DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-9, 21-23, 25, 26, and 28-29 are rejected, claims 14-20 and 27 are withdrawn, and claims 10-13 and 24 are cancelled.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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on pages 7-8 that claim 27 should be examined, the examiner respectfully disagrees because non-elected fig. 5 shows the radials lips 208 radially outward of the ridge 302 compared to, for example, elected fig. 8 which shows the radial lips 214 radially inward of ridge 302.
In response to applicants arguments on page 10 that Hanrahan does not disclose radial lips, the examiner respectfully disagrees because if there was no radial component both of the coupling ends would not lock together (ex., the finished product depicts radially inward/outward lips).
Applicant’s remaining argument on page 7-8 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive because Hanrahan does not disclose a pipe being part of an air system of the jet engine. Therefore, the 102 rejection of Hanrahan has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of both Hanrahan and Terry.
Manner of Making Amendments
With respect to the manner of making amendments, applicants are reminded of the use of proper status identifiers and changes shown by markings for the claims. In this instance, claim 1 should have a status identifier of “Currently Amended” and the newly added limitation “such that the one or more lips are radially inward of the ridge of the engine hardware engagement structure and are radially outward of the portion of the engine hardware engagement structure” should be underlined. In addition, claim 25 should have a status identifier of “Currently Amended” and “ridge has one or more lips” and “one or more” should be underlined. See 37 CFR 1.121 (c). All future submissions must use proper status identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(c), or the response will be held to be non-compliant.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 2, “indicia disposed on at least one of the pipe or the engine hardware” should be “indicia disposed on the pipe” because the elected species does not comprise indicia on the engine hardware (ex., compared to fig. 3 which shows indicia 222 on engine hardware) 104.
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 1-9, 21-23, 25, 26, and 28-29 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 claim 1, line 19, the limitation “the one or more lips are radially inward” is unclear to the examiner if the “the one or more lips” is referring to the lips of the spring fingers or the lips of the ridge.
To proceed with prosecution, the limitation “the one or more lips are radially inward” will be interpreted as “the one or more radial lips of the spring fingers are radially inward”.
It is noted to applicant that while the examiner is interpreting the claims to proceed with prosecution, the 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, 7-9, 21-23, 25, 26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanrahan (U.S. Patent No. 1,474,586) in view of Terry (U.S. Patent No. 5,737,913).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood, Hanrahan discloses:
An expansion joint (see fig. 2 hereinafter) for a jet engine, the expansion joint having an axial direction and a radial direction orthogonal to the axial direction, and comprising:
a pipe (13), the pipe including
a pipe engagement structure having one or more spring fingers (21), each having one or more radial lips extending in the radial direction (see fig. 2, where the lips radially extend outwardly),
the pipe engagement structure being at a proximal end of the pipe; and
an engine hardware (1) coupled to the pipe at the proximal end, the engine hardware including
an engine hardware engagement structure (i) having a circumferential direction defining an annular shape of the engine hardware engagement structure (see fig. 2) and (ii) including a ridge (6) extending along the circumferential direction of the engine hardware engagement structure,
the ridge having one or more complementary radial lips (7) extending in the radial direction (ex., see fig. 2, where the lip 7 extends radially inward),
the engine hardware engagement structure engaging with the pipe engagement structure to couple the engine hardware to the pipe (ex., see fig. 2),
wherein the one or more radial lips of the one or more spring fingers of the pipe engagement structure are axially in line with a portion (ex., see near 11 in fig. 2) of the engine hardware engagement structure when the engine hardware engagement structure is coupled to the pipe engagement structure (see fig. 2), and
the one or more radial lips of the one or more spring fingers of the pipe engagement structure engage with the corresponding one or more complementary radial lips of the engine hardware engagement structure to couple the engine hardware to the pipe (see fig. 2),
wherein the one or more radial lips “of the spring fingers” are radially inward of the ridge of the engine hardware engagement structure (see fig. 2) and are radially outward of the portion of the engine hardware engagement structure (see fig. 2, where the lip of the spring finger is above element 10),
but does not disclose:
the pipe being part of an air system of the jet engine.
In regards to the pipe being part of an air system, Terry discloses a similar bayonet coupling device (see fig. 2) for a jet engine (1:11-15), where it is known to provide bayonet type couplings to jet engine casing structures to provide a self-aligning quick release engine casing structure which simplifies the assembly process and facilitates disassembly for engine maintenance and repair (1:11-15; see also 1:39-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use the bayonet coupling device of Hanrahan to connect piping of a jet engine system together to provide a self-aligning quick release engine casing structure which simplifies the assembly process and facilitates disassembly for engine maintenance and repair, as taught by Terry (1:11-50).
In regards to claim 2, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the pipe comprises a conduit (15) and a collar (ex., near 19) disposed at the proximal end of the pipe, and
wherein the pipe engagement structure is disposed on the collar of the pipe (ex., see fig. 5).
In regards to claim 3, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, further comprising alignment indicia disposed on at least one of the pipe (ex., near 20),
the alignment indicia aligning the pipe and engine hardware relative to one another.
In regards to claim 4, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the ridge comprises a plurality of discontinuous segments (ex., see fig. 5 near 5) extending along the circumferential direction spaced apart from each other by gaps (ex., see fig. 4), and
wherein the gaps have circumferential lengths no less than a circumferential length of the one or more spring fingers (see fig. 5).
In regards to claim 5, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the pipe and engine hardware define a maximum relative sliding distance, DMAXSLJDE, as measured by a relative sliding distance between the pipe and engine hardware in an axial direction of the expansion joint (ex., the claim requires nothing more than saying it has a parameter), and
wherein a length of the maximum relative sliding distance, DMAXSLJDE, is at least partially defined by the pipe engagement structure and the engine hardware engagement structure (ex., axially they are brought together and there structure allows engagement with each other).
In regards to claim 7, Hanrahan in view of Terry further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein a portion of the pipe and engine hardware are coaxial with one another along an axial direction of the expansion joint (ex., both ends are coaxial in fig. 2), and
wherein the pipe is configured to translate relative to the engine hardware along the axial direction upon occurrence of one or more loading forces (ex., using a force to assemble both couplings would meet the functional limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 8, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the one or more spring fingers are configured to deflect in a radial direction of the expansion joint (structurally, every material has some sort of flexibility and therefore would meet the limitations of the claim), and
wherein a stiffness of the one or more spring fingers prevents decoupling between the pipe and the engine hardware (ex., see fig. 2).
In regards to claim 9, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the pipe and engine hardware are releasably coupled together at the expansion joint (ex., see fig. 5).
In regards to claim 21, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the one or more spring fingers project radially outward (ex., see fig. 2, where there is a radially outward component defining the dove-tail).
In regards to claim 22, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the ridge extending along the circumferential direction projects radially inward (ex., see fig. 2 where there is a radially inward component defining the dove-tail).
In regards to claim 23, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 4, wherein the gaps are a same shape as compared to one another (ex., see fig. 4).
In regards to claim 25, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the one or more complementary radial lips of the ridge are separated by gaps between adjacent complementary radial lips of the ridge (see fig. 3) and at least one of the pipe or the engine hardware is rotated to secure the one or more radial lips of the spring fingers with the corresponding one or more complementary radial lips of the ridge (ex., compare figure 1 and figure 5).
In regards to claim 26, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the one or more radial lips of the spring fingers are radially inward of the ridge of the engine hardware engagement structure (see fig. 2) and are radially outward of the portion of the engine hardware engagement structure (see fig. 2, where the lip of the spring finger is above element 10).
In regards to claim 28, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the one or more radial lips of the one or more spring fingers of the pipe engagement structure are axially and circumferentially aligned with the corresponding one or more complementary radial lips of the engine hardware engagement structure in a locked state of the expansion joint (ex., see fig. 2).
In regards to claim 29, Hanrahan further discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1, wherein the one or more radial lips of the one or more spring fingers of the pipe engagement structure are axially aligned but not circumferentially aligned with the corresponding one or more complementary radial lips of the engine hardware engagement structure in an unlocked state of the expansion joint (ex., see fig, 5, where the pipe would be rotated clockwise until lip 21 reaches stop 8 when pipe is directly abutting engagement structure).
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanrahan in view of Terry as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Robinault et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,598,458).
In regards to claim 6, Hanrahan discloses:
The expansion joint of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
an O-ring disposed radially between the pipe and the engine hardware, wherein the O-ring is disposed between an open end of the engine hardware and the engine hardware engagement structure.
In regards to the O-ring, Robinault discloses a similar device comprising an O-ring (28, fig. 6) to provide a sealed connection (4:43-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the engine hardware engagement structure of Hanrahan in view of Terry with the provision of an O-ring such that the O-ring is provided in the portion of the engagement structure to provide the benefit of further sealing by radial compression, as taught by Robinault (4:43-51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manent (FR-1164943) discloses the second-best reference comprising a pipe with spring fingers and radially outward protrusions engaging in a fitting comprising a portion, ridge, and radially outward lips engaging the pipe.
Daniel (FR-1396564) discloses a very similar device to Manent comprising a pipe with spring fingers and radially outward protrusions and a cap comprising radially inward lips.
Boudin et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2016,0298853) discloses a similar bayonet device used on jet engines.
Stickel (WO-2005064068) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
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