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 1-20 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.
In regard to claims 1 and 8, it is unclear as to the exact scope of the claim. The
preambles of the claims are drawn to a coupler. However, the claims also recite that the first coupling portion “receives” a conduit and the second coupling “receives” a conduit. Therefore, it is unclear if the claims are drawn only to the coupler or the coupler in combination with the conduits. Clarification is needed.
Additionally, it is unclear how the second coupling portion “receives only a threaded end of a threaded conduit of a second size and an unthreaded end of an unthreaded conduit of the second size”. It is suggested changing “and” to “or” to clarify that second coupling portion only receives either the threaded conduit or the unthreaded conduit at one time.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear as to the exact scope of the claim. The preamble of
claim 14 is drawn to the coupler. However, line 15 of the claim recites that the coupler “receives” a conduit. Therefore it is unclear if the claim is drawn to only the coupler or the coupler in combination with the conduit. Clarification is needed.
Additionally, it is unclear how the female coupling portion “receives only a threaded end of a threaded conduit of a first size and an unthreaded end of an unthreaded conduit of the first size”. It is suggested changing “and” to “or” to clarify that female coupling portion only receives either the threaded conduit or the unthreaded conduit at one time.
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.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith 9,705,295.
In regard to claim 14, Smith discloses (fig. 8) an electrical conduit coupler, comprising;
a body 22 having:
a male coupling portion 26;
a female coupling portion 24;
a stop portion 48 positioned between the male coupling portion and the female coupling portion;
and
a longitudinal bore extending from the male coupling portion through the stop portion to the female coupling portion;
wherein the male coupling portion comprises an exteriorly threaded nipple 44 that extends from an end wall of the stop portion 48, wherein the longitudinal bore within the stop portion 48 has a diameter that is equal to a diameter of the longitudinal bore within the male coupling portion and smaller than a diameter of the longitudinal bore within the female coupling portion 24 (see fig. 8),
wherein the diameter of the longitudinal bore within the female coupling portion 24 receives an unthreaded end of an unthreaded conduit 28 such that there is a tight fit between the longitudinal bore within the female coupling portion and the unthreaded end of the unthreaded conduit of the first size of a first size (see fig. 10, where there is no space between the exterior of 28 and the interior of 20), and
wherein the diameter of longitudinal bore within the stop portion provides a wire passage from the threaded conduit or the unthreaded conduit.
In regard to claim 15, wherein the female coupling portion of the body includes at least one aperture 30, and at least one fastener 32 within the at least one aperture used to releasably secure the threaded conduit or the unthreaded conduit 28 to the body.
In regard to claim 16, the female coupling portion of the body includes a plurality of spaced apart apertures 30 and a plurality of fasteners 32 for securing the conduit 28.
In regard to claim 17, the male coupling portion 26 is configured to receive a threaded end of another threaded conduit.
In regard to claim 18, wherein the diameter of the longitudinal bore 26 within the male coupling portion is substantially equal to an inside diameter of the threaded end of the threaded conduit or the unthreaded end of the unthreaded conduit 28.
In regard to claim 19, wherein the longitudinal bore within the female coupling portion 24 has a smooth wall (see fig. 8).
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 1, 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp 5,654,526 in view of Hooley 1,737,242.
In regard to claim 1, Sharp discloses an electrical conduit coupler 10, comprising;
a body (20) having;
a first coupling portion 12;
a second coupling portion 14;
a stop portion 26 positioned between the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion, and
a longitudinal bore extending from the first coupling portion through the stop portion to the second coupling portion;
wherein the longitudinal bore within the first coupling portion 12 has a diameter that is larger than a diameter of the longitudinal bore within the stop portion 26;
wherein the longitudinal bore within the first coupling portion has a threaded bore that receives only a threaded end of a first threaded conduit 16’ of a first size such that there is a tight fit between the threaded bore 12 and the threaded end of the first threaded electrical conduit 16’ of the first size,
wherein the diameter of the longitudinal bore within the second coupling portion 14 receives only a threaded end of a second threaded conduit 16’ of a second size such that there is a tight fit between the longitudinal bore within the second coupling portion and the unthreaded end of the threaded conduit of the second size, and
wherein the diameter of the longitudinal bore within the stop portion 26 provides a wire passage between the first conduit 16’ and the second conduit 16’.
Sharp discloses an electrical conduit coupler as described above for joining two conduits, but does not disclose the bore of the first portion as being smaller than a bore of the second coupling portion.
Hooley teaches that providing similar types of couplers 12 with first and second ends (see fig. 1) with the same bore diameter, in order to join conduit (a) of the same diameter, or coupler ends 12 with different diameters, for joining conduit (a) of different diameters (see fig. 4), is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coupler of Sharp to include coupling ends with different diameters because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
In regard to claims 4, wherein the stop portion 26 comprises a ring integrally or monolithically formed into the body 20.
In regard to claim 5, the length of the second coupling portion 14 is equal to a length of the first coupling portion 12.
In regard to claim 7, wherein the first coupling portion 12 comprises a female coupling and the second coupling portion 14 comprises a female coupling portion.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrame 2008/0238091 in view of Hooley 1,737,242.
In regard to claim 1, Vrame discloses an electrical conduit coupler 10, comprising;
a body 16 having;
a first coupling portion 14;
a second coupling portion 12;
a stop portion 17 positioned between the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion, and
a longitudinal bore extending from the first coupling portion through the stop portion to the second coupling portion;
wherein the longitudinal bore within the first coupling portion 14 has a diameter that is larger than a diameter of the longitudinal bore within the stop portion 17;
wherein the longitudinal bore within the first coupling portion has a threaded bore 20 that receives only a threaded end of a first threaded conduit of a first size such that there is a tight fit between the threaded bore 20 and the threaded end of the first threaded electrical conduit of the first size (see paragraph 20),
wherein the diameter of the longitudinal bore within the second coupling portion 12 receives only an unthreaded end of a second threaded conduit E of a second size such that there is a tight fit between the longitudinal bore within the second coupling portion 12 and the unthreaded end of the unthreaded conduit of the second size, and
wherein the diameter of the longitudinal bore within the stop portion 17 provides a wire passage between the first conduit and the second conduit.
Vrame discloses an electrical conduit coupler as described above for joining two conduits, but does not disclose the bore of the first portion as being smaller than a bore of the second coupling portion.
Hooley teaches that providing similar types of couplers 12 with first and second ends (see fig. 1) with the same bore diameter, in order to join conduit (a) of the same diameter, or coupler ends 12 with different diameters, for joining conduit (a) of different diameters (see fig. 4), is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coupler of Vrame to include coupling ends with different diameters because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
In regard to claim 2, the second coupling portion 12 includes at least one aperture (hole for 18), and at least one fastener 18 within the at least one aperture used to releasably secure the second unthreaded conduit E to the body 16.
In regard to claim 3, wherein the second coupling portion 12 of the body includes a plurality of spaced apart apertures (holes for 18) and a plurality of fasteners 18 (see paragraph 17, where it states that there can be multiple fasteners 18 spread around the coupling portion 12 and set 180 degrees apart),
wherein one of the plurality of fasteners 18 is within one of the plurality of apertures, and
wherein the plurality of fasteners 18 are used to releasably secure the second unthreaded conduit E to the body.
In regard to claim 5, the length of the second coupling portion 12 is equal to a length of the first coupling portion 14.
In regard to claim 6, wherein the longitudinal bore within the second coupling portion 12 has a smooth wall.
In regard to claim 7, wherein the first coupling portion 14 comprises a female coupling and the second coupling portion 12 comprises a female coupling portion.
Claims 8-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrame 2008/0238091 in view of Hooley 1,737,242 and further in view of Smith 7,563,100.
In regard to claim 8, Vrame discloses an electrical conduit coupler 10, comprising;
a body 16 having;
a first coupling portion 14;
a second coupling portion 12;
a stop portion 17 positioned between the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion, and
a longitudinal bore extending from the first coupling portion through the stop portion to the second coupling portion;
wherein the longitudinal bore within the first coupling portion 14 has a diameter that is larger than a diameter of the longitudinal bore within the stop portion 17;
wherein the longitudinal bore within the first coupling portion has a threaded bore 20 that receives only a threaded end of a first threaded conduit of a first size such that there is a tight fit between the threaded bore 20 and the threaded end of the first threaded electrical conduit of the first size (see paragraph 20),
wherein the diameter of the longitudinal bore within the second coupling portion 12 receives only an unthreaded end of a second threaded conduit E of a second size such that there is a tight fit between the longitudinal bore within the second coupling portion 12 and the unthreaded end of the unthreaded conduit of the second size, and
wherein the diameter of the longitudinal bore within the stop portion 17 provides a wire passage between the first conduit and the second conduit, and
wherein the second coupling portion 12 includes at least one stop mounting aperture (hole for 18), and at least one stop member 18 movable between an engaging position and a non-engaging position.
Vrame discloses an electrical conduit coupler as described above for joining two conduits, but does not disclose the bore of the first portion as being smaller than a bore of the second coupling portion.
Hooley teaches that providing similar types of couplers 12 with first and second ends (see fig. 1) with the same bore diameter, in order to join conduit (a) of the same diameter, or coupler ends 12 with different diameters, for joining conduit (a) of different diameters (see fig. 4), is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coupler of Vrame to include coupling ends with different diameters because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Vrame does discloses first and second coupling portions with a length, for slidingly receiving the ends of adjacent conduit, but does not disclose the second coupling portion as being at least twice the length of the first coupling portion.
Smith teaches that providing a similar type of coupling 11 that slidingly receives adjacent ends of conduit 14, 15 with one end 11A that is twice as large as the other 11B, in order to allow for expansion and contraction of the coupling, is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the coupling portion length of one end of the coupler of Vrame, in order to allow for additional sliding of a conduit relative to the coupler, as taught by Smith.
In regard to claim 9, the second coupling portion 12 includes at least one aperture (hole for another hole 18), and at least one fastener (another bolt 18) (see paragraph 17) within the at least one aperture used to releasably secure the second unthreaded conduit E to the body 16.
In regard to claim 10, wherein the second coupling portion 24 of the body includes a plurality of spaced apart apertures (holes for 18) and a plurality of fasteners 18 (see paragraph 17),
wherein one of the plurality of fasteners 18 is within one of the plurality of apertures, and
wherein the plurality of fasteners 18 are used to releasably secure the second unthreaded conduit E to the body 16.
In regard to claim 12, wherein the longitudinal bore within the second coupling portion 12 has a smooth wall.
In regard to claim 13, wherein the first coupling portion 14 comprises a female coupling and the second coupling portion 12 comprises a female coupling portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that the female bore of Smith ‘295 does not receive an unthreaded conduit end such that there is a tight fit between the coupling bore and the conduit.
It is the Examiner’s position that there is a tight fit between the bore and conduit because as best seen in fig. 10, there is no space between the exterior of 28 and the interior of 20, and therefore the conduit is fit snugly within the bore of 20. Therefore, the Smith rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith ‘367 discloses a similar coupler that is common and well known in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679