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
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
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 and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 5, “a seal” lacks antecedent basis in the claim as “a seal” is previously recited in claim 2 from which this claim depends.
In claim 11, “a sill attachment” lacks antecedent basis in the claim because “a sill attachment” is previously recited in claim 1 from which this claim depends.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 202015102591 (DE 591)
For claim 1, DE 591 discloses a drain valve (FIGS. 4-5) for a vehicle sill (“A”, FIG.6), the drain valve comprising:
a valve body (1), comprising a sill attachment (FIG.1);
a gate (2, 21), moveably attached to the valve body (gate moves between FIGS.4 and 5),
the gate moveable between a sealed position (FIG.4) and an open position (FIG.5),
the gate further comprising a buoyancy pocket (12, as hollow chamber body 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
290
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 6, the sill attachment comprises one or more resilient legs (17).
For claim 7, the resilient legs comprise one or more ramped surfaces arranged to either
urge the valve body towards the sill or allow the resilient legs to return to an at rest position.
For claim 8, the gate moves from the sealed position to the open position due to the action of gravity upon the gate (FIGS. 4 and 5 show the two operating states; the sealing closure element allows dirty water or liquid oil through the passage opening (13) in the hollow chamber body (12) of the main body (1) via gravity and relies on the buoyant force upwards to clog the one-way drain so that protection against ingress of the dirty water and the liquid oil is ensured. In this fashion water, liquid oil, etc. present inside the body can exit via the one-way stopper opening (31) as the clamped one-way locking element (2) is “pushed away under the action of the weight of water and liquid oil” as shown in arrowed direction, and the water or liquid oil penetrates into the hollow chamber body (12) and the water or liquid oil flows through between the clamping jaws (22); this mechanism allows foreign bodies through the passage opening (13) so that “protection of the metal sheet is achieved from corrosion”).
For claim 9, the gate is configured to move from the open position to the sealed position due to air trapped in buoyancy pocket (12).
For claim 10, the gate is trapped by the valve body.
For claim 11, the gate is attached to the body (at 15) by the sill attachment (“A” in FIG.6) comprising an eyelet and a stalk (FIGS.2-3).
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 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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 591 as applied above to claim 1 in view of Huebner et al. (10323748).
DE 591 fails to include the valve body (1) further comprises a seal arranged adjacent the sill attachment (claim 2), the seal being a hot melt glue (claim 3).
Huebner et al. teach a drain plug having a body with a seal of hot-melt adhesive (24) adjacent to an opening in a body part (48; FIG. 6). As seen in FIG.6, the body forms a recess into which the holt-melt adhesive is positioned such that the seal stands proud of an end of the body.
PNG
media_image3.png
387
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided within the recess of the periphery of the valve body of DE 591 with a hot-melt seal as taught by Huebner et al. (FIG.6) in order to seal the drain valve to the sill attachment.
For claim 4, DE 591, as modified, provides the seal is attached to the valve body.
PNG
media_image4.png
184
327
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For claim 5, DE 591, as modified, provides a recess on the sill attachment (FIG.1) arranged to receive the seal, and optionally wherein when the seal is located within the recess.
DE 591, as modified, provides the seal arranged to stand proud of an end of the valve body (just as the seal within the recess of Huebner et al. stands proud of the end of the body in FIG.6, so too would the seal of DE 591, as modified, stand proud of the end when secured to the sill attachment).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights