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 .
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 3, 9, 10, and 19 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.
Regarding claim 3: It is unclear what is being claimed besides the tubular body being substantially rigid longitudinally. Is the recitation after the rigidity limitation intended to be functional in nature or a method step within an apparatus claim? Additionally, it is unclear how the rigidity has any effect on the installation of the pipe into a trench.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 19: It is unclear what “a three inch PVC” and a” four inch PVC” refer to. It is assumed it means a PVC pipe or opening and will be examined accordingly.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US PGPub No 2002/0172557).
Referring to claim 1: Chen teaches a drainage pipe for peripheral drainage of crawl spaces or basements, the drainage pipe comprising: a rigid tubular body (item 1) having opposing ends and an inner and outer surfaces, the rigid tubular body extending along a longitudinal center axis connecting the opposing ends and being substantially rigid longitudinally; a plurality of protrusions (item 13) projecting from the rigid tubular body, wherein the plurality of protrusions are spaced apart so as to form respective grooves between adjacent protrusions; at least one penetration (item 2) through the rigid tubular body between the inner and outer surfaces, wherein the at least one penetration penetrates the rigid tubular body in the grooves; and a sleeve (item 6) disposed so as to wrap around at least a portion of the rigid tubular body, wherein the plurality of protrusions form a standoff between the at least one penetration and the sleeve defining a flow channel to the at least one penetration.
Referring to claim 4: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Chen teaches wherein at least one of the opposing ends of the drainage pipe is configured to couple to another drainage pipe so that the drainage pipe is installed in serial segments (paragraph 0025).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Referring to claim 2: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Chen does not specifically teach wherein the sleeve is a filter. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the sleeve of Chen would act as a filter under broadest reasonable interpretation because it would filter some material from entering the pipe.
Referring to claim 3: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Chen does not specifically teach wherein the rigid tubular body is substantially rigid longitudinally so that longitudinal imparted manipulation of at least one of the opposing ends at least one of pushes and rotates the drainage pipe into position and is sufficient alone to effect install of the drainage pipe into a trench. However, Chen discloses connecting adjoining pipe sections and installing in a trench (paragraph 0025) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as the device being capable of functioning as in the instant claim.
Referring to claim 5: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Chen does not specifically teach wherein the standoff between the at least one penetration and the sleeve is configured such that the sleeve is offset from the at least one penetration. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that a sleeve installed over the pipe with standoffs would offset the sleeve from any penetrations.
Referring to claim 6: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Chen does not teach wherein the drainage pipe is made from one of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the pipe out of PVC or ABS, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) PVC and ABS are well known materials for drain pipes because of their strength and durability.
Referring to claims 7 and 8: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Chen does not teach wherein the sleeve is made from a geotextile material, or a polypropylene skin and filler. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose a geotextile material, or a polypropylene skin and filler, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) These materials are known for their ability to let water pass through but keep debris out.
Referring to claims 9, 10, and 11: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein at least one of the opposing ends of the drainage pipe is configured to couple to four inch PVC, a three inch PVC or a sump pump. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that through well known adapters one of the end would be capable of attaching to any sized pipe. Additionally, it is well known to attach drain pipes to sump pumps in order to evacuate subterranean water away from a structure or desired location.
Referring to claim 12: Chen teaches all the structural limitations of the instant claim as rejected in claim 1 above. Additionally, Chen teaches providing a body, protrusions on the body, penetrations through the body, and a sleeve disposed on the body. Chen does not teach and effecting flowing of liquid to the at least one penetration via a standoff between the at least one penetration and a sleeve disposed so as to wrap around at least a portion of the rigid tubular body defining a flow channel to the at least one penetration. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that providing the device of Chen would result in the method of evacuating liquid from a location when installed properly in particular by paragraph 0025.
Referring to claim 13: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Chen does not specifically teach wherein the sleeve is a filter. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the sleeve of Chen would act as a filter under broadest reasonable interpretation because it would filter some material from entering the pipe.
Referring to claim 14: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Chen does not specifically teach wherein the rigid tubular body is substantially rigid longitudinally so that longitudinal imparted manipulation of at least one of the opposing ends at least one of pushes and rotates the drainage pipe into position and is sufficient alone to effect install of the drainage pipe into a trench. However, Chen discloses connecting adjoining pipe sections and installing in a trench (paragraph 0025) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as the device being capable of functioning as in the instant claim.
Referring to claim 15: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Chen does not specifically teach wherein the standoff between the at least one penetration and the sleeve is configured such that the sleeve is offset from the at least one penetration. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that a sleeve installed over the pipe with standoffs would offset the sleeve from any penetrations.
Referring to claim 16: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Chen does not teach wherein the drainage pipe is made from one of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the pipe out of PVC or ABS, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) PVC and ABS are well known materials for drain pipes because of their strength and durability.
Referring to claims 17 and 18: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Chen does not teach wherein the sleeve is made from a geotextile material, or a polypropylene skin and filler. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose a geotextile material, or a polypropylene skin and filler, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) These materials are known for their ability to let water pass through but keep debris out.
Referring to claims 19 and 20: Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein at least one of the opposing ends of the drainage pipe is configured to couple to a three inch PVC or a sump pump. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that through well known adapters one of the end would be capable of attaching to any sized pipe. Additionally, it is well known to attach drain pipes to sump pumps in order to evacuate subterranean water away from a structure or desired location.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Janesky (US PGPub No 2008/0190045).
Referring to claim 21: Chen teaches an elongate water-conveying drainage conduit for peripheral drainage of crawl spaces, the elongate water-conveying drainage conduit comprising: an elongate tubular conduit section (item 1) having opposing ends and an inner and outer surfaces, the elongate tubular conduit section extending along a longitudinal center axis connecting the opposing ends and being substantially rigid longitudinally; a plurality of protrusions (item 13) projecting from the elongate tubular conduit section, wherein the plurality of protrusions are spaced apart so as to form respective grooves between adjacent protrusions; at least one penetration (item 2) through the elongate tubular conduit section between the inner and outer surfaces, wherein the at least one penetration penetrates the elongate tubular conduit section in the grooves; and a sleeve (item 6) disposed so as to wrap around at least a portion of the elongate tubular conduit section, wherein the plurality of protrusions form a standoff between the at least one penetration and the sleeve defining a flow channel to the at least one penetration. Chen does not teach a vertical wall portion extending from the outer surface, the vertical wall portion including spacers for engagement with a footer to space the vertical wall portion from the footer and provide therebetween a drainage space to admit water flowing down the footer and through the at least one penetration into the elongate tubular conduit section for drainage to a remote drain. However, Janesky teaches a vertical wall portion (item 120) extending from the outer surface, the vertical wall portion including spacers (item 165) for engagement with a footer to space the vertical wall portion from the footer and provide therebetween a drainage space to admit water flowing down the footer and through the at least one penetration into the elongate tubular conduit section for drainage to a remote drain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Chen with the elements taught by Janesky in order to anchor the pipe and keep from rotation as well as secure it with adequate space adjacent a foundation wall in order to allow water to drain into the pipe to be evacuated to a different location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
