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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 02/11/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/11/25.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/06/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/373,920 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US 4,522,434) in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 1, Webb discloses a structural chassis for a pipe repair stent, the structural chassis comprising: a first reinforcement ring (44) configured to be received in a first circumferential groove of a gasket; a first groove cover (10) axially aligned with and disposed radially outward of the first reinforcement ring (Fig. 10), relative to the chassis axis (longitudinal pipe axis), to cover and protect the first reinforcement ring.
Webb is not explicit as to whether a plurality of the pipes (24) can be joined in series by couplings (10). Nevertheless, this is common, and abounds the pipe coupling art. Accordingly, Examiner takes official notice of the use of a pipeline comprising a series of pipes that are connected at their respective ends by a pipe coupling. And, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Webb to include a series of couplings connecting a series of pipes (24), as taught by Official Notice, in order to reliably secure a series of pipes together, end-to-end, to form a pipeline, so as to carry fluid for a predetermined distance.
Accordingly, Webb/Official Notice teaches a second reinforcement ring (26), wherein the chassis axis (longitudinal pipe axis) extends centrally through the first reinforcement ring and the second reinforcement ring, the second reinforcement ring axially spaced from the first reinforcement ring, relative to the chassis axis, and configured to be received in a second circumferential groove of the gasket; and a second groove cover (10) axially aligned with and disposed radially outward of the second reinforcement ring (Fig. 10), relative to the chassis axis, to cover and protect the second reinforcement ring, wherein the second reinforcement ring is configured to be moved axially with respect to the first reinforcement ring along the chassis axis (when it is not installed about the pipes 24).
As to claim 2, Webb discloses the structural chassis of claim 1, wherein; each of the first groove cover and the second groove cover defines an inner cover surface, an outer cover surface, a first cover end, and a second cover end; the inner cover surface of the first groove cover confronts the first reinforcement ring; and the inner cover surface of the second groove cover confronts the second reinforcement ring. Refer to figures.
As to claim 3, Webb discloses the structural chassis of claim 2, wherein: the inner cover surface of each of the first and second groove cover defines a first snap tab (30, 32) extending radially inward at the first cover end, relative to the chassis axis, and a second snap tab (30, 32) extending radially inward at the second cover end, relative to the chassis axis; the first snap tab of the first groove cover is configured to engage a first snap notch of the first circumferential groove, and the second snap tab of the first groove cover is configured to engage a second snap notch of the first circumferential groove; and the first snap tab of the second groove cover is configured to engage a first snap notch of the second circumferential groove, and the second snap tab of the second groove cover is configured to engage a second snap notch of the second circumferential groove.
As to claim 4, Webb discloses the structural chassis of claim 3, wherein: the first reinforcement ring is disposed axially between the first snap tab of the first groove cover and the second snap tab of the first groove cover, relative to the chassis axis; and the second reinforcement ring is disposed axially between the first snap tab of the second groove cover and the second snap tab of the second groove cover, relative to the chassis axis. Refer to figures.
As to claim 5, Webb discloses the structural chassis of claim 3, wherein: the first snap tab and the second snap tab of the first groove cover extend circumferentially about the inner cover surface of the first groove cover, relative to the chassis axis; and the first snap tab and the second snap tab of the second groove cover extend circumferentially about the inner cover surface of the second groove cover, relative to the chassis axis. Refer to figures.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb in view of Gittleman (US 3,479,066).
As to claim 6, Webb discloses the structural chassis of claim 5, except that the first snap tab is a dovetail tab, the cross-sectional shape of the dovetail tab defining an isosceles trapezoid.
However, Gittleman teaches a pipe coupling similar to that of Webb, including a pipe coupling (18) surrounding a gasket (27). As shown in Fig. 20, the gasket includes tabs (160, 162) that are in the shape of an isosceles trapezoid, providing an alternative shape by which to secure two pipe coupling parts together.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Webb such that his tabs are a shape defining an isosceles trapezoid, as taught by Gittleman, in order to provide an alternative, yet effective shape to secure the groove cover (10) in Webb to pipes (24).
Note also that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in the shape 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).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 3,233,922) in view of Sills (US 3,851,901).
As to claim 1, Evans discloses a structural chassis for a pipe repair stent, the structural chassis comprising: a first groove cover (17) axially aligned with and disposed radially outward a ring gasket (13), relative to the chassis axis, to cover and protect the gasket; and a second groove cover (17) axially aligned with and disposed radially outward of the ring gasket, relative to the chassis axis, to cover and protect the gasket.
Evans fails to teach a first reinforcement ring configured to be received in a first circumferential groove of a gasket; a second reinforcement ring, wherein a chassis axis extends centrally through the first reinforcement ring and the second reinforcement ring, the second reinforcement ring axially spaced from the first reinforcement ring, relative to the chassis axis, and configured to be received in a second circumferential groove of the gasket; wherein the second reinforcement ring is configured to be moved axially with respect to the first reinforcement ring along the chassis axis.
However, Sills teaches a pipe coupling remarkably similar to that of Evans, including two band clamps (28) and a ring gasket (15). Sills’ coupling also includes locking rings (31) having tongues (22) which lock into grooves in the pipes (11, 12) to be joined, the tongue/groove arrangement allowing for axial play of the pipes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Evans to include reinforcement/locking rings, as taught by Sills, in order to secure pipes having grooves in the ends thereof, to increase the ability of the pipes to withstand higher pressures, and to increase the holding force of the coupling (7:14-29).
Thus, Evans/Sills teaches a structural chassis for a pipe repair stent, the structural chassis comprising: a first reinforcement ring (21, Sills) configured to be received in a first circumferential groove of a gasket; a second reinforcement ring (21, Sills), wherein a chassis axis (longitudinal pipe axis) extends centrally through the first reinforcement ring and the second reinforcement ring, the second reinforcement ring axially spaced from the first reinforcement ring, relative to the chassis axis, and configured to be received in a second circumferential groove of the gasket; a first groove cover (17, Evans) axially aligned with and disposed radially outward of the first reinforcement ring, relative to the chassis axis, to cover and protect the first reinforcement ring; and a second groove cover (17, Evans) axially aligned with and disposed radially outward of the second reinforcement ring, relative to the chassis axis, to cover and protect the second reinforcement ring, wherein the second reinforcement ring is configured to be moved axially with respect to the first reinforcement ring along the chassis axis (when not installed about the pipes 10, 11) .
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As to claim 2, Evans/Sills discloses the structural chassis of claim 1, wherein; each of the first groove cover and the second groove cover defines an inner cover surface, an outer cover surface, a first cover end, and a second cover end; the inner cover surface of the first groove cover confronts the first reinforcement ring; and the inner cover surface of the second groove cover confronts the second reinforcement ring. Refer to figures.
As to claim 7, Evans/Sills discloses the structural chassis of claim 1, further comprising a reinforcement rod (ridge 15, Evans) disposed radially inward of the first reinforcement ring and the second reinforcement ring, relative to the chassis axis, wherein the reinforcement rod extends axially between the first reinforcement ring and the second reinforcement ring, relative to the chassis axis.
As to claim 8, Evans/Sills discloses the structural chassis of claim 7, wherein the reinforcement rod is one of a plurality of reinforcement rods (ridges 15, Evans), the plurality of reinforcement rods arranged circumferentially about an inner diameter the structural chassis, relative to the chassis axis.
As to claim 9, Evans/Sills discloses the structural chassis of claim 7, wherein the reinforcement rod defines a first rod end extending axially outward beyond the first reinforcement ring, relative to the chassis axis, and a second rod end extending axially outward beyond the second reinforcement ring, relative to the chassis axis. Refer to Evans.
As to claim 10, Evans/Sills discloses the structural chassis of claim 9, wherein the first rod end is an angled first rod end and the second rod end is an angled second rod end. The ends in the circumferential direction are angled, as shown in Fig. 2)
As to claim 11, Evans/Sills discloses the structural chassis of claim 1, wherein: each of the first reinforcement ring and the second reinforcement ring are substantially annular; and each of the first groove cover and the second groove cover are substantially annular. Refer to Evans.
As to claim 12, Evans/Sills discloses the structural chassis of claim 1, except that each of the first reinforcement ring and the second reinforcement ring comprise an epoxy material.
Epoxy (elastomer, resin) is a well-known and commercially available material that is known for its resilience, tensile strength, and anti-corrosive properties. As such, it would have been an obvious matter of engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected epoxy as the material for the spacer for its desirable physical properties such as resilience, tensile strength and anti-corrosive properties. Moreover, it should be noted that it has been consistently held by case law that the selection of a known material for the reasons that it is known and on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is within the expected level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the reinforcement rings of Evans/Sills sleeve to be made of epoxy.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
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 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-930pm, mid-day flex 2-4pm.
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 M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679