DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-5, 7-10, 21-22, and 24-26 are rejected, claims 6, 12-16, 19, and 23 are withdrawn, and claim 11, 17-18 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on pages 12-14 that Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau does not disclose fastener bores and corresponding fasteners, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the fasteners in all of the claims are not required. For example, the claim requires the bore to functionally accept fasteners such that “wherein the plurality of inner duct fastener bores (128) are configured to cooperate with a plurality of inner duct fasteners (130) for the plurality of inner duct fasteners (130) to pass through both of the outer duct (102) and the inner duct (112) to operatively couple the inner duct (112) to an adjacent structure”.
Therefore, while it is shown that Fujiwara does not disclose a plurality of inner duct fasteners that pass through both of the outer duct and the inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure, the fasteners are not required in the claims and all that is required is that the bores are configured to receive fasteners (ex., not required), which structurally the bore of the present invention and the bore of the prior are do not seem structurally different and therefore nothing is preventing the prior art from meeting the functional limitation.
In response to applicants arguments on pages 16-17 that duplicating the exact same connection end of Fujiwara would cause inoperability, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Fujiyama does not disclose duplicating the exact same end would result in an unsatisfactory connection (see MPEP 2143.01(V), where in In re Urbanski where “Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have resulted in an ‘inoperable’ process or a dietary fiber product with undesirable properties.”).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (ex., Queau not disclosing bolts through inner and outer hose), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 7, “and are” should be “are”.
In claim 24, lines 1-2 and line 3, the limitation “the plurality of inner duct fastener bores (128)” should be “the plurality of inner duct fastener bores (128) of the outer duct” as that is the only fastener bores that would be sealed.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 21-22, and 24-26 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 regards to claims 1 and 21, the limitation:
“wherein the inner duct (112) and the outer duct (102) comprise a plurality of inner duct fastener bores (128) extending from external surface (109) of the outer duct (102) through the outer duct (102) and from the inter duct channel (122) through the inner duct (112), and
wherein the inner duct fastener bores (128) are arranged interior to the inter duct channel (122),
wherein the plurality of inner duct fastener bores (128) are configured to cooperate with a plurality of inner duct fasteners (130) for the plurality of inner duct fasteners (130) to pass through both of the outer duct (102) and the inner duct (112) to operatively couple the inner duct (112) to an adjacent structure” is unclear to the examiner as to how the outer duct comprises a plurality of inner duct fasteners bores while the inner duct fastener bores are arranged interior to the inter duct channel.
It appears applicant intended to claim that the inner duct comprises a first set of plurality of inner duct fastener bores, the outer duct comprises a second set of plurality of inner duct fastener bores, and that the inner duct fastener bores of the inner duct are interior to the inter duct channel.
To proceed with prosecution, the limitation above will be interpreted as:
“wherein the inner duct (112) comprise a plurality of inner duct fastener bores (128) extending from the inter duct channel (122) through the inner duct (112), and
the outer duct (102) comprise a plurality of inner duct fastener bores (128) extending from external surface (109) of the outer duct (102) through the outer duct (102),
wherein the inner duct fastener bores (128) of the inner duct are arranged interior to the inter duct channel (122),
wherein the plurality of inner duct fastener bores (128) are configured to cooperate with a plurality of inner duct fasteners (130) for the plurality of inner duct fasteners (130) to pass through both of the outer duct (102) and the inner duct (112) to operatively couple the inner duct (112) to an adjacent structure.”
It is noted to applicant that while the examiner is interpreting the claims to proceed with prosecution, applicant is still required to amend the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 21, 22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JP-H04316799) in view of Dill et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,393,302) and in further view of Queau et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,074,687).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood, Fujiwara discloses:
A dual-walled fluid transportation system (see annotated figure 3 below hereinafter), the system comprising:
at least one dual-walled fluid conduit (11 and 10),
the at least one dual-walled fluid conduit comprising:
an outer duct (11) comprising an outer duct flared end region (see annotated figure 3) and an outer duct central region (see annotated figure 3),
wherein the outer duct central region and the outer duct flared end region define an outer duct internal surface (see annotated figure 3) that surrounds an outer duct internal volume (ex., volume between both inner and outer pipe as shown in annotated fig. 3); and
an inner duct (10) defining a central conduit (see near 10) and extending within the outer duct internal volume (see annotated fig. 3),
wherein the inner duct comprises an inner duct flared end region (see annotated fig. 3) and an inner duct central region (see annotated fig. 3), and
wherein the inner duct central region and the inner duct pair of flared end region define an inner duct external surface (see annotated fig. 3);
wherein the inner duct and the outer duct define interlocking geometries (see annotated fig. 3), and
wherein the inner duct and the outer duct are dimensioned and shaped to be supported such that an inter duct channel (see annotated fig. 3) forms a complete and uninterrupted circumference around the inner duct external surface (see annotated fig. 3) and completely separates the inner duct external surface from the outer duct internal surface (see annotated fig. 3, where the inner duct channel is not interrupted); and
wherein the inner duct comprises a plurality of inner duct fastener bores (see near 20, where there are multiple bolts going through each flange) extending from the inter duct channel through the inner duct, and
wherein the inner duct fastener bores are arranged interior to the inter duct channel (see annotated fig. 3, where the channel is above the flange),
wherein the plurality of inner duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of inner duct fasteners (ex., 20) for the inner duct fasteners to pass through the inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure (ex., the adjacent double pipe),
but does not disclose:
an pair of outer duct and inner duct flared end regions such that the central region is between the outer duct pair of flared end regions,
the outer duct comprising a plurality of inner duct fastening bores extending from external surface of the outer duct through the outer duct, and
the plurality of inner duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of inner duct fasteners for the plurality of inner duct fasteners to pass through the outer duct and inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure.
In regards to duplicating the ends, Dill discloses a similar device, wherein each end comprises the same flanged end region (ex., see 108a and 108b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the outer duct and the inner duct of Fujiwara to comprise pair of flared end regions to meet the limitation of claim 1 because Dill discloses a similar device wherein it is known for double pipes (ex., concentric pipes) to comprise the same connection end on each side (ex., see fig. 1) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, duplicating the one end of Fujiwara on the opposite end would not produce a new and unexpected result as Dill explicitly shows that it is known for concentric pipes comprising flanged ends to comprise duplicate ends.
In regards to using the same connection for the outer piping, Queau discloses a similar concentric pipe comprising:
an outer duct (25) comprises a plurality of outer duct fastener bores (see near 26) extending through the outer duct,
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are arranged exterior relative to the inter duct channel (see fig. 2a),
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are positioned along a dual-walled flared end region of the dual-walled fluid conduit (see fig. 2a), and
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of outer duct fasteners (26) to operatively couple the outer duct to an adjacent structure (see fig. 2a, where both structures are identical),
wherein an inner duct comprising the same flared end region as the outer duct (see fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute the outer connection of the outer pipe of Fujiwara in view of Dill with the inner flange connection of the inner pipe of Fujiwara in view of Dill such that the flared end regions of the inner and outer pipe are identical (ex., both comprise a flanged connection) because Fujiwara in view of Dill discloses a device which differs from the claim device by a simple substitution of the outer connection of the outer pipe with the flanged connection of the inner pipe of Fujiwara in view of Dill, Queau discloses that it is a known configuration for concentric pipes to comprise the same flanged connection for both the inner and outer pipes (see fig. 2a), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the outer connection of Fujiwara in view of Dill with the flanged connection of Fujiwara in view of Dill because using the known flanged connection of Fujiwara in view of Dill for both the outer pipe and the inner pipe would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to the functional limitation of passing fasteners through the outer duct and inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure, there is nothing structural of preventing non-required fasteners to pass through the outer duct and then pass the non-required fasteners through the inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure (ex., there is nothing structural that would prevent bores from meeting this functional limitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Fujiwara further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the outer duct is a monolithic body, and
wherein the inner duct is a separate monolithic body (see annotated figure 3 above hereinafter).
In regards to claim 3, Fujiwara in view of Dill further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein each inner duct flared end region of the inner duct pair of flared end regions defines an inner duct outer-most lateral dimension (ex., the top of the inner flange),
wherein, along the outer duct central region, the outer duct internal surface defines an outer duct channel outer-most lateral dimension (ex., see near internal surface of annotated figure 3, where the inner flanged region is greater than the outer central region), and
wherein the inner duct outer-most lateral dimension is greater than the outer duct channel outer-most lateral dimension (ex., the inner flanged region is greater than the outer central region).
In regards to claim 4, Fujiwara further discloses:
The system (10) of claim 1, wherein the inner duct fastener bores are disposed around at least one of a dual-walled first flared end region and a dual-walled second flared end region (it is inherent that duplicating both ends of an end that comprises bores would meet the limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 5, Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the outer duct comprises a plurality of outer duct fastener bores (it is inherent that the flanged outer duct comprises multiple bores such that the plurality of bores can be split into a plurality of outer duct fastener bores and inner duct fastener bores) extending through the outer duct (ex., as shown by Fujiwara),
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are arranged exterior relative to the inter duct channel (ex., similarly to the inner duct fastener bores of the outer duct),
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are positioned along at least one of a dual-walled first flared end region of the dual-walled fluid conduit and a dual-walled second flared end region (ex., it is inherent that the prior art would have dual identical ends based on rejection of claim 1 above) of the dual-walled fluid conduit, and
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of outer duct fasteners (ex., not required) to operatively couple the outer duct to an adjacent structure (ex., there is nothing structural that would prevent bores from meeting this functional limitation).
In regards to claim 7, Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau discloses:
The system of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
a connection ring between the inner and outer duct.
In regards to the connection ring, Queau discloses
a dual-walled fluid transportation system (see fig. 3 hereinafter) comprising a connecting ring (30a and 30b) that is configured to be positioned between an inner duct base (ex., the faces between 17 and 16) of an inner duct (17) and an outer duct base (ex., faces between 25 and 24) of an outer duct (25) and supports the inner duct and the outer duct such that the inter duct channel completely separates an inner duct external surface (ex., outer surface of inner flange) from an outer duct internal surface (ex., near 66) at least proximate the connecting ring (see fig. 3) to provide the benefit of keeping the inner and outer pipes more coaxial (6:57-58) or axially fixed (6:7-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the inner and outer flared end of Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau with the provision of the connection rings of Queau on each flared end region to provide the benefit of keeping the inner and outer pipes more coaxial and/or axially fixed, as taught by Queau (6:57-58; 6:7-13).
In regards to claim 8, Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau further discloses:
The system of claim 7, wherein the dual-walled fluid transportation system comprises a plurality of dual-walled fluid conduits (ex., the connection to the right as shown in annotated fig. 3),
wherein the connecting ring is configured to be positioned within end regions of the inter duct channels (ex., see fig. 3 of Queau, where the connection ring is between both end regions) of adjacent dual-walled fluid conduits (ex., see annotated fig. 3 of Fujiwara and fig. 3 of Queau where it is inherent that the spacers would be between both end regions) of the plurality of dual-walled fluid conduits and support the outer duct and the inner duct of each dual-walled fluid conduit (it is inherent that the spacers would provide support to the end regions) of the adjacent dual-walled fluid conduits spaced apart with the inter duct channel extending therebetween (ex., see fig. 3 of Queau), and
wherein the connecting ring is configured to provide fluid communication between the inter duct channels of the adjacent dual-walled fluid conduits (ex., see 31 in fig. 2b of Queau).
In regards to claim 9, Fujiwara further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the inter duct channel is configured to isolate mechanical failures from propagating between the inner duct and the outer duct (structurally, it appears there is nothing preventing the inner duct channel from this functional limitation).
In regards to claim 10, Fujiwara discloses:
A dual-walled fluid transportation system (see annotated figure 3 above hereinafter), the system comprising:
at least one dual-walled fluid conduit (11 and 10),
the at least one dual-walled fluid conduit comprising:
an outer duct (11) comprising an outer duct flared end region (see annotated figure 3) and an outer duct central region (see annotated figure 3),
wherein the outer duct central region and the outer duct flared end region define an outer duct internal surface (see annotated figure 3) that surrounds an outer duct internal volume (ex., volume between both inner and outer pipe as shown in annotated fig. 3); and
an inner duct (10) defining a central conduit (see near 10) and extending within the outer duct internal volume (see annotated fig. 3),
wherein the inner duct comprises an inner duct flared end region (see annotated fig. 3) and an inner duct central region (see annotated fig. 3), and
wherein the inner duct central region and the inner duct pair of flared end region define an inner duct external surface (see annotated fig. 3);
wherein the inner duct and the outer duct define interlocking geometries (see annotated fig. 3), and
wherein the inner duct and the outer duct are dimensioned and shaped to be supported such that an inter duct channel (see annotated fig. 3) forms a complete and uninterrupted circumference around the inner duct external surface (see annotated fig. 3) and completely separates the inner duct external surface from the outer duct internal surface (see annotated fig. 3, where the inner duct channel is not interrupted); and
wherein the inner duct comprises a plurality of inner duct fastener bores (see near 20, where there are multiple bolts going through each flange) extending from the inter duct channel through the inner duct, and
wherein the inner duct fastener bores are arranged interior to the inter duct channel (see annotated fig. 3, where the channel is above the flange),
wherein the plurality of inner duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of inner duct fasteners (ex., 20) for the inner duct fasteners to pass through the inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure (ex., the adjacent double pipe),
but does not disclose:
an pair of outer duct and inner duct flared end regions such that the central region is between the outer duct pair of flared end regions,
the outer duct comprising a plurality of inner duct fastening bores extending from external surface of the outer duct through the outer duct, and
the plurality of inner duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of inner duct fasteners for the plurality of inner duct fasteners to pass through the outer duct and inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure,
an aircraft comprising the dual-walled fluid transportation system above.
In regards to duplicating the ends, Dill discloses a similar device, wherein each end comprises the same flanged end region (ex., see 108a and 108b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the outer duct and the inner duct of Fujiwara to comprise pair of flared end regions to meet the limitation of claim 1 because Dill discloses a similar device wherein it is known for double pipes (ex., concentric pipes) to comprise the same connection end on each side (ex., see fig. 1) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, duplicating the one end of Fujiwara on the opposite end would not produce a new and unexpected result as Dill explicitly shows that it is known for concentric pipes comprising flanged ends to comprise duplicate ends.
In regards to the aircraft, Dill discloses in aerospace applications where engine fluids such as fuel and oil are conveyed through tubing it is desirable to have redundancies in case of leakage from the tubing such a redundancy is to use double walled tubing, wherein an outer passage is formed between an inner tube and an outer tube (1:18-22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use the double walled tubing of Fujiwara in view of Dill in an aircraft to prevent solidification of oil in an aircraft because Fujiwara discloses that it is known that oil can solidify (lines 9-11 of the translated document provided herein) and using double wall of Fujiwara in view of Dill tubing prevents this (see lines 15-16) and Dill discloses that it is known and desirable to use double walled tubing in aerospace applications especially with the transport of oil (1:18-22).
In regards to using the same connection for the outer piping, Queau discloses a similar concentric pipe comprising:
an outer duct (25) comprises a plurality of outer duct fastener bores (see near 26) extending through the outer duct,
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are arranged exterior relative to the inter duct channel (see fig. 2a),
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are positioned along a dual-walled flared end region of the dual-walled fluid conduit (see fig. 2a), and
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of outer duct fasteners (26) to operatively couple the outer duct to an adjacent structure (see fig. 2a, where both structures are identical),
wherein an inner duct comprising the same flared end region as the outer duct (see fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute the outer connection of the outer pipe of Fujiwara in view of Dill with the inner flange connection of the inner pipe of Fujiwara in view of Dill such that the flared end regions of the inner and outer pipe are identical (ex., both comprise a flanged connection) because Fujiwara in view of Dill discloses a device which differs from the claim device by a simple substitution of the outer connection of the outer pipe with the flanged connection of the inner pipe of Fujiwara in view of Dill, Queau discloses that it is a known configuration for concentric pipes to comprise the same flanged connection for both the inner and outer pipes (see fig. 2a), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the outer connection of Fujiwara in view of Dill with the flanged connection of Fujiwara in view of Dill because using the known flanged connection of Fujiwara in view of Dill for both the outer pipe and the inner pipe would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to the functional limitation of passing fasteners through the outer duct and inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure, there is nothing structural of preventing non-required fasteners to pass through the outer duct and then pass the non-required fasteners through the inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure (ex., there is nothing structural that would prevent bores from meeting this functional limitation).
In regards to claim 21, as best understood, Fujiwara discloses:
A dual-walled fluid transportation system (see annotated figure 3 above hereinafter), the system comprising:
at least one dual-walled fluid conduit (11 and 10),
the at least one dual-walled fluid conduit comprising:
an outer duct (11) comprising an outer duct flared end region (see annotated figure 3) and an outer duct central region (see annotated figure 3),
wherein the outer duct central region and the outer duct flared end region define an outer duct internal surface (see annotated figure 3) that surrounds an outer duct internal volume (ex., volume between both inner and outer pipe as shown in annotated fig. 3); and
an inner duct (10) defining a central conduit (see near 10) and extending within the outer duct internal volume (see annotated fig. 3),
wherein the inner duct comprises an inner duct flared end region (see annotated fig. 3) and an inner duct central region (see annotated fig. 3), and
wherein the inner duct central region and the inner duct pair of flared end region define an inner duct external surface (see annotated fig. 3);
wherein the inner duct and the outer duct define interlocking geometries (see annotated fig. 3), and
wherein the inner duct and the outer duct are dimensioned and shaped to be supported such that no structure or element of the inner duct and the outer duct extends between inner duct external surface and outer duct internal surface;
wherein an inter duct channel (see annotated fig. 3) forms a circumference around the inner duct external surface (see annotated fig. 3) and separates the inner duct external surface from the outer duct internal surface (see annotated fig. 3, where the inner duct channel is not interrupted); and
wherein the inner duct comprises a plurality of inner duct fastener bores (see near 20, where there are multiple bolts going through each flange) extending from the inter duct channel through the inner duct, and
wherein the inner duct fastener bores are arranged interior to the inter duct channel (see annotated fig. 3, where the channel is above the flange),
wherein the plurality of inner duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of inner duct fasteners (ex., 20) for the inner duct fasteners to pass through the inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure (ex., the adjacent double pipe),
but does not disclose:
an pair of outer duct and inner duct flared end regions such that the central region is between the outer duct pair of flared end regions,
the outer duct comprising a plurality of inner duct fastening bores extending from external surface of the outer duct through the outer duct, and
the plurality of inner duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of inner duct fasteners for the plurality of inner duct fasteners to pass through the outer duct and inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure.
In regards to duplicating the ends, Dill discloses a similar device, wherein each end comprises the same flanged end region (ex., see 108a and 108b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the outer duct and the inner duct of Fujiwara to comprise pair of flared end regions to meet the limitation of claim 1 because Dill discloses a similar device wherein it is known for double pipes (ex., concentric pipes) to comprise the same connection end on each side (ex., see fig. 1) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, duplicating the one end of Fujiwara on the opposite end would not produce a new and unexpected result as Dill explicitly shows that it is known for concentric pipes comprising flanged ends to comprise duplicate ends.
In regards to using the same connection for the outer piping, Queau discloses a similar concentric pipe comprising:
an outer duct (25) comprises a plurality of outer duct fastener bores (see near 26) extending through the outer duct,
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are arranged exterior relative to the inter duct channel (see fig. 2a),
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are positioned along a dual-walled flared end region of the dual-walled fluid conduit (see fig. 2a), and
wherein the outer duct fastener bores are configured to cooperate with a plurality of outer duct fasteners (26) to operatively couple the outer duct to an adjacent structure (see fig. 2a, where both structures are identical),
wherein an inner duct comprising the same flared end region as the outer duct (see fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute the outer connection of the outer pipe of Fujiwara in view of Dill with the inner flange connection of the inner pipe of Fujiwara in view of Dill such that the flared end regions of the inner and outer pipe are identical (ex., both comprise a flanged connection) because Fujiwara in view of Dill discloses a device which differs from the claim device by a simple substitution of the outer connection of the outer pipe with the flanged connection of the inner pipe of Fujiwara in view of Dill, Queau discloses that it is a known configuration for concentric pipes to comprise the same flanged connection for both the inner and outer pipes (see fig. 2a), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the outer connection of Fujiwara in view of Dill with the flanged connection of Fujiwara in view of Dill because using the known flanged connection of Fujiwara in view of Dill for both the outer pipe and the inner pipe would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to the functional limitation of passing fasteners through the outer duct and inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure, there is nothing structural of preventing non-required fasteners to pass through the outer duct and then pass the non-required fasteners through the inner duct to operatively couple the inner duct to an adjacent structure (ex., there is nothing structural that would prevent bores from meeting this functional limitation).
In regards to claim 22, Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau discloses:
The system of claim 21, wherein the inter duct channel completely separates the inner duct external surface from the outer duct internal surface of a respective dual-walled fluid conduit (see annotated fig. 3),
wherein the dual-walled fluid transportation system comprises a plurality of dual-walled fluid conduits,
but does not disclose:
wherein the dual-walled fluid transportation system comprises a connecting ring body.
In regards to the connection ring, Queau discloses a dual-walled fluid transportation system (see annotated fig. 3 below hereinafter) comprising a connecting ring (30a and 30b; ex., the ring has a split 67 in the center and the two rings are being considered as a single ring; ex., see 7:10-11) that is configured to be positioned between an inner duct base (ex., the faces between 17 and 16) of an inner duct (17) and an outer duct base (ex., faces between 25 and 24) of an outer duct (25) and supports the inner duct and the outer duct such that the inter duct channel completely separates an inner duct external surface (ex., outer surface of inner flange) from an outer duct internal surface (ex., near 66) at least proximate the connecting ring (see fig. 3) to provide the benefit of keeping the inner and outer pipes more coaxial (6:57-58) or axially fixed (6:7-13),
wherein the connecting ring body defines an outer radial surface (see annotated fig. 3) and an inner radial surface (see annotated fig. 3),
wherein the connecting ring body comprises a plurality of inside indentations (see annotated fig. 3) disposed around the inner radial surface and a plurality of outside indentations (see annotated fig. 3) disposed around the outer radial surface (see annotated fig. 3),
wherein the plurality of inside indentations are offset from the plurality of outside indentations (see annotated fig. 3); and
wherein the connecting ring is configured to be positioned within the flared end regions of inter duct channels of two adjacent dual-walled fluid conduits (see annotated fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the inner and outer flared end of Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau with the provision of the connection rings of Queau on each flared end region to provide the benefit of keeping the inner and outer pipes more coaxial and/or axially fixed, as taught by Queau (6:57-58; 6:7-13).
PNG
media_image2.png
686
991
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 24, Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inner duct fastener bores “of the outer duct” are configured to receive inter duct sealing members (structurally, there is nothing preventing bores from receiving non-required sealing elements, such as, threaded sealing elements), and
wherein the inter duct sealing members (ex., not required) are configured to seal the inner duct fastener bores and the inter duct channel (ex., seals inherently provide sealing benefits and the seal is not required).
In regards to claim 25, Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau further discloses:
The system of claim 24, wherein the plurality of inner duct fastener bores are configured to receive the plurality of inner duct fasteners within an inner portion of the plurality of inner duct fastener bores arranged within the inner duct (structurally, there is nothing preventing the structure of a bore from receiving inner duct fasteners within an inner portion), and
the plurality of inner duct fastener bores are configured to receive the inter duct sealing members (ex., not required) within an outer portion of the plurality of inner duct fastener bores arranged within the outer duct (structurally, there is nothing preventing a bore from receiving a non-required sealing element, ex., threaded sealing element).
In regards to claim 26, Fujiwara in view of Dill and Queau further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inner duct fastener bores pass through the outer duct pair of flared end regions and the inner duct pair of flared end regions (ex., see fig. 3 of Fujiwara, where the bore would pass through each flange assuming the top and bottom flange are identical).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights