DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1, 4-8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 19-22 are rejected and claims 2, 3, 9, 14, 17, and 18 are cancelled.
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 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 8 that Wang does not disclose a force mechanism configured to apply a force between two surfaces to form a seal without a gasket, the examiner respectfully disagrees as a “force mechanism” is a broad limitation that only requires an element capable of producing a force on another element and there is no “gasket” between both the first surface and second surface of Wang. In other words, the claim requires “a force mechanism configured to apply a force to at least one of the first tube or the second tube to maintain direct, intimate contact between the first surface and the second surface to form a substantially hermetic seal without a gasket” only requires that a force mechanism is capable of producing a force on tubes to produce a seal between the surfaces without a gasket (ex., there is nothing structural of the force mechanism of Wang that would prevent this functional limitation as there is no gasket between the first and second surface of the pipes of Wang).
In response to applicant's arguments on page 10 against the references individually (ex., Sugiyama requires a gasket fitted), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In addition, Sugiyama discloses an embodiment that does not comprise a sealing gasket (ex., see fig. 3, where no gasket is present and thus is not “required”).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/16/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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, 4, 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN-108953792) in view of Kieselbach et al. (WO-2019201654) and in further view of Sugiyama (U.S. Patent No. 7,497,482).
In regards to claim 1, Wang discloses:
An assembly (see annotated fig. 1 below hereinafter) comprising:
a first tube (1) defining a first smooth, planar surface at an end of the first tube (see annotated fig. 1 below);
a second tube (see annotated fig. 1) defining a second smooth, planar surface at an end of the second tube (see annotated fig. 1);
a force mechanism (ex., combination of 2, 3, 5, and 4) configured to apply a force to at least one of the first tube or the second tube to maintain direct, intimate contact between the first surface and the second surface to form a substantially hermetic seal without a gasket (see annotated fig. 1, where there is nothing structural preventing the force mechanism from meeting this functional limitation),
wherein:
the first surface and the second surface are configured to interface to form a substantially hermetic seal (see annotated fig. 1, where there is structurally nothing preventing this functional limitation as both ends are squeezed),
the force is substantially normal to the first and second surfaces (see annotated fig. 1),
the first tube comprises a flange (1a) at the end of the first tube defining the first surface,
the flange defines a radial cross-sectional surface (see annotated fig. 1, near planar surfaces) that has greater area than a radial cross-sectional area defined by a body portion of the first tube (see annotated fig. 1, where the flange has greater radial height than rest of tube), and
the first surface defines a flat, continuous, uninterrupted planar surface extending between a first point located at an inner diameter of the first tube and a second point located at an outermost diameter of the flange (see annotated fig. 1, where the planar surfaces are continuous from the top of the flange and bottom of tube),
but does not disclose:
wherein the CTE of the first tube is at least 4 parts per million per degree Celsius ppm/°C different than the CTE of the second tube,
the force mechanism includes at least one spring configure to apply a dynamic spring force substantially normal to the first and second surfaces to maintain the substantially hermetic seal throughout a thermal cycle of the assembly.
In regards to the materials of the tubes, Kieselbach discloses a similar device comprising a first tube made of ceramic material (see lines 745-746 of the translated document provided herein) such as silicon carbide (see lines 545-549), and
a second tube made of metallic material (see lines 743-744) such as stainless steel (see lines 542-544),
wherein it is known to use the combination of a metallic tube and ceramic tube in high-temperature processes (see lines 39-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a ceramic material (ex,. silicon carbide) for the first tube and a metallic material (ex., stainless steel) for the second tube of Wang because Kieselbach discloses that it is known to use ceramic and metallic materials such as silicon carbide and stainless steel for high temperature processes and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to the CTE, Kyocera (see NPL previously provided) discloses Silicone Carbide has a CTE of 4.4 while stainless steel has a CTE of 18 which would meet the limitation of the claim.
In regards to the springs, Sugiyama discloses a similar device comprising springs (70 and 72) and spring washers (71 and 73) or coil springs (16:40-45, where coil springs are not shown) to provide the benefit of biasing the flanged ends towards each other (15:24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace each of the gasket and seal on each pipe end of Wang in view of Kieselbach with a coil springs to bias the flanged members because Wang in view of Kieselbach discloses a device which differs from the claimed device by a replacement of biasing members of Sugiyama, Sugiyama discloses a similar device comprising multiple embodiments showing gaskets used as biasing members (ex., synthetic thrust ring 9 in fig. 10) or spring members (70, 71, 72, 73 in fig. 9; 16:40-45, where coil or disk springs can be used) to provide the benefit of always biasing the pipes towards each other (15:24-28), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the one known biasing element for another biasing element because replacing one biasing member adjacent to a flange pipe for another biasing member adjacent to a flanged pipe would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4 and 19, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama further discloses:
The assembly of claim 1 and the method of claim 16,
wherein the first tube comprises a ceramic material (see rejection of claims 1 and 16), and
wherein the second tube comprises a metallic material (see rejection of claims 1 and 16).
In regards to claim 7, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama further discloses:
The assembly of claim 1, wherein the assembly is configured to be part of a high-temperature reactor (structurally there is nothing preventing this).
In regards to claim 8, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama further discloses:
The assembly of claim 1, wherein the assembly is configured to form a substantially hermetic seal after thermal cycling to a temperature of 400 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 30 pounds per square inch (structurally there is nothing preventing this).
In regards to claim 11, Wang further discloses:
The assembly of claim 1, wherein the force mechanism comprises a compression assembly which includes a bolt and a hub (see annotated fig. 1 above hereinafter).
In regards to claim 12, Wang further discloses:
The assembly of claim 1, wherein the first tube defines a central axial axis (see annotated fig. 1), and
wherein the first surface is substantially perpendicular to the central axial axis.
In regards to claim 13, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama further discloses:
The assembly of claim 1, wherein an end of the first tube opposite the first smooth, planar surface is configured to accommodate axial expansion and contraction of the first tube.
In regards to claim 15, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama further discloses:
The assembly of claim 1, wherein the force mechanism is configured to accommodate radial expansion and contraction of the first tube or the second tube (structurally there is nothing preventing this).
In regards to claim 16, Wang discloses:
A method (see annotated fig. 1 above hereinafter) comprising:
contacting a first smooth, planar surface at an end of a first tube (see annotated fig. 1) with a second smooth, planar surface at an end of a second tube (see annotated fig. 1) to form an intimate, direct interface between the first tube and the second tube (see annotated fig. 1),
wherein:
the first tube comprises a flange (1a) at the end of the first tube defining the smooth, planar surface,
wherein the flange defines a radial cross-sectional surface that has greater area than a radial cross-sectional area defined by a body portion of the first tube (see annotated fig. 1), and
the first surface define a flat, continuous, uninterrupted planar surface extending[AltContent: rect]
applying a force with a force mechanism (ex., 2, 3, 4, 5) to at least one of the first tube or the second tube (see annotated fig. 1),
wherein the force is normal to the first surface and the second surface (see annotated fig. 1),
wherein the force causes a substantially hermetic seal to form between the first surface and the second surface (see annotated fig. 1, where there is structurally nothing preventing this as both flanges are pressed against each other),
but does not disclose:
wherein the CTE of the first tube is at least 4 parts per million per degree Celsius ppm/°C different than the CTE of the second tube,
the force mechanism includes at least one spring configure to apply a dynamic spring force as the force.
In regards to the materials of the tubes, Kieselbach discloses a similar device comprising a first tube made of ceramic material (see lines 745-746 of the translated document provided herein) such as silicon carbide (see lines 545-549), and
a second tube made of metallic material (see lines 743-744) such as stainless steel (see lines 542-544),
wherein it is known to use the combination of a metallic tube and ceramic tube in high-temperature processes (see lines 39-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a ceramic material (ex,. silicon carbide) for the first tube and a metallic material (ex., stainless steel) for the second tube of Wang because Kieselbach discloses that it is known to use ceramic and metallic materials such as silicon carbide and stainless steel for high temperature processes and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to the CTE, Kyocera (see NPL previously provided) discloses Silicone Carbide has a CTE of 4.4 while stainless steel has a CTE of 18 which would meet the limitation of the claim.
In regards to the springs, Sugiyama discloses a similar device comprising springs (70 and 72) and spring washers (71 and 73) or coil springs (16:40-45, where coil springs are not shown) to provide the benefit of biasing the flanged ends towards each other (15:24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace each of the gasket and seal on each pipe end of Wang in view of Kieselbach with a coil springs to bias the flanged members because Wang in view of Kieselbach discloses a device which differs from the claimed device by a replacement of biasing members of Sugiyama, Sugiyama discloses a similar device comprising multiple embodiments showing gaskets used as biasing members (ex., synthetic thrust ring 9 in fig. 10) or spring members (70, 71, 72, 73 in fig. 9; 16:40-45, where coil or disk springs can be used) to provide the benefit of always biasing the pipes towards each other (15:24-28), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the one known biasing element for another biasing element because replacing one biasing member adjacent to a flange pipe for another biasing member adjacent to a flanged pipe would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to claim 21, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama further discloses:
The assembly of claim 1, wherein the force mechanism is configured to apply a first force to the first tube and a second force to the second tube to maintain direct contact between the first smooth, planar surface and the second smooth, planar surface (ex., see fig. 9 of Sugiyama); and
wherein the first force and the second force are normal to the first and second smooth, planar surfaces (see annotated fig. 1; ex., see also ex., see fig. 9 of Sugiyama).
In regards to claim 22, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama further discloses:
The method of claim 16, wherein the force mechanism is configured to apply a first force to the first tube and a second force to the second tube to maintain direct contact between the first smooth, planar surface and the second smooth, planar surface (see annotated fig. 1; ex., see also ex., see fig. 9 of Sugiyama).
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and in further view of Verzicht et al. (DE-3839604).
In regards to claim 5 and 20, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama discloses:
The assembly of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, wherein each of the first surface and the second surface define a roughness (it is inherent that surfaces comprises roughness),
but does not disclose:
wherein the roughness of each of the first surface and the second surface is from about 1 micron to about 5 microns.
In regards to the surface roughness, while Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama does not expressly disclose “surface roughness” of the first and second surface, the “surface roughness” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Verzicht discloses a similar device (see fig. 1) comprising two planar surfaces (14, fig. 1) with a low surface roughness of less than 1 microns to provide the benefit of being a gap-free, tight butt connection (see lines 93-94 of the translated NPL previously provided herein) such that the surface roughness is a known parameter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the roughness of each of the first surface and the second surface of Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama such that the roughness is from about 1 micron to about 5 microns, as the “roughness” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Verzicht explicitly discloses that the roughness is a known parameter such that the roughness of less than 1 microns provides the benefit of being a gap-free, tight butt connection. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 6, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama discloses:
The assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the first surface and the second surface define a planarity (see annotated fig. 1),
but does not disclose:
a planarity that is less than about 20 microns.
In regards to the surface roughness, while Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama does not expressly disclose “surface roughness” of the first and second surface, the “surface roughness” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Verzicht discloses a similar device (see fig. 1) comprising two planar surfaces (14, fig. 1) with a low surface roughness of less than 1 microns to provide the benefit of being a gap-free, tight butt connection (see lines 93-94 of the translated NPL previously provided herein) such that the surface roughness is a known parameter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the roughness of each of the first surface and the second surface of Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama such that the roughness is about 1 micron, as the “roughness” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Verzicht explicitly discloses that the roughness is a known parameter such that the roughness of about 1 microns provides the benefit of being a gap-free, tight butt connection. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Coiling Technologies (NPL, 2019).
In regards to claim 10, Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama discloses:
The assembly of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the spring is a high-temperature spring comprising one or more of a nickel-chromium alloy, a titanium-zirconium-molybdenum alloy, an alloy including tungsten, a carbon/carbon composite, a silicon carbide/silicon carbide composite, or the like.
In regards to the material of the spring, Coiling Technologies discloses that Nickel-Chrome alloys for springs is a high corrosion-resistant super alloy and is widely used in extreme environments where tremendous heat and corrosion resistance is paramount to the integrity of the end product (see page 4 of 6 in the NPL previously provided herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use an Nickel-Chromium alloy for the springs of Wang in view of Kieselbach and Sugiyama because Coiling Technologies discloses that it is known to use Nickel-Chromium alloys for springs and is a high corrosion-resistant super alloy and is widely used in extreme environments where tremendous heat and corrosion resistance is paramount to the integrity of the end product (see page 4 of 6) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
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