DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-2, 4-17, and 19-22 are rejected and claims 3 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/7/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-17, and 19-22 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/2/2025. These drawings are accepted. However, the drawing of 6/2/2025 contain errors as outlined below and therefore is objected.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the lumen as described in the specification (ex., see fig. 6, where pipe 202 does not comprise a hole). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, last line, “off the flange” should be “of the flange”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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 10, the limitation “The assembly of claim 8, wherein the spring” is unclear to the examiner if “the spring” is supposed to be “a spring” (ex., antecedent basis issue) or if “the spring” is referring to the spring of claim 9 (ex., minor typo).
To proceed with prosecution, the examiner will interpret “The assembly of claim 8, wherein the spring” as “The assembly of claim 9, wherein the spring”. It is noted to applicant that the examiner is only interpreting the claim to proceed with prosecution and that applicant is required to amend the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN-108953792). .
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 contact between the first surface and the second surface (see annotated fig. 1),
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 7, Wang 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).
Claim 8, Wang 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).
Claim 11, Wang 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).
Claim 12, Wang 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.
Claim 13, Wang 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.
Claim 15, Wang 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).
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 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).
Claim 21, Wang 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 (see annotated fig. 1); and
wherein the first force and the second force are normal to the first and second smooth, planar surfaces (see annotated fig. 1).
Claim 22, Wang 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).
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) 2, 4, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and in view of Kieselbach et al. (WO-2019201654).
In regards to claims 2 and 17, Wang discloses:
The assembly of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, but does not disclose wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the first tube is substantially different from a CTE of the second tube.
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 previously 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 previous 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 claim 4 and 19, Wang discloses:
The assembly of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the first tube comprises a ceramic material, and wherein the second tube comprises a metallic material.
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 claim 14, Wang discloses:
The assembly of claim 1, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Wang as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and in view of Verzicht et al. (DE-3839604).
In regards to claim 5 and 20, Wang 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 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 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 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 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 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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Wang as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Sugiyama (U.S. Patent No. 7,497,482).
In regards to claim 9, Wang discloses:
The assembly of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the force mechanism comprises a spring configured to apply a spring force to form the substantially hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface.
In regards to the spring, Sugiyama discloses a similar device comprising springs (70 and 72) and spring washers (71 and 73) 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 modify the device of Wang with the provision of a spring and spring washer on each flanged end of Wang to further bias the flanged members, as taught by Sugiyama (15:24-28).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Sugiyama as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Coiling Technologies (NPL, 2019).
In regards to claim 10, Wang in view of Sugiyama discloses:
The assembly of claim 8,
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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bells (U.S. Patent No. 498,876) discloses a similar device comprising a connection between a ceramic pipe and a metal pipe and comprising a male and female threaded component.
Dunfee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,152,707) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
Hyungsoo (KR-20170001915) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
Richardson (U.S. Patent No. 2,613,958) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
Ross (U.S. Patent No. 405,745) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
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
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights