DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 17, and 19-21 are rejected, claims 2, 8, 9, and 12 are cancelled, and claims 5-6, 11, 13-16, 18, and 22 are withdrawn.
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 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (ex., Wang and Shane), 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).
In response to applicants arguments on page 9 that Wang teaches away from the proposed modification, the examiner respectfully disagrees as it has been held that “disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” (see In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)). In this case, while Wang discloses advantages to have the first steel pipe protrude from the copper sleeve (ex., to improve strength of the connection), these advantages would not constitute a teaching away based on the broader disclosure of Wang in view of Shan as Shan explicitly discloses that having the copper sleeve protrude 3mm or less is known configuration (ex., for one of ordinary skill in the art) for a similar device of Wang. In addition, Shan discloses that such configuration provides cost reduction and material savings (see lines 77-79 of the translated document provided herein, WO-2021184944) and that having the copper sleeve protrude provides sufficient space for solder to accumulate (see lines 201-202). Therefore, while Wang discloses examples of improvements of a welded pipe configuration, such position modification to Wang based on Shan would not constitute a teaching away as Wang only discloses advantages to a configuration, Shan explicitly discloses another known configuration in the art for a similar device, there is no change in the operation of the device (ex., the device would still allow fluid flow), and no new or unexpected results would be made (ex., as demonstrated by Shan).
In response to applicants arguments on page 11 that Shane does not disclose a welding overlap or spaced end faces, the examiner disagrees as the examiner is not relying on Shan for those claimed limitations.
In response to applicants arguments on page 11 that Shane discloses the distance from the connection portion and copper sleeve is less than or equal to 0.06mm, the examiner respectfully disagrees as those dimensions are not relating to the protruding length of the copper sleeve from the stainless steel pipe, as described in lines 201-204 of the translated document provided herein (ex., “the length of the portion of the copper sleeve 2 protruding from the connecting portion 12 is less than or equal to 3 mm, so that sufficient space for the solder to accumulate is provided”). It is noted that the 0.06mm dimension is based on the gap directly between the copper sleeve 2 and steel pipe 12 (ex., see lines 188-194, which explains the gap being filled compared to the length of the protruding copper sleeve in lines 201-204 which explicitly states the “length of the copper sleeve protruding”).
In response to applicants arguments on pages 12-13 that Wang in view of Shan do not disclose a welding overlap in an axial direction, the examiner respectfully disagrees as modifying the position of pipe 10 of Wang such that the copper sleeve 30 axial protrudes (ex., 3mm or less) from pipe 10 would cause an axial welding overlap between both steel pipes 10 and 20 as shown in figure 4 of Wang (ex., because the copper sleeve protrudes further than pipe 10, there is a space between end faces of pipes 10 and 20, thus meeting the claim limitation).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/12/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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, 3, 4, 7, 10, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN-112178308) in view of Shan et al. (CN-212361095).
In regards to claim 1, Wang discloses:
A pipeline connection structure (see annotated fig. 4 below), comprising:
a first pipe body (“First Steel Pipe” in annotated fig. 4) and a second pipe body (“Second Steel Pipe” in annotated fig. 4); and
a connection sleeve assembly (see annotated fig. 4) fitted outside the first pipe body, and fitted outside the second pipe body,
wherein the connection sleeve assembly (see annotated fig. 4) is fixedly connected to the first pipe body and the second pipe body so that the first pipe body is in communication with the second pipe body (see annotated fig. 4),
the connection sleeve assembly comprises a first copper sleeve (see annotated fig. 4; line 249) and a second copper sleeve (see annotated fig. 4; line 238);
the first pipe body is a first steel pipe (see annotated fig. 4 above hereinafter; lines 248-249 of the translated document provided herein), and
the second pipe body is a second steel pipe (see annotated fig. 4; line 297);
the first steel pipe comprises an upper section of the first steel pipe and a lower section of the first steel pipe (see annotated fig. 4), and
the second steel pipe comprises an upper section of the second steel pipe and a lower section of the second steel pipe (see annotated fig. 4);
the first copper sleeve comprises an upper section of the first copper sleeve and a lower section of the first copper sleeve (see annotated fig. 4), and
the second copper sleeve comprises an upper section of the second copper sleeve and a lower section of the second copper sleeve (see annotated fig. 4);
the first copper sleeve is fitted over the upper section of the first steel pipe (see annotated fig. 4), and
the upper section of the first copper sleeve extends beyond the upper section of the first steel pipe to form a first extension section (see annotated fig. 4);
the second copper sleeve is fitted over the lower section of the second steel pipe (see annotated fig. 4);
the first steel pipe is welded with the first copper sleeve (see lines 249-250), and
the second steel pipe is welded with the second copper sleeve (see lines 260-261); and
the first extension section of the first copper sleeve is fitted over the second copper sleeve and is welded with the second copper sleeve (see lines 286-287),
but does not disclose:
wherein the lower section of the second copper sleeve extends beyond the lower section of the second steel pipe to form a second extension section,
wherein an end face of the lower section of the second steel pipe and the end face of the upper section of the first steel pipe are spaced along an axial direction,
the first extension section and the second extension section are welded to form a welding overlap area along an “axial” direction, and
the welding overlap area is located between the end face of the lower section of the second steel pipe and the end face of the upper section of the first steel pipe.
In regards to the position of the second steel pipe, while Wang does not disclose a configuration “where the lower section of the second copper sleeve extends beyond the lower section of the second steel pipe to form a second extension section or is flush with the lower section of the second steel pipe”, the configuration would have been a mere engineering design choice suited for its intended use and desired parameters because Shan discloses that it is known for a similar device to comprise a copper sleeve that extends beyond the steel pipe (see fig. 1, where copper sleeve 2 extends beyond the end of steel pipe 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the position of the second steel pipe of Wang to be partially inserted into the second copper sleeve to meet the limitation of claim 1 because Shan discloses that this is a known configuration to have the steel pipe within and not protruding from the copper sleeve (see fig. 1) and therefore would not produce any new or unexpected results, rearranging the position of the second steel pipe of Wang would not have modified the operation of the device (ex., fluid would still flow from the first to the second pipe), and it has been held claims which read on the prior art except with regard to the position were held unpatentable because shifting the position of an element would not have modified the operation of the device (ex., if the steel pipe and copper sleeve of Wang was simply substituted with the copper sleeve and steel pipe of Shan, the operation would remain the same). See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality of the positioning the second steel pipe such that it meets the limitation of claim 1. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the position of the second steel pipe to be either partially inserted into, fully inserted into, or protruding through the second cooper sleeve as desired for the intended use.
PNG
media_image1.png
681
996
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Wang further discloses:
The pipeline connection structure according to claim 1, wherein the upper section of the second copper sleeve extends from the upper section of the first copper sleeve by a predetermined length (see annotated fig. 4).
In regards to claim 4, Wang further discloses:
The pipeline connection structure according to claim 1, wherein an end face of the lower section of the second copper sleeve abuts against an end face of the upper section of the first steel pipe (see annotated fig. 4).
In regards to claim 7, Wang further discloses:
The pipeline connection structure according to claim 1, wherein the upper section of the first steel pipe is flared (see annotated fig. 4).
In regards to claim 10, Wang further discloses:
The pipeline connection structure according to claim 1, wherein:
the first pipe body has a receiving end (see annotated fig. 4),
the second pipe body has an insertion end (see annotated fig. 4), and
the insertion end is configured to be inserted into the receiving end (see annotated fig. 4, where the insertion end is configured to be inserted into receiving end); and the connection sleeve assembly is fitted over a connection position between the first pipe body and the second pipe body, and is fixedly connected to an outer surface of the receiving end and an outer surface of the second pipe body.
In regards to claim 12, Wang further discloses:
The pipeline connection structure according to claim 10, wherein the first end of the second connection sleeve abuts against the end portion of the receiving end (see annotated fig. 4).
In regards to claim 17, Wang further discloses:
The pipeline connection structure according to claim 10, wherein a second end of an upper end of the upper second of the second copper sleeve (see “Second Copper Sleeve” in annotated fig. 4) protrudes from the first copper sleeve (see “First Copper Sleeve” in annotated fig. 4).
In regards to claim 19, Wang discloses:
A compressor assembly, comprising a compressor (see lines 150-151, where the system is an air conditioning system which inherently comprises a compressor) and a pipeline connection structure (see annotated fig. 4 above), comprising:
a first pipe body (“First Steel Pipe” in annotated fig. 4) and a second pipe body (“Second Steel Pipe” in annotated fig. 4); and
a connection sleeve assembly (see annotated fig. 4) fitted outside the first pipe body, and fitted outside the second pipe body,
wherein the connection sleeve assembly (see annotated fig. 4) is fixedly connected to the first pipe body and the second pipe body so that the first pipe body is in communication with the second pipe body (see annotated fig. 4),
the connection sleeve assembly comprises a first copper sleeve (see annotated fig. 4; line 249) and a second copper sleeve (see annotated fig. 4; line 238);
but does not disclose:
wherein the lower section of the second copper sleeve extends beyond the lower section of the second steel pipe to form a second extension section or is flush with the lower section of the second steel pipe.
In regards to the position of the second steel pipe, while Wang does not disclose a configuration “where the lower section of the second copper sleeve extends beyond the lower section of the second steel pipe to form a second extension section or is flush with the lower section of the second steel pipe”, the configuration would have been a mere engineering design choice suited for its intended use and desired parameters because Shan discloses that it is known for a similar device to comprise a copper sleeve that extends beyond the steel pipe (see fig. 1, where copper sleeve 2 extends beyond the end of steel pipe 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the position of the second steel pipe to be partially inserted into the second copper sleeve to meet the limitation of claim 3 because Shan discloses that this is a known configuration (see fig. 1) and thus not producing any new or unexpected results, rearranging the position of the second steel pipe would not have modified the operation of the device (ex., fluid would still flow from the first to the second pipe), and it has been held claims which read on the prior art except with regard to the position were held unpatentable because shifting the position of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality of the positioning the second steel pipe such that it meets the limitation of claim 3. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the position of the second steel pipe to be either partially inserted into, fully inserted into, or protruding through the second cooper sleeve as desired for the intended use.
In regards to claim 20, Wang comprises:
An air conditioner (see lines 150-151, where the system is an air conditioner), comprising a compressor assembly, comprising a compressor (see lines 150-151, where the system is an air conditioning system which inherently comprises a compressor) and a pipeline connection structure (see annotated fig. 4 above), comprising:
a first pipe body (“First Steel Pipe” in annotated fig. 4) and a second pipe body (“Second Steel Pipe” in annotated fig. 4); and
a connection sleeve assembly (see annotated fig. 4) fitted outside the first pipe body, and fitted outside the second pipe body,
wherein the connection sleeve assembly (see annotated fig. 4) is fixedly connected to the first pipe body and the second pipe body so that the first pipe body is in communication with the second pipe body (see annotated fig. 4),
the connection sleeve assembly comprises a first copper sleeve (see annotated fig. 4; line 249) and a second copper sleeve (see annotated fig. 4; line 238);
but does not disclose:
wherein the lower section of the second copper sleeve extends beyond the lower section of the second steel pipe to form a second extension section or is flush with the lower section of the second steel pipe.
In regards to the position of the second steel pipe, while Wang does not disclose a configuration “where the lower section of the second copper sleeve extends beyond the lower section of the second steel pipe to form a second extension section or is flush with the lower section of the second steel pipe”, the configuration would have been a mere engineering design choice suited for its intended use and desired parameters because Shan discloses that it is known for a similar device to comprise a copper sleeve that extends beyond the steel pipe (see fig. 1, where copper sleeve 2 extends beyond the end of steel pipe 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the position of the second steel pipe to be partially inserted into the second copper sleeve to meet the limitation of claim 3 because Shan discloses that this is a known configuration (see fig. 1) and thus not producing any new or unexpected results, rearranging the position of the second steel pipe would not have modified the operation of the device (ex., fluid would still flow from the first to the second pipe), and it has been held claims which read on the prior art except with regard to the position were held unpatentable because shifting the position of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality of the positioning the second steel pipe such that it meets the limitation of claim 3. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the position of the second steel pipe to be either partially inserted into, fully inserted into, or protruding through the second cooper sleeve as desired for the intended use.
In regards to claim 21, Wang in view of Shan further discloses:
The pipeline connection structure according to claim 1, wherein the lower section of the second steel pipe, the upper section of the second copper sleeve, and the upper section of the first copper sleeve radially overlap with one another (see annotated fig. 4, where moving the second steel pipe to the left would still meet the limitation of the claim).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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