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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “von” appears to be a holdover from the translation of the application from German. 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 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 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.
Claims 2, 5, 7 and 9 recite the phrase “preferably” which renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear if what is preferred is required by the claim. Appropriate correction required.
The term “closed” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the standard" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Brosowsky EP3456448 based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Brosowsky discloses a flex adapter (Brosowsky; 6; fig 4) for a stripping tool for treating plastic pipes or pipes coated with plastic, comprising: a base body (Brosowsky; 8; fig 4); at least two fins (Brosowsky; 13; fig 4), arranged along the outer contour of the base body, at least one respective stop (Brosowsky; 14; fig 6) arranged radially outside on the at least two fins; and a plurality of tensioning elements (Brosowsky; 17; fig 4), that are arranged integrally on a front region of the base body.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Brosowsky discloses the flex adapter according to claim 1, comprising at least three, preferably three to six fins (Brosowsky; six fins 13; fig 3; see A in annotated figure 3 below).
Regarding claim 3, Brosowsky discloses the flex adapter according to claim 1, in which the fins are distributed radially at an identical angle over the circumference of a rear region of the base body (Brosowsky; fins 13 arranged equally around the body 8; fig 4).
Regarding claim 4, Brosowsky discloses the flex adapter according to claim 1, in which each of the at least two fins forms a closed spring element (Brosowsky; each of fins 13 forms a “closed spring element” at 18; fig 4) and provides a radial spring deflection (Brosowsky; fins 13 deflect radially; fig 4; quoted here “The thus formed spring elements can thus have a large longitudinal extent, wherein these spring elements extend over almost the entire length or particularly advantageously over the entire length of the clamping segments. This ensures that perform at a radial deflection of the clamping segments…” Page 3 paragraph 3 line 2 of provided translation) path in the extent of the respective variable wall thickness of the corresponding pipe dimension prescribed by the standard.
Regarding claim 6, Brosowsky discloses the flex adapter according to claim 1, in which at least one, preferably each of the at least two fins, has a deformability in the radial direction that is higher than a deformability in other directions (Brosowsky; fins 13 deflect radially more than they do in other directions based on configuration of spring elements being that 13 is at the end of the lever arm created by 17 and given the circular form of the device is unlikely to deform laterally more readily than radially; fig 4).
Regarding claim 7, Brosowsky discloses the flex adapter according to claim 1, in which at least one, preferably each one of the at least two fins, has a different flexibility than one of a plurality of tensioning elements (Brosowsky; fins 13 have a different flexibility than the much thinner spring elements 17; fig 4).
Regarding claim 9, Brosowsky discloses the flex adapter according to claim 1, in which a deformability of at least one, preferably of each of the fins, also enables a diagonal arrangement of the stop relative to the longitudinal axis of the flex adapter (Brosowsky; fins 13 can move side to side in relation to each other along spring elements 17 and radially towards and away from the center, the combination of said movements would constitute a diagonal movement; fig 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosowsky EP3456448 in view of Yan CN109047806.
Regarding claim 5, Brosowsky discloses the flex adapter according to claim 1.
Brosowsky does not explicitly disclose a flex adapter in which at least one, preferably each of the at least two fins, has an axial dimension in the range from 2mm to 40mm, preferably von 2mm to 20mm, preferably from 2mm to 10mm.
Yan teaches a flex adapter (Yan; 2; fig 4) that includes fins (Yan; 202; fig 8) described in the translation as having a length of 1.8-3.0 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brosowsky to have fins that are between 2 mm and 40 mm. Brosowsky is merely silent as to the dimensions of the flex adapter and the fins of Brosowsky are dependent upon the dimensions of the device they are being applied to such as in the case of Yan which has fins with a length of 1.8-3.0 mm.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosowsky EP3456448 in view of Born WO2010025881.
Regarding claim 8, Brosowsky discloses the flex adapter
Brosowsky does not explicitly disclose further comprising a respective holder element integrally arranged with the stop.
Born teaches a flex adapter with a holder element integrally arranged with the stop (Born; 39; fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Brosowsky to include a holder element such as that of Born which as Born illustrates being used in figure 1 allows the device (Born; 1; fig 1) to grip the adapter (Born; 4; fig 1) and per the translation of the spec prevent the adapter from moving too far into the bore it is inserted into.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN J TRUJILLO whose telephone number is (703)756-4705. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 M-Th.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/D.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722