DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed on 14 September 2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 1, 10 and 18-20 are currently amended;
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 were previously presented;
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 14 September 2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Applicant’s new limitation uses “configured to” language and therefore only requires capability. The manhole segments are capable of being secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment by tying, welding, gluing, etc. Also, the new limitation was not found to have support in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment”. However, examiner did not find support in the specification that the manhole assembly is “configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,364,575).
As to Claim 1, Bradley discloses a manhole assembly comprising:
A manhole segment configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment (It is capable of being secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment by tying, welding, gluing, etc.), wherein the manhole segment (First half of 1, Second half of 1) comprises:
A first edge (Edge 4 with pins 12) comprising a plurality of dowel pins (12);
A second edge (Edge 4 with holes for pins 12) comprising a plurality of dowel holes (Holes receiving 12);
A curved wall (Curved wall of first half 1, Curved wall of second half 1) extending between the first edge and the second edge; and
A plurality of clip bosses (16) extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge.
As to Claim 10, Bradley discloses a manhole assembly comprising:
A manhole segment configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment (It is capable of being secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment by tying, welding, gluing, etc.), wherein the manhole segment (First half of 1, Second half of 1) comprises:
A first edge (Edge 4 with pins 12) comprising a plurality of dowel pins (12);
A second edge (Edge 4 with holes for pins 12) comprising a plurality of dowel holes (Holes receiving 12);
A curved wall (Curved wall of first half 1, Curved wall of second half 1) extending between the first edge and the second edge; and
A plurality of hinges (Hinges between pairs of 6) extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge (“Along” is being interpreted as “in a line matching the length or direction of”. The hinges are in a line matching the direction of the edges -i.e. parallel-).
Claims 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barker (U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0095526).
As to Claim 1, Barker discloses a manhole assembly comprising:
A manhole segment configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment (It is capable of being secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment by tying, welding, gluing, etc.), wherein the manhole segment (4, 6) comprises:
A first edge (Edge of 6) comprising a plurality of dowel pins (32);
A second edge (Edge of 4) comprising a plurality of dowel holes (34);
A curved wall (Curved wall of 4, Curved wall of 6) extending between the first edge and the second edge; and
A plurality of clip bosses (38) extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge.
As to Claim 10, Barker discloses a manhole assembly comprising:
A manhole segment configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment (It is capable of being secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment by tying, welding, gluing, etc.), wherein the manhole segment (4, 6) comprises:
A first edge (Edge of 6) comprising a plurality of dowel pins (32);
A second edge (Edge of 4) comprising a plurality of dowel holes (34);
A curved wall (Curved wall of 4, Curved wall of 6) extending between the first edge and the second edge; and
A plurality of hinges (28) extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge (“Along” is being interpreted as “in a line matching the length or direction of”. The hinges are in a line matching the direction of the edges -i.e. parallel-).
Claim 1 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Del Zotto (U.S. Patent No. 5,381,995).
As to Claim 1, Del Zotto discloses a manhole assembly comprising:
A manhole segment configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment (It is capable of being secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment by tying, welding, gluing, etc.), wherein the manhole segment (2; Column 4, Lines 8-10: “Separate hole former assemblies 2 are inserted into the holes 29 and supported by the cut ends of the meshwork 28”), comprises:
A first edge (46) comprising a plurality of dowel pins (82);
A second edge (44) comprising a plurality of dowel holes (75);
A curved wall (40) extending between the first edge and the second edge; and
A plurality of clip bosses (80, 81) extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge.
Claim 10 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofmann (U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0153640).
As to Claim 10, Hofmann discloses a manhole assembly comprising:
A manhole segment configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment (It is capable of being secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment by tying, welding, gluing, etc.), wherein the manhole segment (11, 12), comprises:
A first edge (Edge of 12) comprising a plurality of dowel pins (18);
A second edge (Edge of 11) comprising a plurality of dowel holes (19);
A curved wall (Curved wall of 11, Curved wall of 12) extending between the first edge and the second edge; and
A plurality of hinges (13) extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge (“Along” is being interpreted as “in a line matching the length or direction of”. The hinges are in a line matching the direction of the edges -i.e. parallel-).
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.
Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0008729) in view of Del Zotto (U.S. Patent No. 5,381,995).
As to Claim 1, Kamiyama discloses a manhole assembly comprising:
A manhole segment configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment (It is capable of being secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment by tying, welding, gluing, etc.), wherein the manhole segment (Left 9, Right 9; Figure 10), comprises:
A first edge (Edge of Right 9) comprising a plurality of dowel pins (11);
A second edge (Edge of Left 9) comprising a plurality of dowel holes (Left 34);
A curved wall (Curved walls of 9) extending between the first edge and the second edge.
However, Kamiyama is silent about a plurality of clip bosses extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge. Del Zotto discloses a plurality of clip bosses (78) along a first edge (44) and a second edge (46) usable in manhole assemblies (Column 3, Lines 32-36: “The assembly 2 is used to form holes or contoured apertures in the walls of poured concrete structures, such as septic tanks, junction boxes, manholes and a variety of other pre-cast or poured-in-place structures”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of clip bosses extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge. The motivation would have been to further secure the segments together
As to Claim 2, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein an inner surface of the curved wall comprises a plurality of vertical reinforcements (Kamiyama: 9c) and a plurality of horizontal reinforcements (Kamiyama: 9b).
As to Claim 3, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the manhole assembly further comprises a gasket (Kamiyama – Paragraph 0094: “By coating the interfitted part with a sealing material (not shown) beforehand, the watertightness of the coupled parts can be enhanced more”) between each of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments.
As to Claim 4, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the plurality of clip bosses (Del Zotto: 78) extend parallel to an outer surface of the curved wall.
As to Claim 5, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the plurality of interconnected longitudinal manhole segments comprises three longitudinal manhole segments (Kamiyama: Figure 10).
As to Claim 6, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the plurality of clip bosses (Del Zotto: 78) of a first of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments are aligned with the plurality of clip bosses (Del Zotto: 78) of a second of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments (Kamiyama – Paragraph 0102: “For the coupling of the upper and lower segments 100 in the pipe longitudinal direction, there is a method that aligns each end plate of each segment, and there is also a method that offsets each end plate of each segment”; Figure 12).
As to Claim 7, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 6 (Refer to Claim 6 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the plurality of clip bosses (Del Zotto: 78) of the first of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments are connected with the plurality of clip bosses (Del Zotto: 78) of the second of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments using at least one clip (Del Zotto: 78).
As to Claim 8, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 9 (Refer to Claim 9 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the at least one clip (Del Zotto: 78) comprises notches (Del Zotto: 80, 81) configured to engage with the plurality of clip bosses of the first of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments and the plurality of clip bosses of the second of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments.
As to Claim 9, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Although Kamiyama as modified is silent about wherein a diameter of the manhole assembly is 48 inches, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the diameter of 48 inches since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0008729) in view of Hofmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0153640).
As to Claim 10, Kamiyama discloses a manhole assembly comprising:
A manhole segment configured to be secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment (It is capable of being secured to at least one second, identical manhole segment by tying, welding, gluing, etc.), wherein the manhole segment (Left 9, Right 9; Figure 10), comprises:
A first edge (Edge of Right 9) comprising a plurality of dowel pins (11);
A second edge (Edge of Left 9) comprising a plurality of dowel holes (Left 34);
A curved wall (Curved walls of 9) extending between the first edge and the second edge.
However, Kamiyama is silent about a plurality of hinges extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge. Hofmann discloses a manhole assembly with a plurality of hinges (13) extending periodically along a first edge and a second edge (“Along” is being interpreted as “in a line matching the length or direction of”. The hinges are in a line matching the direction of the edges -i.e. parallel-) usable in manhole assemblies (Paragraph 0032: “For example, a pipe with a large cross section can be put through smaller openings, for example manholes, in pieces and only then assembled”). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of hinges extending periodically along the first edge and the second edge. The motivation would have been to further secure and articulate the segments together.
As to Claim 11, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the manhole assembly further comprises a gasket (Kamiyama – Paragraph 0094: “By coating the interfitted part with a sealing material (not shown) beforehand, the watertightness of the coupled parts can be enhanced more”) between each of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments.
As to Claim 12, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein an inner surface of the curved wall comprises a plurality of vertical reinforcements (Kamiyama: 9c) and a plurality of horizontal reinforcements (Kamiyama: 9b).
As to Claim 13, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the plurality of interconnected longitudinal manhole segments comprises three longitudinal manhole segments (Kamiyama: Figure 10).
As to Claim 14, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the plurality of hinges (Hofmann: 13) of a first of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments are aligned with the plurality of hinges of a second of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments (Kamiyama – Paragraph 0102: “For the coupling of the upper and lower segments 100 in the pipe longitudinal direction, there is a method that aligns each end plate of each segment, and there is also a method that offsets each end plate of each segment”; Figure 12).
As to Claim 17, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Although Kamiyama as modified is silent about wherein a diameter of the manhole assembly is 48 inches, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the diameter of 48 inches since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 18, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the plurality of hinges comprise a plurality of living hinges (Hofmann: 13).
As to Claim 19, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the living hinges (Hofmann: 13) are integral to the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments.
As to Claim 20, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein a plurality of hinge pins (Hofmann: 18) are installed adjacent to the living hinges (Hofmann: 13).
Claims 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0008729) in view of Hofmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0153640); and further in view of Khodosh et al (U.S. Patent No. 3,749,352).
As to Claim 15, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the plurality of hinges (Hofmann: 13) of the first of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments are connected with the plurality of hinges of the second of the plurality of longitudinal manhole segments. However, Kamiyama as modified is silent about using at least one hinge pin. Khodosh discloses the use of hinge pins (Hinge pins between 7 and 9) between two segments (7, 9). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to make the hinge with hinge pins since the substitution of one known connector for another would have yielded the predictable result of connecting the elements together via pivoting.
As to Claim 16, Kamiyama as modified teaches the invention of Claim 15 (Refer to Claim 15 discussion). Kamiyama as modified also teaches wherein the at least one hinge pin (Khodosh: Hinge pins between 7 and 9) is placed through the connected plurality of hinges.
Conclusion
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 EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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, 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
