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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 5 have been withdrawn. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is claiming any thermoplastic fluoropolymer article with a surface in what would be considered a drawing direction had it been injection molded, is smoother than a threshold set by an unconventional surface roughness measurement. This broad scope has to be compared against every previously manufactured article or disclosure thereof.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 2018/0283590) in view of Clean Run (1-1/4 in. 4-Way PVC Fitting, Furniture Grade – White; available @ <https://www.adspipe.com/resources/documents/4337299E-26CD-435C-9A14666D8EF3984B>).
As to claim 6, Yokoyama discloses a molded article of a thermoplastic fluoropolymer ([0049]) molded by injection molding (abstract) using a mold part having a surface which slides parallel to the molded article when removing the molded article (core pins 111a-c slide parallel to resin pipe joint 101 during removal, [0008]; note that the claim scope includes articles not produced in this manner, provided that they do not differ structurally), wherein the average tilt angle of the mold part drawing direction (MD) of the surface of the molded article is 1.5° or lower ([0009]; inner wall surface is a straight line shape parallel to the central axis, thus smooth and therefore has an average tilt angle not exceeding the 0.5°-1.0° slope).
While the inner wall surface of Yokohama is taught as a straight line, it is not explicit wherein the average tilt angle of the mold part drawing direction (MD) of the surface of the molded article is 1.5° or lower.
However, in the same field of endeavor of injection molded thermoplastic pipe joints (p. 1), Clean Run teaches wherein the average tilt angle of the mold part drawing direction (MD) of the surface of the molded article is 1.5° or lower (smooth).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipe joint of Yokohama such that the inner surface is smooth because p.1 Clean Run teaches that an injection molded thermoplastic pipe joint should be smooth. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to ensure that the inner wall surface of Yokohama, which is taught as a straight line, is indeed smooth, and accordingly would be within the recited smoothness threshold. Of note, Applicant has not taught a methodological difference that allegedly achieves a greater smoothness.
As to claim 7, Yokoyama as modified teaches wherein the molded article is a joint part for chemical solutions (resin pipe joint, Yokohama [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant correctly points out that the mold part drawing direction is a distinct concept to average tilt angle. The present rejection is not based on asserting otherwise.
Applicant argues that average tilt angle is a microscopic surface profile parameter. Which is to say, the requirement that the surface have an average tilt angle of 1.5° or lower is to say that the surface is smooth. Having a smooth interior is obvious in view of the prior art. Clean Run teaches that the interior surface of fittings should be smooth.
Applicant presents a tautology that smooth surfaces are smooth (a low average tilt angle is remarkably smooth). This is not disputed.
Applicant is claiming every molded article of a thermoplastic fluoropolymer molded by injection molding using a mold part having a surface which slides parallel to the molded article when removing the molded article, wherein interior surface of the mold article in the mold part drawing direction (MD) is smoother than the recited standard of an average tilt angle of 1.5° or lower. Smooth interiors do not become non-obvious because Applicant presents experimental data measuring smoothness in a particular way.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/John J DeRusso/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights