DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-8 are rejected and claims 9-20 are withdrawn.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 8/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 7 that Souza in view of Greig and Inaba does not disclose teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Inaba explicitly disclose that:
“the resin adhesive 380C is cured while being filled in the grooves 311C and 321C. In this case, the adhesiveness between the boiling cooling pipes 310C and 320C and the resin adhesive 380C is increased, and the airtightness and long-term reliability of the pipe connection part are further improved” (see lines 364-367 of the previously provided translated document).
Therefore, Inaba discloses some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the first and second pipes of Souza in view of Grieg with the provision of grooves to allow the transitional film (ex., multilayer adhesive film, Nolax; 3:50-52 of Souza) to go within the grooves to further enhance adhesiveness, airtightness, and long-term reliability of the pipe connection (ex., lines 364-367 of Inaba).
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
In regards to claim 5, the limitation “further comprising a groove formed in a least one or said first and second pipes” is unclear to the examiner if applicant is attempting to add an addition groove while already disclosing a plurality of grooves or if applicant inadvertently did not cancel claim 5.
It appears applicant inadvertently did not cancel claim 5 because fig. 20 of the present invention does not disclose any other groove besides the grooves already claimed in claim 1 (ex., the plurality of grooves).
To proceed with prosecution, the examiner will interpret the limitation “further comprising a groove formed in a least one or said first and second pipes” as “the groove formed in a least one or said first and second pipes”.
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 5 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.
In this case, claim 5 discloses “further comprising a groove formed in at least one of said first and second pipes” which fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends as claim 1 already discloses a plurality of circumferential grooves.
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.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souza et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0279865) in view of Inaba et al. (WO-2013073540).
In regards to claim 1, Souza discloses:
A pipe joint (see fig. 9) comprising:
a first pipe (28) and a second pipe (30) each having an outer wall surface (see fig. 9) and a first end and a second end (it is inherent that pipes comprise two ends),
wherein said first ends of said first and second pipes are joined together at a seam (see 32 in fig. 8),
said seam comprising melted material from said first and second pipes (see paragraph 0018); and
at least one layer of reinforcement material (32) wrapped around said first and second pipes such that said seam is covered by said reinforcement material (see fig. 9),
but does not disclose:
a plurality of circumferential grooves around each of said outer wall surfaces of said first pipe and said second pipe on opposite sides of said seam such that said plurality of circumferential grooves around each of said outer wall surfaces of said first pipe and said second pipe on opposite sides of said seam.
In regards to the grooves, Inaba discloses a similar device (see fig. 13) comprising a reinforcement layer (380C) being filled into grooves of both a first pipe (310C) and second pipe (320C) to further enhance the adhesiveness, airtightness, and long-term reliability of the pipe connection (see lines 364-367 of the translated document previously provided herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify each of the first and second pipes of Souza with the provision of a plurality of grooves to allow the reinforcement layer of Souza to fill into the grooves to further enhance the adhesiveness, airtightness, and long-term reliability of the pipe connection because Souza discloses the use of a adhesive film (3:50-52 of Souza), Inaba discloses that grooves allow the adhesive reinforcement layer to fill into the grooves to further enhance the adhesiveness, airtightness, and long-term reliability of the pipe connection (see lines 364-367), and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (ex., providing a plurality of grooves to further enhancing the known affects as taught by Inaba; see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)).
In regards to claim 2, Souza further discloses:
The pipe joint of claim 1, wherein said layer of reinforcement material has been heated after said wrapping around said first and second pipes (see paragraphs 0035 and 0054).
In regards to claim 3, Souza further discloses:
The pipe joint of claim 2, wherein said reinforcement material includes a heat activated resin (see paragraph 0029, where Nolax S22.2202 is used which is multilayer adhesive film).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souza in view of Inaba as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Greig (U.S. Patent No. 5,824,179).
In regards to claim 4, Souza in view of Inaba discloses:
The pipe joint of claim 3,
but does not disclose:
at least one of said first and second pipes is a composite pipe.
In regards to the pipes being composite pipes, Greig discloses a similar device (see fig. 2) comprising a first and second composite pipe that is butt-fused together (see fig. 5),
wherein the first and second pipe further comprises a fiber enforced layer (34, fig. 5) between an inner pipe (30, fig. 5) and outer pipe (36, fig. 5; 3:1-6, where the inner/outer pipes can be the same) such that the fiber layer provides the benefit of pressure rating enhancement (1:6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the first and second pipes of Souza in view Inaba such that the first and second pipes are formed as composite pipes comprising an inner and outer pipe with a reinforcement material therebetween because Greig discloses a similar butt-welded device comprising composite pipes comprising an inner and outer tubular layer and a reinforcement layer therebetween to provide the benefit of pressure rating enhancement (1:6-9).
In regards to claim 5, as best understood, Souza in view of Inaba, Greig further discloses:
The pipe joint of claim 4, further comprising “the” groove formed in at least one of said first and second pipes.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souza in view of Inaba and Greig as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Dyksterhouse et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0008004).
In regards to claim 6, Souza in view of Inaba, Greig discloses:
The pipe joint of claim 5,
but does not disclose:
a temperature probe located underneath said layer of reinforcement material.
In regards to the temperature probe, Dyksterhouse discloses a similar device (see figs. 5 and 8) of heating tubular articles,
wherein “one or more temperature-sensing devices such as thermocouples (not shown) may be used to monitor the actual temperature at one more locations. For example, a thermocouple may be used to monitor the temperature of the carrier 16, and another thermocouple may be used to monitor the temperature of the pipe sections 12 and 14. If used to measure the temperature of the carrier, the thermocouple may be inserted through the gap between the pipe sections 12 and 14 to engage the carrier 16. Other temperature-measuring devices, both contact and non-contact, will be recognized by those skilled in the art. When used, the thermocouple can be operatively connected to the heating system to provide closed-loop control to achieve a desired temperature profile for the heating process” (see paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify joint of Souza in view of Inaba, Greig with the provision of a thermocouple underneath the layer of reinforcement material to provide the benefit of achieving a desired temperature profile for the heating process, as taught by Dyksterhouse (see paragraph 0036).
In regards to claim 7, Souza further discloses:
The pipe joint of claim 6, wherein said seam is generally flush with the exteriors walls of said first and second pipes.
In regards to claim 8, Souza further discloses:
The pipe joint of claim 7, further comprising a protective film (34, fig. 9) on top of said layer of reinforcement material.
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 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