DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14, and 16-22 are currently pending.
Claims 19-22 are newly added.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 15, and 17 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2025 was considered by the examiner, however, for any foreign document, only that portion which has been provided in English has been considered, any portion not provided in English has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 implies that it depends from claim 6. However, claim 6 was canceled by applicant. Was applicant attempting to make claim 17 an independent claim or was applicant also going to cancel claim 17 as it now depends from a canceled claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
At this time, claim 17 is being treated as if it has been canceled, as it depends from a canceled claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, 14, 16, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 61-177293, (hereinafter, JP-293).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Re Clm 1: JP-293 discloses a device (see Figs. 1 and 2) for decoupling and vibration control for use in heat pump devices, the device comprising:
- a pipe section (7) comprising
exactly two, spaced, staggered bellows arrangements (the first arrangement containing 3 and the second arrangement containing 4) configured for vibration compensation between a first end and a second end of the pipe section,
wherein the two bellows arrangements are integrated in one piece (see Fig. 1) into the pipe section; and
- first and second connecting elements (the first connecting element containing 5 and the second connecting element containing 6) distinct from the pipe section (see Fig. 1), the first and second connecting elements arranged at a respective end the first end and the second end of the pipe section (see Fig. 1), respectively,
wherein the pipe section at least partly encloses an interior (see Fig. 1), wherein a central line passes through the interior (see Fig. 1), wherein each of the first and second connecting elements is embodied as a flange connection, a press system, a screw connection (see Fig. 1) or a groove connection;
wherein between the first and second connecting elements, the pipe section including the two bellows arrangements jointly has, if measured in any plane that is orthogonal to the central line, a material thickness along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends (see Fig. 1), and
wherein each bellows arrangement respectively comprises one or more annularly closed foldings (see Fig. 1) each running around 360° (see Fig. 2), with each annularly closed folding of the one or more annularly closed foldings substantially having circular symmetry in any plane that is orthogonal to the central line and that passes through the respective annularly closed folding (see Figs. 1 and 2).
The recitation “folding(s)” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
JP-293 fails to disclose that the disclosed bellows arrangements are non-metallic and that the disclosed material thickness is constant.
Non-metallic material(s) can be cheap, lightweight, strong, can withstand harsh environments to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure it is made from, alternatively, a non-metallic material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have had the disclosed bellows arrangements made from a non-metallic material, with a reasonable expectation of success because, in this instance, one would merely be substituting one type of material for another type of material, for the purpose of providing an alternative material which can be cheap, lighter in weight, have a better weight to strength ratio, can withstand harsh environments; in order to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure which is made from said non-metallic material, alternatively, a non-metallic material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Note that JP-293 appears to silent as to the material thickness being constant, but Fig. 1 of JP-293 appears to illustrates a constant material thickness or is approaching a constant material thickness, specifically along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends.
Having a constant material thickness reduces cost and the design complexity by having a constant material thickness and such also makes the manufacturing of such an item easier than if the material thickness varied.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have had the disclosed material thickness be constant, specifically along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends, with a reasonable expectation of success because, in this instance, one would merely be substituting one material thickness for another material thickness, for the purpose of reducing the cost and the design complexity by having a constant material thickness and such also makes the manufacturing of such an item easier than if the material thickness varied, alternatively, such a structural requirement would yield the same predictable result of allowing for a fluid to flow through the structure without the structure failing.
Note that a change in the shape (the wall thickness in this instance) of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re Clm 2: JP-293 discloses wherein the pipe section is bent (see Fig. 1); and wherein the pipe section comprises two legs (see Fig. 1), with an angle between the two legs being between 75 degrees and 120 degrees (see Fig. 1) and wherein on each leg of the two legs, a respective bellows arrangement of the two bellows arrangements is arranged (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 3: JP-293 discloses wherein each bellows arrangement of the two bellows arrangements is arranged directly adjacent to a respective one of the first and second connecting element (see Fig. 1) such that the distance from each end of the pipe section to the respective adjacent bellows arrangement is less than two foldings (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 4: JP-293 discloses wherein the pipe section is embodied in one piece (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 5: JP-293 discloses wherein each bellows arrangement of the two bellows arrangements comprises between one and three foldings (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 8: JP-293 discloses wherein the foldings of each bellows arrangement are configured such that, if viewed in a longitudinal section, a center line within the material of the respective bellows arrangement forms approximately circular segments of a same radius (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 9: JP-293 discloses wherein the radius of the circular segments is of the order of magnitude of the thickness of the material of the pipe section (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Re Clm 10: JP-293 discloses wherein in terms of volume, the pipe section is predominantly made of a material.
JP-293 fails to disclose that the disclosed material is an elastomer.
Elastomer material(s) can be cheap, lightweight, strong, can withstand harsh environments to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure it is made from, alternatively, an elastomer material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have had the disclosed material be an elastomer material, with a reasonable expectation of success because, in this instance, one would merely be substituting one type of material for another type of material, for the purpose of providing an alternative material which can be cheap, lighter in weight, have a better weight to strength ratio, can withstand harsh environments; in order to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure which is made from said elastomer material(s), alternatively, an elastomer material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Clm 11: JP-293 fails to discloses a carcass reinforcement.
Carcass reinforcement(s) are used for strengthening pipes against collapse or damage. Where such is used to extend the life of the pipe or tubing it is used with and to protect said pipe of tubing from unwanted damage.
The examiner is taking Official notice that the use of a carcass reinforcement is old and well-known for extend the life of the pipe or tubing it is used with and to protect said pipe of tubing from unwanted damage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have included a carcass reinforcement, with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a carcass reinforcement is old and well-known, for the purpose of extending the life of the pipe or tubing it is used with and to protect said pipe of tubing from unwanted damage.
Re Clm 14: JP-293 discloses wherein the angle between the two legs is about 90 degrees (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 16: JP-293 discloses wherein the bellows arrangements comprises two foldings (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 19: JP-293 discloses a device (see Figs. 1 and 2) for decoupling and vibration control for use in heat pump devices, the device comprising:
a pipe section (7) consisting essentially of exactly two, spaced, staggered bellows arrangements (the first arrangement containing two of the elements 3 closest to reference numeral 7 and the second arrangement containing two of the elements 4 closest to reference numeral 7) configured for vibration compensation between a first end and a second end of the pipe section ( see Fig. 1) and
at least one stabilizing ring or reinforcing rib (the third 3 closest to 5 or the third 4 closest to 6),
wherein the two bellows arrangements are integrated in one piece into the pipe section (see Fig. 1); and
first and second connecting elements (the first containing 5 and the second containing 6), the first and second connecting elements arranged at the first end and the second end of the pipe section (see Fig. 1), respectively,
wherein the pipe section at least partly encloses an interior (see Fig. 1), wherein a central line passes through the interior (see Fig. 1); wherein between the first and second bellows arrangements, the pipe section has, if measured in any plane that is orthogonal to the central line, an internal diameter along an entire length of the pipe section between the two bellows arrangements (see Fig. 1), and
wherein each bellows arrangement respectively comprises one or more annularly closed foldings each running around 360 degrees (see Fig. 1) with each annularly closed folding of the one or more annularly closed foldings substantially having circular symmetry in any plane that is orthogonal to the central line and that passes through the respective annularly closed folding (see Figs. 1 and 2).
The recitation “folding(s)” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
JP-293 fails to disclose that the disclosed bellows arrangements are non-metallic and that the disclosed internal diameter is constant.
Non-metallic material(s) can be cheap, lightweight, strong, can withstand harsh environments to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure it is made from, alternatively, a non-metallic material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have had the disclosed bellows arrangements made from a non-metallic material, with a reasonable expectation of success because, in this instance, one would merely be substituting one type of material for another type of material, for the purpose of providing an alternative material which can be cheap, lighter in weight, have a better weight to strength ratio, can withstand harsh environments; in order to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure which is made from said non-metallic material, alternatively, a non-metallic material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Note that JP-293 appears to silent as to the internal diameter being constant, but Fig. 1 of JP-293 appears to illustrates a constant internal diameter or is approaching a constant internal diameter, specifically along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends.
Having a constant internal diameter reduces cost and the design complexity by having a constant internal diameter and such also makes the manufacturing of such an item easier than if the internal diameter varied.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have had the disclosed internal diameter be constant, specifically along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends, with a reasonable expectation of success because, in this instance, one would merely be substituting one internal diameter for another internal diameter, for the purpose of reducing the cost and the design complexity by having a constant internal diameter and such also makes the manufacturing of such an item easier than if the internal diameter varied, alternatively, such a structural requirement would yield the same predictable result of allowing for a fluid to flow through the structure without the structure failing.
Note that a change in the shape (the wall thickness in this instance) of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re Clm 20: JP-293 discloses wherein the pipe section is bent (see Fig. 1); and wherein the pipe section comprises two legs (see Fig. 1), with an angle between the two legs being between 75 degrees and 120 degrees (see Fig. 1) and wherein on each leg of the two legs, a respective bellows arrangement of the two bellows arrangements is arranged (see Fig. 1).
The following contains an alternative rejection of claim 19 for rejecting claims 21 and 22.
Re Clm 19: JP-293 discloses a device (see Figs. 1 and 2) for decoupling and vibration control for use in heat pump devices, the device comprising:
a pipe section (7) consisting essentially of exactly two, spaced, staggered bellows arrangements (the first arrangement containing two of the elements 3 closest to 5 and the second arrangement containing two of the elements 4 closest to 6) configured for vibration compensation between a first end and a second end of the pipe section ( see Fig. 1) and
at least one stabilizing ring or reinforcing rib (the third 3 closest to reference numeral 7 or the third 4 closest to reference numeral 7),
wherein the two bellows arrangements are integrated in one piece into the pipe section (see Fig. 1); and
first and second connecting elements (the first containing 5 and the second containing 6), the first and second connecting elements arranged at the first end and the second end of the pipe section (see Fig. 1), respectively,
wherein the pipe section at least partly encloses an interior (see Fig. 1), wherein a central line passes through the interior (see Fig. 1); wherein between the first and second bellows arrangements, the pipe section has, if measured in any plane that is orthogonal to the central line, an internal diameter along an entire length of the pipe section between the two bellows arrangements (see Fig. 1), and
wherein each bellows arrangement respectively comprises one or more annularly closed foldings each running around 360 degrees (see Fig. 1) with each annularly closed folding of the one or more annularly closed foldings substantially having circular symmetry in any plane that is orthogonal to the central line and that passes through the respective annularly closed folding (see Figs. 1 and 2).
The recitation “folding(s)” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
JP-293 fails to disclose that the disclosed bellows arrangements are non-metallic and that the disclosed internal diameter is constant.
Non-metallic material(s) can be cheap, lightweight, strong, can withstand harsh environments to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure it is made from, alternatively, a non-metallic material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have had the disclosed bellows arrangements made from a non-metallic material, with a reasonable expectation of success because, in this instance, one would merely be substituting one type of material for another type of material, for the purpose of providing an alternative material which can be cheap, lighter in weight, have a better weight to strength ratio, can withstand harsh environments; in order to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure which is made from said non-metallic material, alternatively, a non-metallic material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Note that JP-293 appears to silent as to the internal diameter being constant, but Fig. 1 of JP-293 appears to illustrates a constant internal diameter or is approaching a constant internal diameter, specifically along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends.
Having a constant internal diameter reduces cost and the design complexity by having a constant internal diameter and such also makes the manufacturing of such an item easier than if the internal diameter varied.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have had the disclosed internal diameter be constant, specifically along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends, with a reasonable expectation of success because, in this instance, one would merely be substituting one internal diameter for another internal diameter, for the purpose of reducing the cost and the design complexity by having a constant internal diameter and such also makes the manufacturing of such an item easier than if the internal diameter varied, alternatively, such a structural requirement would yield the same predictable result of allowing for a fluid to flow through the structure without the structure failing.
Note that a change in the shape (the wall thickness in this instance) of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re Clm 21: JP-293 discloses wherein each bellows arrangement of the two bellows arrangements is arranged directly adjacent to a respective one of the first and second connecting elements such that the distance from each end of the pipe section to the respective adjacent bellows arrangement is less than two foldings (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 22: JP-293 discloses wherein the at least one stabilizing ring or reinforcing rib comprises a plurality of stabilizing rings or reinforcing ribs arranged in a region between the two bellows arrangement (the third 3 closest to reference numeral 7 and the third 4 closest to reference numeral 7).
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 61-177293, (hereinafter, JP-293) in view of Tan (CN 102003593).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Re Clm 12: JP-293 discloses a system, comprising:
a device (see Figs. 1 and 2) for decoupling and vibration control, the device comprising
a pipe section (7) having a first end (see Fig. 1) and a second end (see Fig. 1), and
first (the connection containing 5) and second (the connection containing 6) connecting elements distinct from the pipe section (see Fig. 1), with each of the first and second connecting elements arranged at the first end and the second end, respectively, of the pipe section (see Fig. 1);
wherein the pipe section comprises exactly two, spaced, staggered bellows arrangements configured for vibration compensation, wherein the two bellows arrangements are integrated in one piece into the pipe section (see Fig. 1), wherein the pipe section at least partly encloses an interior (see Fig. 1), wherein a central line passes through the interior (see Fig. 1); wherein between the first and second connecting elements (see Fig. 1), the pipe section including the two bellows arrangements jointly has, if measured in any plane that is orthogonal to the central line, a material thickness along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends (see Fig. 1); and
wherein each bellows arrangements respectively comprises one or more annularly closed foldings each running around 360 degree (see Fig. 1), with each annularly closed folding of the one or more annularly closed foldings substantially having circular symmetry in any plane that is orthogonal to the central line and that passes through the respective annularly closed folding (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the device is configured for fluidic connection and for decoupling and vibration control.
JP-293 fails to disclose that the disclosed bellows arrangements are non-metallic, that the disclosed material thickness is constant, and a heat pump device; for fluidic connection in the heat pump device and for decoupling and vibration control with respect to a vibration generator of the heat pump device.
However, Tan discloses a tube with bellows, similar to that of JP-293. Tan also teaches a heat pump device [0026-0027 and 0004-0006]; and fluidic connection in the heat pump device and for decoupling and vibration control with respect to a vibration generator of the heat pump device (see primarily Fig. 14, and also see Figs. 11 and 12 which illustrate the cross-sectional view of a portion of the structures; and see the abstract, [0026-0027 and 0004-0006]), for the purpose of providing an environment or structure for the use of an alternatively constructure device (bellowed tubular member).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have included a heat pump device; for fluidic connection in the heat pump device and for decoupling and vibration control with respect to a vibration generator of the heat pump device, as taught by Tan, with a reasonable expectation of success because one tubular member is being replaced with another tubular member on a heat pump device, for the purpose of providing an environment or structure for the use of an alternatively constructure device (bellowed tubular member).
Non-metallic material(s) can be cheap, lightweight, strong, can withstand harsh environments to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure it is made from, alternatively, a non-metallic material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have had the disclosed bellows arrangements made from a non-metallic material, with a reasonable expectation of success because, in this instance, one would merely be substituting one type of material for another type of material, for the purpose of providing an alternative material which can be cheap, lighter in weight, have a better weight to strength ratio, can withstand harsh environments; in order to enhance the fit, form, or function of the structure which is made from said non-metallic material, alternatively, a non-metallic material(s) can yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free joint structure.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Note that JP-293 appears to silent as to the material thickness being constant, but Fig. 1 of JP-293 appears to illustrates a constant material thickness or is approaching a constant material thickness, specifically along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends.
Having a constant material thickness reduces cost and the design complexity by having a constant material thickness and such also makes the manufacturing of such an item easier than if the material thickness varied.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of JP-293, to have had the disclosed material thickness be constant, specifically along an entire length of the pipe section between the first and second ends, with a reasonable expectation of success because, in this instance, one would merely be substituting one material thickness for another material thickness, for the purpose of reducing the cost and the design complexity by having a constant material thickness and such also makes the manufacturing of such an item easier than if the material thickness varied, alternatively, such a structural requirement would yield the same predictable result of allowing for a fluid to flow through the structure without the structure failing.
Note that a change in the shape (the wall thickness in this instance) of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re Clm 18: JP-293 as modified by Tan discloses wherein the vibration generator is embodied as a pump or as a compressor (Tan, see the abstract, [0026-0027 and 0004-0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection(s) do/does not apply to the reference or combination of references used in making the current rejection(s).
Any claim not specifically argued will stand or fall with the claim from which it/they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
12/11/2025
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679