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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 in line 1 recites “for drain pipes comprising:” and should be “for drain pipes, the joint device comprising:” to avoid any ambiguity of what comprises the body the of claim.
Claim 16 in lines 1-2 recites “a drain assembly comprising:” and should be “a drain assembly, the method comprising:”.
Claim 17 recites “the interconnection” and should be “the sealing interconnection” to be consistent with claim 16.
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 3-4 and 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 3 recites “the inner surface of the upper portion of the structural tube” which lacks antecedent basis and unclear if claims 1 or 3 intended to initially introduce an inner surface of the upper portion of the structural tube. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “ an inner surface of the upper portion of the structural tube” such that it is introduced in claim 3.
Claim 3 recites “the inner surface of the bottom portion of the structural tube” lacks antecedent basis and unclear for similar reasons above for claim 3. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “ an inner surface of the bottom portion of the structural tube”.
Claim 18 recites “prior to formatting the permanent sealed joint” which “formatting” lacks antecedent basis and unclear if this is the same or different from “forming a permanent sealed joint” of claim 16. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “prior to forming the permanent sealed joint” to be consistent with claim 16.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claim 4 is rejected under 112th second paragraph.
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 (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 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 1-7, 9-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcleod (CA 2813010 A1) in view of Carwile (US 6,519,784).
In regard to claim 1, Mcleod discloses a joint device for drain pipes (Fig. 1 shows a joint device and in [0008] discloses the invention relates to drainage and therefore, for drain pipes), the joint device comprising:
a structural tube (Fig. 3, structural tube at 14) and providing structural integrity to the joint device (Fig. 3, 14 provides at least structural integrity to the joint device), the structural tube defining at least part of a drain passage of the joint device (Fig. 3, 14 provides at least a part of a drain passage), a bottom portion of the structural tube having diametrical dimensions for complementary sealing engagement with a pipe of a drain network (Fig. 3, 14 has a bottom portion which has diametrical dimensions for complementary sealing engagement with a pipe at 16 and/or 17 which pipes 16 and 17 are part of a drain network); and
an annular seal of resilient sealing material (Fig. 3, seal 15 is of resilient sealing material) integrally connected to an upper portion of the structural tube (Fig. 3, 15 is integrally connected to an upper portion of 14 as shown. It is noted that “integral” can be defined as “essential to completeness” as defined at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integral, which seal 15 is essential for completeness of the joint device.) to define at least an inner surface of a portion of the drain passage of the joint device (Fig. 3, 15 defines at least an inner surface of a portion of the drain passage), the annular seal having inner diametrical dimensions for sealing engagement with a tailpiece slid downwardly into engagement with the joint device (Figs. 1 and 3, 15 has inner diametrical dimensions which contact with a tailpiece 7 that is slid downwardly into engagement with the joint device).
Mcleod does not expressly disclose the structural tube is made of a rigid material.
In the related field of drain pipe connections, Carwile teaches a structural tube made of ABS plastic (Fig. 4, pipe 10 in 4:1-11 discloses pipe 10 can be made of ABS which is a rigid material).
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 material of the structural tube of Mcleod to be made of a rigid material such as ABS with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a reliable material approved by industry standards as taught by Carwile.
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 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 material of the structural tube of Mcleod to be made of a known material such as ABS for at least the advantages of impact resistance, strength, stiffness, versatility, and chemical resistance as disclosed at https://www.protolabs.com/materials/abs/.
In regard to claim 2, Mcleod and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, and Mcleod further discloses wherein the inner surface defined by the annular seal comprises annular ribs (Fig. 4 shows annular ribs at at least 19 and 20).
In regard to claim 3, Mcleod and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, and Mcleod further discloses wherein an inner surface of the upper portion of the structural tube has the annular seal (Fig. 3, inner surface of 14 has the seal 15), and an inner surface of the bottom portion of the structural tube is without the annular seal (Fig. 3, an inner surface of the bottom portion that receives 16 and 17 is without the annular seal 15).
In regard to claim 4, Mcleod and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 3, and Mcleod further discloses wherein an inner diameter of the drain passage is larger at said bottom portion than at said upper portion (See image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Mcleod and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, and Mcleod further discloses wherein the annular seal completely encapsulates the upper portion of the structural tube (See image below, the portion which the annular seal contacts can be interpreted as the upper portion, therefore, the annular seal completely encapsulates the upper portion of the structural tube 14 similar to applicant’s invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6, Mcleod and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, and Mcleod further discloses wherein the structural tube further comprises an inwardly projecting flange spaced apart from a bottom edge thereof (See image below, 14 has an inwardly projecting flange spaced apart from a bottom edge).
PNG
media_image3.png
394
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Mcleod and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, wherein the structural tube is made of drain standard polyvinyl chloride or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (See claim 1 above for the same reasons with regard to ABS).
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 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 material of the structural tube of Mcleod to be made of a known material such as drain standard pvc for at least the advantages of durability, lightweight, and chemical resistance as disclosed at https://oriplast.com/benefits-of-pvc-drain-pipes/.
In regard to claim 9, Mcleod and Carwile disclose an assembly comprising:
a joint device including a structural tube made of a rigid material () and providing structural integrity to the joint device, the structural tube defining at least part of a drain passage of the joint device, a bottom portion of the structural tube having diametrical dimensions for complementary sealing engagement with a pipe of a drain network and an annular seal of resilient sealing material integrally connected to an upper portion of the structural tube to define at least an inner surface of a portion of the drain passage of the joint device, the annular seal having inner diametrical dimensions for sealing engagement with a tailpiece slid downwardly into engagement with the joint device (See claim 1 above for the same reasons that also requires the features of “An assembly…with the joint device”), and
and Mcleod further discloses a tailpiece having an outer diameter sized for penetrating the drain passage (Figs. 1 and 3, tailpiece 7 which has an outer diameter sized for penetrating the drain passage as shown) and for sealing engagement with the annular seal when slid into engagement with the joint device (Figs. 1 and 3, tailpiece 7 sealing engages with the annular seal 15 when slid into engagement with the joint device as shown).
In regard to claim 10, Mcleod and Carwile disclose the assembly according to claim 9, and Mcleod further discloses further comprising a drain base (Fig. 1, drain base at 10) having a support portion for being attached to a periphery of a drain hole (Fig. 1, the part 11 defines a support portion attached to a peripheral of a drain hole defined by 10), a tube portion for receiving and supporting the joint device and blocking the joint device from moving downwardly (Fig. 1, tube portion 13 which receives at least the threads of 14 of the joint device and supports 14 by the threads and blocks 14 from moving downwardly by an outward flange of 13 that engages 11).
In regard to claim 15, Mcleod and Carwile disclose the assembly according to claim 9, and Mcleod further discloses wherein the inner surface defined by the annular seal of the joint device comprises annular ribs (See claim 2 above for the same reasons).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcleod (CA 2813010 A1) in view of Chris Deziel of the Cite No. 1 in the Non-Patent Literatures in the IDS filed on 02/18/2026 (Hereinafter “Deziel”).
In regard to claim 16, Mcleod discloses a method for installing a drain assembly (Fig. 1 shows a drain assembly), the method comprising:
a joint device (Fig. 3 shows a joint device) and a pipe network (Fig. 3, the pipe 17 of the joint device extends downwardly towards a pipe network not shown); and
completing a sealing interconnection between a tailpiece (Figs. 1 and 3, tailpiece 7 which has a sealing interconnection with seal 15) and the joint device by sliding the tailpiece through a drain hole into an open top end of a drain passage of the joint device (Figs. 1 and 3, 7 slides through a drain hole into an open top end of a drain passage of the joint device) to form a sealing engagement between an annular seal integral to the joint device and an outer diameter of the tailpiece (Figs. 1 and 3, sealing engagement between an outer diameter of 7 and an inner surface of seal 15, where 15 defines an annular seal integral to the joint device).
Mcleod does not expressly disclose forming a permanent sealed joint between the joint device and an upwardly-open pipe of the pipe network.
Applicant’s claimed “upwardly-open pipe” is shown in applicant’s drawings in Fig. 7 at 40 which the joint device 11 inserts into the upwardly-open pipe. However, such configuration of the pipe 40 in drainage systems is well-known as P-traps.
In the related field of drainage pipe systems, Deziel teaches P-traps are advantageous to keep toxic sewer gases from escaping back up the drain system and connecting a tube to the P-trap requires at least PVC cement to permanently glue the tube to the P-trap to form a seal (See pages 1-2).
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 method of Mcleod to include forming a permanent sealed joint between the joint device and an upwardly-open pipe of the pipe network with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of keeping toxic sewer gases from escaping back up the drain system as taught by Deziel.
In regard to claim 17, Mcleod and Deziel disclose the method according to claim 16, and Mcleod further discloses comprising securing a drain base at the drain hole prior to completing the sealing interconnection (Fig. 1, drain base at 10 is secured at the drain hole prior to completing the sealing interconnection of the tailpiece 7 to the annular seal 15).
In regard to claim 18, Mcleod and Deziel disclose the method according to claim 17, and Mcleod further discloses hanging the joint device from a tube portion (Fig. 1, the joint device is hung from a tube portion of 13 which 13 fixes the joint device through connection with 11) but does not expressly disclose further comprising hanging the joint device from the tube portion of the drain base prior to forming the permanent sealed joint.
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 order of assembly of Mcleod to try hanging the joint device from the tube portion of the drain base prior to forming the permanent sealed joint with a reasonable expectation of success because there are a finite number of solutions to hanging the joint device from the tube portion of the drain base and forming the permanent sealed joint which there is only two. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). In this case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have tried hanging the joint device from the tube portion of the drain base prior to forming the permanent sealed joint in order to have at least the advantage of ease of assembling the parts at the joint device first prior to adding a P-trap at a bottom portion.
In regard to claim 19, Mcleod and Deziel disclose the method according to claim 16, and Mcleod further discloses further comprising securing a cover around the drain hole to hold the tailpiece captive in the sealing engagement (Fig. 1, the part 11 defines at least a cover around the drain hole which at least indirectly holds the tailpiece 7 captive in the sealing engagement with 15).
In regard to claim 20, Mcleod and Deziel disclose the method according to claim 16, wherein forming the permanent sealed joint comprises fitting a structural tube of the joint device into the upwardly-open pipe (Fig. 1 of Mcleod, tube 17 defines at least a structural tube which extends towards a bottom/lower area and Mcleod in view of Deziel would reasonably suggest 17 inserts into the upwardly-open pipe of a P-trap. See claim 16 above for the same reasons to combine Mcleod and Deziel.).
Claims 1-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray (EP 0311296 A1) in view of Carwile (US 6,519,784).
In regard to claim 1, Gray discloses a joint device (Figs. 9-17 shows various joint devices) for drain pipes (Figs. 9-17, the joint devices shown can be used for drain pipes), the joint device comprising:
a structural tube (Figs. 9-17, the part 23 defines a structural tube) and providing structural integrity to the joint device (Figs. 9-17, 24 provides at least structural integrity to the joint device), the structural tube defining at least part of a drain passage of the joint device (Figs. 9-17, longitudinal bore of 23 defines a drain passage of the joint device), a bottom portion of the structural tube having diametrical dimensions for complementary sealing engagement with a pipe of a drain network (Figs. 13 and 14, portion at 25 which receives 21 defines a bottom portion having diametrical dimensions for complementary sealing engagement with a pipe 21 by groove at 25 and protrusion 26 which pipe 21 defines at least a pipe of a drain network); and
an annular seal of resilient sealing material (Figs. 13 and 14, annular seal 29 of resilient sealing material) integrally connected to an upper portion of the structural tube (Figs. 13 and 14, 29 is integrally connected to an upper portion of 23) to define at least an inner surface of a portion of the drain passage of the joint device (Figs. 13 and 14, 29 defines at least an inner surface of a portion of the drain passage), the annular seal having inner diametrical dimensions for sealing engagement with a tailpiece slid downwardly into engagement with the joint device (Figs. 13 and 14, inner diametrical dimensions at 33 for sealing engagement with a tailpiece 20 shown in Fig. 3 which 20 slides downwardly into engagement with the joint device).
It is noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647. See MPEP § 2114. In this case, the recitation “for drain pipes” is a recitation of intended use of the joint device which does not structurally differentiate the claimed joint device to the joint device of Gray. This also applies to “a drain network”.
In the related field of pipe connections, Carwile teaches a structural tube made of ABS plastic (Fig. 4, pipe 10 in 4:1-11 discloses pipe 10 can be made of ABS which is a rigid material).
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 material of the structural tube of Gray to be made of a rigid material such as ABS with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a reliable material approved by industry standards as taught by Carwile.
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 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 material of the structural tube of Gray to be made of a known material such as ABS for at least the advantages of impact resistance, strength, stiffness, versatility, and chemical resistance as disclosed at https://www.protolabs.com/materials/abs/.
In regard to claim 2, Gray and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, and Gray further discloses wherein the inner surface defined by the annular seal comprises annular ribs (Figs. 13 and 14, ribs 33).
In regard to claim 3, Gray and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, and Gray further discloses wherein an inner surface of the upper portion of the structural tube has the annular seal (Figs. 13 and 14, an inner surface of the upper portion of 23 has the annular seal 29), and an inner surface of the bottom portion of the structural tube is without the annular seal (Figs. 13 and 14, an inner surface of the bottom portion of 23 is without the annular seal).
In regard to claim 4, Gray and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 3, and Gray further discloses wherein an inner diameter of the drain passage is larger at said bottom portion than at said upper portion (In view of the embodiment of Fig. 15, a bottom portion at 25 has an inner diameter larger than an inner diameter of 36 of an upper portion at 36).
In regard to claim 5, Gray and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, and Gray further discloses wherein the annular seal completely encapsulates the upper portion of the structural tube (Figs. 13 and 14, axial surface of 36 that contacts 29 defines the upper portion which is encapsulated completely by 29).
In regard to claim 6, Gray and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, and Gray further discloses wherein the structural tube further comprises an inwardly projecting flange spaced apart from a bottom edge thereof (In view of the embodiment shown in Fig. 11, the structural tube 23 has an inwardly projecting flange 25 which is spaced apart from a bottom edge at the open end facing 21).
In regard to claim 7, Gray and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, wherein the structural tube is made of drain standard polyvinyl chloride or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (See claim 1 above for the same reasons with regard to ABS).
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 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 material of the structural tube of Gray to be made of a known material such as drain standard pvc for at least the advantages of durability, lightweight, and chemical resistance as disclosed at https://oriplast.com/benefits-of-pvc-drain-pipes/.
In regard to claim 8, Gray and Carwile disclose the joint device according to claim 1, and Gray further discloses wherein the annular seal is overmolded onto the structural tube (In [0014] discloses co-molding the annular seal 29 with 23).
In regard to claim 9, Gray and Carwile disclose an assembly comprising:
a joint device including a structural tube made of a rigid material and providing structural integrity to the joint device, the structural tube defining at least part of a drain passage of the joint device, a bottom portion of the structural tube having diametrical dimensions for complementary sealing engagement with a pipe of a drain network and an annular seal of resilient sealing material integrally connected to an upper portion of the structural tube to define at least an inner surface of a portion of the drain passage of the joint device, the annular seal having inner diametrical dimensions for sealing engagement with a tailpiece slid downwardly into engagement with the joint device (See claim 1 above for the same reasons that requires “An assembly…the joint device”), and
Gray further discloses a tailpiece having an outer diameter sized for penetrating the drain passage (Fig. 3 shows a tailpiece 20 has an outer diameter sized for penetrating the drain passage defined by 23) and for sealing engagement with the annular seal when slid into engagement with the joint device (Figs. 13 and 14, 20 is for sealing engagement with the annular seal 29).
In regard to claim 14, Gray and Carwile disclose the assembly according to claim 9, and Gray further discloses wherein the annular seal of the joint device is overmolded onto the structural tube (See claim 8 above for the same the reasons).
In regard to claim 15, Gray and Carwile disclose the assembly according to claim 9, and Gray further discloses wherein the inner surface defined by the annular seal of the joint device comprises annular ribs (See claim 2 above for the same reasons).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
In regard to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses a joint device for drain pipes, the joint device comprising:
a structural tube made of a rigid material and providing structural integrity to the joint device, the structural tube defining at least part of a drain passage of the joint device, a bottom portion of the structural tube having diametrical dimensions for complementary sealing engagement with a pipe of a drain network; and
an annular seal of resilient sealing material integrally connected to an upper portion of the structural tube to define at least an inner surface of a portion of the drain passage of the joint device, the annular seal having inner diametrical dimensions for sealing engagement with a tailpiece slid downwardly into engagement with the joint device (See claim 1 that requires all these features).
In regard to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the joint device according to claim 1, wherein the inner surface defined by the annular seal comprises annular ribs (See claim 2 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the joint device according to claim 1, wherein an inner surface of the upper portion of the structural tube has the annular seal, and an inner surface of the bottom portion of the structural tube is without the annular seal (See claim 3 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the joint device according to claim 3, wherein an inner diameter of the drain passage is larger at said bottom portion than at said upper portion (See claim 4 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the joint device according to claim 1, wherein the annular seal completely encapsulates the upper portion of the structural tube (See claim 5 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the joint device according to claim 1, wherein the structural tube further comprises an inwardly projecting flange spaced apart from a bottom edge thereof (See claim 6 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the joint device according to claim 1, wherein the structural tube is made of drain standard polyvinyl chloride or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (See claim 7 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the joint device according to claim 1, wherein the annular seal is overmolded onto the structural tube (See claim 8 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses an assembly comprising:
a joint device including a structural tube made of a rigid material and providing structural integrity to the joint device, the structural tube defining at least part of a drain passage of the joint device, a bottom portion of the structural tube having diametrical dimensions for complementary sealing engagement with a pipe of a drain network and an annular seal of resilient sealing material integrally connected to an upper portion of the structural tube to define at least an inner surface of a portion of the drain passage of the joint device, the annular seal having inner diametrical dimensions for sealing engagement with a tailpiece slid downwardly into engagement with the joint device, and
a tailpiece having an outer diameter sized for penetrating the drain passage and for sealing engagement with the annular seal when slid into engagement with the joint device (See claim 11 that requires all these features).
In regard to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the assembly according to claim 9, further comprising a drain base having a support portion for being attached to a periphery of a drain hole, a tube portion for receiving and supporting the joint device and blocking the joint device from moving downwardly (See claim 12 that requires all these features).
In regard to claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the assembly according to claim 10, wherein the tube portion has an inwardly projecting flange for supporting the joint device (See claim 13 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the assembly according to claim 10, further comprising a cover secured to the drain base, the cover abutting against the joint device to block the joint device from moving upwardly (See claim 14 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the assembly according to claim 12, wherein the cover is funnel-shaped, whereas the tube portion has a countersink (See claim 15 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the assembly according to claim 9, wherein the annular seal of the joint device is overmolded onto the structural tube (See claim 16 that require all these features).
In regard to claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses the assembly according to claim 9, wherein the inner surface defined by the annular seal of the joint device comprises annular ribs (See claim 17 that require all these features).
Claims 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 in view of Chris Deziel of the Cite No. 1 in the Non-Patent Literatures in the IDS filed on 02/18/2026 (Hereinafter “Deziel”).
In regard to claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 discloses a method for installing a drain assembly, the method comprising:
a joint device (Claims 1 and 11 disclose “a joint device”); and
completing a sealing interconnection between a tailpiece and the joint device by sliding the tailpiece through a drain hole into an open top end of a drain passage of the joint device to form a sealing engagement between an annular seal integral to the joint device and an outer diameter of the tailpiece (Claims 1 and 11 discloses “a sealing interconnection between a tailpiece…an annular seal integral to the joint device and an outer diameter of the tailpiece” by requiring the sealing interconnection between a tailpiece and an annular seal).
U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 does not expressly disclose forming a permanent sealed joint between the joint device and an upwardly-open pipe of a pipe network.
Deziel teaches forming a permanent sealed joint between the joint device and an upwardly-open pipe of a pipe network. See the same reasons above with regard to Mcleod in view of Deziel. Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 in view of Deziel discloses forming a permanent sealed joint between the joint device and an upwardly-open pipe of a pipe network.
In regard to claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 and Deziel disclose the method according to claim 16, and U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 further discloses comprising securing a drain base at the drain hole prior to completing the sealing interconnection (Claim 12 discloses a drain base at a drain hole and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to secure the drain base at the drain hole prior to completing the sealing interconnection).
In regard to claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 and Deziel disclose the method according to claim 17, and U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 further discloses further comprising hanging the joint device from a tube portion of the drain base prior to forming the permanent sealed joint (Claim 12 discloses a tube portion preventing the joint device from moving downwardly which is another form of hanging the joint device and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to hang the joint device from the tube portion of the drain base prior to forming the permanent sealed joint).
In regard to claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 and Deziel disclose the method according to claim 16, and U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 further discloses further comprising securing a cover around the drain hole to hold the tailpiece captive in the sealing engagement (Claim 14 discloses a cover secured to the drain base which at least holds the tailpiece captive in the sealing engagement).
In regard to claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 and Deziel disclose the method according to claim 16, wherein forming the permanent sealed joint comprises fitting a structural tube of the joint device into the upwardly-open pipe (Claims 1 and 11 discloses a structural tube and see claim 16 above for the same reasons to combine U.S. Patent No. 12,110,671 and Deziel to disclose joining the structural tube to the upwardly-open pipe).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Crowell (US 1,793,681) shows connecting an upwardly-open tube connected to a tube of a joint device similar to applicant’s invention.
Harrell (US 3,311,391) discloses a joint device for a drain system similar to applicant’s invention.
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
Prosecution Insights