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 filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pp. 8 of the response the applicant argues that neither Ito, Lucas, and Botnick do not disclose that “an upper shape of the reinforced fence differs from a lower shape of the reinforced fence, the lower shape of the reinforced fence being inclined downwardly from a side portion of the reinforced fence”, as required by amended claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ito is reproduced below with the reinforced fence annotated as identified in the Non-Final rejection dated 03/24/2026 along with the equivalent isometric annotated Figure which identifies the features of Ito providing for the limitations required by the amended claim. Since Ito can be interpreted as providing for the new limitations the rejections are maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
303
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et. al (US 2012/0325339 A1) in view of Lucas (US 4,194,522) and further in view of Botnick (US 3,828,815).
With respect to claim 1 Ito discloses a gas pressure regulating apparatus comprising: a main body [reference character 10 comprising 16 and 20] including an outlet [reference character 14]; a pressure regulating part [reference character 20] formed in the main body, and including a diaphragm [reference character 38] configured to regulate pressure of a gas flowing to inside of the main body through the outlet; and an inlet connecting part [reference character 16] with which an external gas supply pipe is coupled, the inlet connecting part protruding from the main body and comprising: an inlet [reference character 12] communicating with the inside of the main body; and wherein the inlet comprises a female screw threading in an inner surface thereof [see Fig. 2]. Ito discloses that the reinforced portion comprises; a reinforced section [see annotated Fig. below] and a reinforced fence [see annotated Fig. below] formed around the reinforced section. Finally, Ito discloses that an upper shape of the reinforced fence differs from a lower shape of the reinforced fence, the lower shape of the reinforced fence being inclined downwardly from a side portion of the reinforced fence [see response to arguments above].
Ito does not disclose a reinforced portion formed in one end of the inlet connecting part along a circumference of the inlet and depressed in a direction which the external gas supply pipe is coupled with the inlet connecting part, wherein: in a direction opposite the direction in which the external gas supply pipe is coupled with the inlet connecting part, the reinforced portion leads the inlet, and the female screw threading terminates at a border between the inlet and the reinforced portion.
Lucas discloses a regulator [see Fig. 2] which includes having an inlet [see annotated Fig. below] having a reinforced portion [see annotated Fig. below] formed in one end of the inlet connecting part along a circumference of the inlet and depressed in a direction which the external gas supply pipe is coupled with the inlet connecting part, wherein: in a direction opposite the direction in which the external gas supply pipe is coupled with the inlet connecting part, the reinforced portion leads the inlet, and the female screw threading terminates at a border [see annotated Fig. below] between the inlet and the reinforced portion. The reinforced portion taught by Lucas allows for the compression of gasket between the inlet and a reducing adapter [reference character 14] without the use of thread locker or Teflon tape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the inlet taught by Ito by including the reinforced portion taught by Lucas in order to allow for the compression of gasket between the inlet and a reducing adapter without the use of thread locker or Teflon tape.
Finally, Ito does not disclose that the reinforced section is a reinforced plane.
Bornick discloses a pipe fitting assembly that includes a reinforced portion [see annotated Fig. below] comprising a reinforced plane [see annotated Fig. below], and a reinforced fence [see annotated Fig. below]. The plane allows the compression of a seal between the male and female portions of the coupling, eliminating the need for the use of Teflon tape or thread sealant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Ito and Lucas by forming the reinforced section as a reinforced plane, as taught by Bornick, because changing the reinforced portion taught by Lucas to that it is a reinforced plane is regarded as an obvious change in shape, absent specific recitation that the planar shape is significant. In this case the O-ring taught by Lucas could just as easily be compressed against a plane as compared to the shape taught by Lucas.
PNG
media_image3.png
511
709
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
294
549
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
303
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2 Ito discloses that the female screw threading is formed as an inclined screw of a female screw type [see Fig. 2], and respective diameters of corresponding thread portions of the female screw threading of the inclined screw gradually reduce along the direction in which the external gas supply pipe is coupled with the inlet connecting part [see Fig. 2].
With respect to claim 3 the combination that Ito, Lucas, and Botnick disclose that the reinforced plane is formed as a surface along a radial direction of the inlet to have a greater diameter than a proximal portion of the inlet [see annotated Fig. above]; and the reinforced fence protrudes from the inlet in the direction opposite the direction in which the external gas supply pipe is coupled with the inlet connecting part and being formed around the reinforced plane to surround the reinforced plane [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Ito, Lucas, and Botnick disclose that the inlet is in a shape of a circle [see Fig. 1 of Ito], the reinforced plane is in a shape of a circle [see Figs. 1-2 of Ito in combination with Botnick], wherein the inlet is formed at a center of the reinforced plane, and the reinforced fence is formed with a preset thickness along an external diameter of the reinforced plane and has a different shape from the reinforced plane [see Fig. 1]. Botnick further discloses that the inner circumference of the reinforced fence is in a shape of a circle [see Fig. 1 of Botnick].
With respect to claim 6 the combination of Ito, Lucas and Botnick do not disclose that the diameter of the reinforced plane is 22.0mm or more. However, the diameter of the reinforced plane is interpreted to be an obvious matter of design choice that would depend on the diameter of the inlet, the weight of the regulator and the overall cost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Ito, Lucas and Botnick by forming the reinforced plane with a diameter of 22.0mm or more or more since the thickness is interpreted to be an obvious matter of design choice absent some recitation that the claimed diameter is significant.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et. al (US 2012/0325339 A1) in view of Lucas (US 4,194,522) in view of Botnick (US 3,828,815) and further in view of Campbell Jr. (US 2,478,040).
With respect to claim 7 Ito, Lucas, and Botnick do not disclose that a first connecting member comprising a coupling body coupled with the main body and a coupling cylinder protruding from the coupling body toward the outside of the main body, wherein a first connecting flow path communicating with the outlet is formed inside the coupling body and the coupling cylinder; and a second connecting member inserted into the first connecting flow path while being in contact with an inner surface of the first connecting flow path, wherein the second connecting member comprises a second connecting flow path penetrating the outlet and configured to communicate the inside of the main body with the first connecting flow path.
Campbell discloses a pressure regulator having first connecting member [reference characters 10-11] comprising a coupling body [reference character 10] coupled with the main body and a coupling cylinder [reference character 11] protruding from the coupling body toward the outside of the main body, wherein a first connecting flow path communicating with the outlet is formed inside the coupling body and the coupling cylinder [the path extends from the inlet to reference characters 11-12 and 21]; and a second connecting member [reference character 14] inserted into the first connecting flow path while being in contact with an inner surface of the first connecting flow path, wherein the second connecting member comprises a second connecting flow path [the path extends from around reference character 14 to the outlet B’] penetrating the outlet and configured to communicate the inside of the main body with the first connecting flow path. The structure disclosed by Campbell allows for the inclusion of an inlet filter [reference character 13] and a connection for a pressure gauge [reference character 17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the pressure regulator taught by Ito, Lucas, and Botnick by including the first and second connecting members taught by Campbell in order to allow for the inclusion of a filter and connection for a pressure gauge.
With respect to claim 8 the combination of Ito, Lucas, Botnick and Campbell discloses an extension pipe [reference character 25] coupled with an outer surface of the coupling cylinder [via intervening structure], wherein a length [see annotated Fig. below] between an inner surface of the first connecting flow path and an outer surface of the coupling cylinder is formed with a constant thickness without a step [see annotated Fig. below].
PNG
media_image5.png
510
544
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights