lukpe discloses a corrugated pipe defining a spigot, the corrugated pipe comprising:
a spigot having a leading face and a trailing end, the trailing end coupled to a pipe body at a connection corrugation, the leading face opposite the trailing end; and
a liner extending along an interior surface of the spigot and the pipe body, the liner defining a fluid flow path, the spigot further comprising:
a first gasket corrugation that is circumferentially positioned around the spigot, the first gasket corrugation defining a first valley having first and second sidewalls (See claim 11 above under the claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 that requires all the limitations of “A corrugated pipe…second sidewalls”); and
a vent opening defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley, respectively (See claim 4 for the same reasons with regard to vent openings in the first and second sidewalls of the first valley).
In regard to claim 15, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 11, wherein the vent opening defines a first vent opening within the leading face (See claim 3 above for the same reasons), and a second vent opening is defined within the first sidewall of the first valley (See claim 4 above for the same reasons), further wherein a leading void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner (Fig. 7, leading void under 13b), wherein the first vent opening and the second vent opening extend into the leading void (Fig. 7, having the vent openings at both sidewalls of peak at 13b would lead to the leading void).
In regard to claim 19, Lupke discloses a corrugated pipe comprising:
a) a spigot having a leading face and a trailing end, a first vent opening defined within the leading face, the trailing end coupled to a pipe body at a connection corrugation, the leading face opposite the trailing end, the spigot extending a spigot distance from the leading face to the trailing end;
b) a liner extending along an interior surface of the spigot and the pipe body, the liner defining a fluid flow path, the spigot further comprising:
i) first and second gasket corrugations that are circumferentially positioned around the spigot, the first and second gasket corrugations spaced from the liner, the first and second gasket corrugations defines a corrugation length from the pipe body, the corrugation length less than half of the spigot length (See claim 1 above for all the limitations of “A corrugated pipe…half of the spigot length”), the first gasket corrugation defining a first valley having first and second sidewalls, and second and third vent openings defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley, respectively (See claim 4 above for the same reasons that requires the limitation of “the first gasket…first valley, respectively”); and
c) a gasket circumferentially positioned within at least one of the first and second gasket corrugations (See claim 2 above for the same reasons that require the limitation of “a gasket…second gasket corrugations”).
In regard to claim 20, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 19, wherein the first, second, and third vent openings extend at least one of transverse or parallel to the fluid flow path (See claims 4 and 19 for the same reasons, therefore, the vent openings on the sidewalls of the corrugation peak would at least be parallel to the fluid flow path).
Claims 5-10, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke (US 2010/0032046 A1) in view of Lupke (US 2009/0206595 A1, hereinafter “Lupke ‘595”).
In regard to claim 5, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 4, wherein the second gasket corrugation defines a second valley having first and second sidewalls (See image above for claim 4, indicated second valley has at least first and second sidewalls),
Lupkey does not expressly disclose wherein, at least one of:
fourth and fifth vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the second valley, respectively because of the same reasons above for claim 4 and Lupke shows in Fig. 7 only two corrugation peaks instead of three like applicant’s invention; or
a third liner vent opening is defined in the liner between one of the first and second sidewalls of the second valley and one of a first and second sidewall of a third valley defined by a third gasket corrugation because Lupke shows in Fig. 7 only two corrugation peaks instead of three like applicant’s invention.
In the related field of spigot and bell corrugated pipe joints and by the same inventors, Lupke ‘595 discloses at least having three or four corrugated peaks of a spigot fit within a bell (Fig. 2 shows at least three peaks within a bell and Fig. 2A shows at least four peaks within a bell).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spigot length and amount of corrugated peaks in the spigot of Lupke to include an additional peak and valley defining a third corrugation defining a third valley with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a stronger and more reliable pipe joint as taught by Lupke ‘595. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 would reasonably suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that having more corrugations of a spigot that fits within a bell allows for at least a stronger and more reliably sealed connection. Therefore, the two corrugated peaks of the spigot of Lupke to have three corrugated peaks would allow for a stronger and more reliably sealed connected with a bell.
Additionally, see claims 3 and 4 above for the same reasons to have vent openings the sidewalls of the valleys and the liner below each corrugated peak.
In regard to claim 6, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 5, wherein the first, second, third, fourth and fifth vent openings and the first, second, and third liner vent openings extend at least one of transverse or parallel to the fluid flow path (See claims 3-5 above for the same reasons and in Figs. 7 and 9, the vent openings 136 are parallel to the fluid flow path and the liner vent openings would be transverse to the fluid flow path).
In regard to claim 7, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 6, and Lupke further discloses wherein a leading void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner (Fig. 7, below 13b defines a leading void), and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 disclose wherein the first vent opening and the second vent opening extend into the leading void (See claims 3 and 4 above for the same reasons with regard to having the first and second vent openings which would extend into the leading void).
In regard to claim 8, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 7, and Lupke further discloses wherein an intermediate void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the second gasket corrugation, and the liner (Fig. 7, intermediate void under 13a), and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 further discloses wherein the third vent opening and the fourth vent opening extend into the intermediate void (See claims 3 and 4 above for the same reasons with regard to having third and fourth vent openings. The third and fourth vent openings would extend into the intermediate void under 13 as shown in Fig. 7 of Lupke.), and configured to fluidly couple the intermediate void to the leading void (Fig. 7 of Lupke, the vent openings would allow fluid coupling between the intermediate void to the leading void similar to applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 9, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 1 wherein a leading void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner (Fig. 7, void below 13b defines a leading void which is between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner), wherein one or more vent openings are formed in the leading face (See claim 3 above for the same reasons to have a vent opening in the leading face) and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 disclose one or more vent opening in the first gasket corrugation, and the vent openings extend into the leading void (See claim 4 above for the same reasons to have vent openings on both sidewalls of each peak, therefore, the vent openings in the first gasket corrugation and the leading face would extend into the leading void).
In regard to claim 10, Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 9, wherein an intermediate void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the second gasket corrugation, and the liner, wherein one or more vent openings are formed in the liner, and the vent openings extend into the intermediate void (See claim 8 above for the same reasons).
In regard to claim 14, Lupke discloses the corrugated pipe of claim 12, wherein the vent opening defines a first vent opening within the leading face (See claim 3 above for the same reasons), and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 disclose second and third vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the first valley, respectively (See claim 4 above for the same reasons), and fourth and fifth vent openings are defined within the first and second sidewalls of the second valley, respectively (See claim 5 above for the same reasons), further wherein the first, second, third, fourth and fifth vent openings extend at least one of transverse or parallel to the fluid flow path (See claims 4 and 5 above for the same reasons and in Figs. 7 and 9 of Lupke, the vent openings 136 in the sidewalls are at least parallel to the fluid flow path).
In regard to claim 16, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 14, comprising wherein an intermediate void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the second gasket corrugation, and the liner (Fig. 7 of Lupke, intermediate void under 13a), wherein the third vent opening and the fourth vent opening extend into the intermediate void (Fig. 7 and see claim 14 above for the same reasons, therefore, the third and fourth openings extend into the intermediate void).
In regard to claim 17, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 16, wherein a third gasket corrugation is circumferentially positioned around the spigot and adjacent to the first and second gasket corrugations, the third gasket corrugation in contact with the liner, the third gasket corrugation defining a third valley having first and second sidewalls (See claim 5 above for the same reasons to have a third corrugation defining a third valley).
In regard to claim 18, Lupke and Lupke ‘595 disclose the corrugated pipe of claim 17, and Lupke further discloses wherein a leading void is defined between the first gasket corrugation, the leading face, and the liner (See claim 7 above for the same reasons), and Lupke in view of Lupke ‘595 further disclose wherein the first vent opening and the second vent opening extend into the leading void (See claim 7 above for the same reasons), and further wherein a medial void is defined between the second gasket corrugation, the third gasket corrugation, and the liner (See claim 5 above for the same reasons with regard to having a third gasket corrugation that would include an additional third corrugation peak which would define a medial void), wherein the vent openings are configured to fluidly couple the medial, intermediate, and leading voids (See claims 4 and 5 above for the same reasons, therefore, each corrugation peak would have vent openings that are configured to fluidly couple the medial, intermediate, and leading voids. See the following which is a recreation of Fig. 7 of Lupke in view of the teaching of Lupke ‘595 that would suggest at least three corrugation peaks with vent openings. As shown below, each void can have liner vent openings and sidewall openings.).
PNG
media_image4.png
285
651
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kolbet et al. (US 2010/0316442 A1), Andrick (US 2003/0001343 A1), Baughman et al. (US 2003/0090112 A1), Hegler (US 2004/0262923 A1), Kellner et al. (US 2007/0256751 A1), Goddard et al. (US 7,306,264 B2), Knapp (US 6,336,640), Lupke et al. (US 6,399,002 B1), and Knapp (US 7,469,905) disclose a corrugated pipe having spigot and bell such that there are smaller corrugations at the spigot in order to fit inside a bell similar to the critical features of applicant’s invention.
Toliver (US 6,578,882 B2) discloses a corrugated pipe having spigot and bell, wherein the corrugation at the spigot can have holes in order to fill the corrugation with sealing material. This is similar to applicant’s claimed invention of having holes in the corrugations at the spigot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679