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 .
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 valve peg must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: valve peg.
Please include shading for Figs. 8 and 9.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The valve peg does not have a reference number nor does there seem to be a reference number for the breakaway connection.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 includes the limitation “third biasing force.” There is insufficient description in the Specification as to where or how the force occurs. Clarification is required.
Claims 5–20 include the limitation “valve peg.” It is unclear what is meant by a valve peg.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleeson et al. (US PGPub 20210370114 A1) in view of King et al. (US PGPub 20060174940 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gleeson discloses an auxiliary drain system for a fire sprinkler system, the drain system comprising: a drain housing (102) including an input port (123) for obtaining water from a fire sprinkler system; a float (Para. 35, where the float is located within drain trap 140) within said drain housing (102), said float alternatively sealing and unsealing an exhaust port in said housing (102), as described in Paras. 30, 35 and 46 but does not disclose a temperature sensitive spring attached to said float
King teaches a temperature sensitive spring (24) attached to said float (15) in order to conserve water during freezing conditions (Para. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the float of Gleeson with a temperature sensitive spring as taught by King in order to prevent water waste and damage to the piping.
Per the Gleeson–King combination, King’s spring 24 is located such that it urges the float into the closed position as described in King Fig. 2.
The Gleeson–King combination teaches said temperature sensitive spring (King 24) providing a first biasing force (King Para. 17, where the first biasing force is exerted by spring 24) on said float (Gleeson Para. 35, where the float is located within drain trap 140) at a first temperature (King Para. 17, where the first temperature is the temperature that causes the spring 24 to actuate) and a second biasing force (Gleeson where the second biasing force is the buoyancy force on the float) on said flat at a second temperature (Gleeson where the second temperature is the base temperature); wherein said first biasing force (King Para. 17, where the first biasing force is exerted by spring 24) is greater than said second biasing force (Gleeson where the second biasing force is the buoyancy force on the float), as described in King Para. 17; wherein said first temperature (King Para. 17, where the first temperature is the temperature that causes the spring 24 to actuate) is higher than said second temperature (Gleeson where the second biasing force is the buoyancy force on the float), as described in King Para. 17; and wherein water within said drain housing (Gleeson 102) will act on said float (Gleeson Para. 35, where the float is located within drain trap 140) and against said temperature sensitive spring (King 24) to unseal said exhaust port.
Regarding Claim 2, Gleeson does not disclose a spring having a third biasing force less than said first biasing force and greater than said second biasing force.
King teaches a spring (16) having a third biasing force less than said first biasing force (Para. 17, where at a certain temperature the spring force of spring 24 overcomes the spring force of spring 16 as seen in Fig. 2) and greater than said second biasing force (Fig. 1 illustrates the biasing forces) in order to exert a counterbalance force to ensure that the valve is in the open position during startup (Para. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the float of Gleeson with a spring as taught by King in order to prevent damage to the piping.
Per the Gleeson–King combination, King’s spring 16 is located such that it urges the float into the open position as described in King Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the Gleeson–King combination teaches a first predetermined volume of water in said housing (Gleeson 102) will unseal said exhaust port at said first temperature (where this is an inherent condition when operating the Gleeson–King invention).
Regarding Claim 4, the Gleeson–King combination teaches a second predetermined volume of water, less than said first predetermined volume of water, will unseal said exhaust port at said second temperature (where this is an inherent condition when operating the Gleeson–King invention).
Regarding Claim 5, the Gleeson–King combination teaches an anti-flood valve (Gleeson 600), said anti flood valve comprising: a valve housing (Gleeson 602); a valve mechanism (Gleeson 610/620) within said housing (Gleeson 600), said valve mechanism comprising: a generally cylindrical plunger (Gleeson 610) including an internal channel a generally cylindrical plunger (Gleeson 610) including an internal channel (Gleeson Fig. 8, where the internal channel is created within 603), said internal channel generally shaped as a conical frustum (Gleeson Fig. 10) with a generally cylindrical component at the top thereof extended through an upper surface of said plunger (Gleeson 610); a valve peg (Gleeson 635) having a generally cylindrical portion with a diameter smaller than a diameter of said upper surface of said plunger (Gleeson 610) with a generally conical frustum portion thereon; a biasing spring holding (Gleeson 620) said plunger (Gleeson 610) in an upper position (Gleeson Fig. 8) with an outer surface of said frustum portion of said valve peg (Gleeson 635) spaced from an inner surface of said internal channel (Gleeson Fig. 8, where the internal channel is created within 603).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the Gleeson–King combination teaches said anti-flood valve (Gleeson 600) is connected to said fire sprinkler system upstream of said drain housing (Gleeson 102), as discussed in Gleeson Para. 32.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, the Gleeson–King combination teaches said anti-flood valve (Gleeson 600) is connected to said drain housing (Gleeson 102) via a breakaway connector.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, the Gleeson–King combination teaches water on said upper surface will flow through said internal channel and over said frustum portion of said valve peg (Gleeson Para. 54).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, the Gleeson–King combination teaches said valve peg includes a through channel in said cylindrical portion and a window (Gleeson 633) through a side wall of said cylindrical portion for accessing said through channel (Gleeson Figs. 7C and 8); wherein water flowing over said frustum portion of said valve peg flows through said window, into said through channel, and into said input port of said drain housing (Gleeson Paras. 54 and 58).
Regarding Claim 10, the Gleeson–King combination teaches said upper surface of said plunger (Gleeson 610) is generally planar (Gleeson Figs. 8 and 9).
Regarding Claim 11, the Gleeson–King combination teaches said valve peg includes an O-ring (Gleeson Fig. 8, where 614 is an O–ring and a similar structure is located on element 637 which is the valve peg O–ring) on the outer surface thereof.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, the Gleeson–King combination teaches an amount of water above a predetermined volume on said upper surface will overcome said holding of said biasing spring and depress said internal channel into contact with at least a part of said valve peg (where this is an inherent condition when operating the Gleeson–King invention).
Regarding Claims 13 and 20, the Gleeson–King combination teaches said contact closes said internal channel (where this is an inherent condition when operating the Gleeson–King invention).
Regarding Claim(s) 14 the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1 and 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kolze (USPN 4541448 ) discloses a freeze protection valve. Lebkuchner et al. (USPN 5988201) discloses a float valve. Giroux et al. (USPN 5909771) and Eddison et al. (USPN 8069926 B2) disclose a valve with windows.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights