DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3 – 7 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the conduit coupling has a top and a singular piece that defines ...” It is generally unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘top’ to be a piece of the ‘conduit coupling’ that is separate and independent of the ‘singular piece,’ or whether Applicant intends the ‘top’ to be a part of the ‘singular piece.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the conduit coupling has a singular piece having a top surface, wherein the singular piece defines ...”
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 3 – 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 - 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,360 in view of Flessas (U.S. Patent Number 4,802,792). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct form each other because each of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 – 7 of the instant application are made obvious by claims 1 – 9 of ‘360 in view of Flessas.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of ‘360 teaches a method of forming a coupling assembly (preamble), comprising the steps of: providing a conduit in an associated building slab so that said conduit projects from a surface of the slab (first paragraph of the body of claim 1); cutting a portion of said conduit which projects above the surface of the slab (second paragraph of the body of claim 1); cutting said conduit at an inside surface thereof to form a connection region (third paragraph of the body of claim 1); providing a conduit coupling (fourth paragraph of the body of claim 1, wherein the ‘transition coupling’ is the ‘conduit coupling’); inserting said conduit coupling into said connection region of said conduit (fifth paragraph of the body of claim 1); securing said conduit coupling to said conduit (fifth paragraph of the body of claim 1), wherein the conduit coupling has a body and a top surface, wherein the body defines an interior surface extending continuously from above the surface of the slab to below the surface of the slab, wherein the body has threads thereon (last paragraph of claim 1 and claim 5); and joining tubing to said conduit coupling by joining threads on the tubing with the threads on the body, to thereby facilitate joining said tubing to said conduit in the associated slab (last paragraph of claim 1). Examiner notes that this can be found because claim 1 of ‘360 teaches joining a connector to the coupling (sixth paragraph of the body of claim 1) and then joining a tubing to the connector, such that the tube is joined to the coupling, via the connector, and the tubing is further joined to the conduit, via the connector and the coupling (last paragraph of claim 1).
However, the claims of ‘360 do not teach the conduit coupling comprising a singular piece. Flessas teaches a method of forming a coupling assembly (abstract), comprising the steps of: providing a conduit in an slab (figures 1 – 3, element 74 being the ‘conduit’ and elements 20 and 86 being the ‘slab’; column 2, lines 33 – 38 and column 3, lines 46 – 57 and 62 – 65); providing a conduit coupling (figures 2 and 3, element 56 being the ‘conduit coupling’; column 3, lines 21 – 23); inserting said conduit coupling into a connection region of said conduit, and securing said conduit coupling to said conduit (figure 2, elements 56 and 74; column 3, lines 46 – 51), wherein the conduit coupling has a singular piece having a top surface, wherein the singular piece defines an interior surface extending continuously from above a surface of the slab to below the surface of the slab (figure 2, element 56 being the ‘body’), wherein the singular piece has threads thereon (figures 2 and 3, elements 60 being the ‘threads’; column 3, lines 21 – 23); and joining associated tubing to said conduit coupling by joining threads on the tubing with the threads on the body, to thereby facilitate joining said tubing to said conduit in the slab (figure 2, element 30 being the ‘tubing’; column 3, lines 26 – 27). Flessas further teaches that the body of the conduit coupling comprises a singular piece (figures 2 and 3, element 56). It would have been obvious to form the conduit coupling of the claims of ‘360 from a singular piece, as taught by Flessas, because one skilled in the art would appreciate that forming the conduit coupling from a singular piece would provide the benefit of allowing the conduit coupling to couple the conduit to the tubing, as desired by the claims of ‘360.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrame (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0287366) in view of Flessas (U.S. Patent Number 4,802,792).
As to claim 1, Vrame teaches a method of forming a coupling assembly (abstract), comprising the steps of: providing a conduit in an associated building slab so that said conduit projects from a surface of the slab (figure 3, step 1, element 12 being the ‘conduit,’ element C being the ‘slab,’ and a top surface of element C being the ‘surface of the slab’; paragraph 18); cutting a portion of said conduit which projects above the surface of the slab (figure 3, step 2, element 12; paragraph 19); cutting said conduit at an inside surface thereof to form a connection region (figure 3, step 3, element 14 being the ‘inside surface of the conduit’; paragraph 20); providing a conduit coupling (figure 1, element 10 being the ‘conduit coupling’; paragraph 17); inserting said conduit coupling into said connection region of said conduit (figure 3, step 4, elements 10 and 14; paragraphs 21 – 23), and securing said conduit coupling to said conduit (figure 3, step 4, elements 10 and 12; paragraph 21), wherein the conduit coupling has a singular piece having a top surface, wherein the singular piece defines an interior surface extending continuously from above the surface of the slab to below the surface of the slab (figures 1 – 3, top surface of element 10 being the ‘top surface’ and elements 16, 20, and 22 being the ‘body’; paragraph 21), wherein the body has threads thereon (figure 1, element 23 being the ‘threads’; paragraph 23); and joining a tubing to said conduit coupling by joining threads on the tubing with the threads on the body, to thereby facilitate joining said tubing to said conduit in the associated slab (paragraph 23, last sentence).
However, Vrame teaches the body of the conduit coupling comprising three separate pieces, rather than a singular piece (figure 2, elements 16, 20, and 22; paragraphs 21 and 22). Flessas teaches a method of forming a coupling assembly (abstract), comprising the steps of: providing a conduit in an slab (figures 1 – 3, element 74 being the ‘conduit’ and elements 20 and 86 being the ‘slab’; column 2, lines 33 – 38 and column 3, lines 46 – 57 and 62 – 65); providing a conduit coupling (figures 2 and 3, element 56 being the ‘conduit coupling’; column 3, lines 21 – 23); inserting said conduit coupling into a connection region of said conduit, and securing said conduit coupling to said conduit (figure 2, elements 56 and 74; column 3, lines 46 – 51), wherein the conduit coupling has a singular piece having a top surface, wherein the singular piece defines an interior surface extending continuously from above a surface of the slab to below the surface of the slab (figure 2, element 56 being the ‘body’), wherein the singular piece has threads thereon (figures 2 and 3, elements 60 being the ‘threads’; column 3, lines 21 – 23); and joining associated tubing to said conduit coupling by joining threads on the tubing with the threads on the body, to thereby facilitate joining said tubing to said conduit in the slab (figure 2, element 30 being the ‘tubing’; column 3, lines 26 – 27). Flessas further teaches that the body of the conduit coupling comprises a singular piece (figures 2 and 3, element 56). It would have been obvious to form the body of the conduit coupling of Vrame, which comprises three separate pieces, from a singular piece, as taught by Flessas, because Vrame and Flessas teach that the body of the conduit coupling from either three separate pieces or a singular piece provides the same benefit of connecting a conduit to a tubing.
As to claim 3, Vrame teaches that the step of cutting said conduit comprises cutting said conduit at the inside surface thereof at a taper (figure 3, step 3, element 14; paragraph 20).
As to claim 4, Vrame further teaches that the threads comprise a female thread formation on the interior surface of said body (figure 1, element 23 being the ‘female thread formation’ and the ‘interior surface of said conduit coupling’; paragraph 23), and including providing a male thread formation on an exterior surface of the tubing and engaging said male and female thread formations for joining said tubing to said conduit coupling (figures 1 and 3, element 23; paragraph 23).
As to claim 5, Vrame further teaches providing an adhesive for adhering said male and female thread formations to each other (paragraph 23).
As to claim 6, Vrame teaches that said conduit coupling comprises polyvinyl chloride (figure 1, element 16, paragraph 16).
As to claim 7, Vrame teaches that the threads on the body extend from a top of the conduit coupling over a majority of a distance between the top of the conduit coupling and the surface of the slab (figure 2, elements 20 and 22; paragraph 23). Examiner notes that this can be found because Vrame teaches that each of elements 20 and 22 are threaded to accept the tubing (paragraph 23, last sentance).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on page 7, that the prior art does not teach a conduit coupling comprising a singular piece. Examiner disagrees. Flessas teaches a method of forming a coupling assembly (abstract), comprising the steps of: providing a conduit in an slab (figures 1 – 3, element 74 being the ‘conduit’ and elements 20 and 86 being the ‘slab’; column 2, lines 33 – 38 and column 3, lines 46 – 57 and 62 – 65); providing a conduit coupling (figures 2 and 3, element 56 being the ‘conduit coupling’; column 3, lines 21 – 23); inserting said conduit coupling into a connection region of said conduit, and securing said conduit coupling to said conduit (figure 2, elements 56 and 74; column 3, lines 46 – 51), wherein the conduit coupling has a singular piece having a top surface, wherein the singular piece defines an interior surface extending continuously from above a surface of the slab to below the surface of the slab (figure 2, element 56 being the ‘body’), wherein the singular piece has threads thereon (figures 2 and 3, elements 60 being the ‘threads’; column 3, lines 21 – 23); and joining associated tubing to said conduit coupling by joining threads on the tubing with the threads on the body, to thereby facilitate joining said tubing to said conduit in the slab (figure 2, element 30 being the ‘tubing’; column 3, lines 26 – 27). Flessas further teaches that the body of the conduit coupling comprises a singular piece (figures 2 and 3, element 56).
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights