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 .
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 1 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.
The term “of said conduit section” is a limiting term in claim 1, line 4. However, line 5 of claim 1 also recites the term “of said conduit sections” which lacks proper antecedent basis because it is unclear whether the “sections” refers to the previously introduced “section” or to a different section. For that reason, the scope of this limiting term of the claim is ambiguous.
The term “generally” in claim 1, line 9, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as the term “generally” used to describe the cylindrical configuration of the transition coupling encapsulates an oval shape or a rectangular shape with rounded corners. For the same reasons, dependent claims 2-4, which recite the limiting term, are rejected.
The term “respectively” in claim 1, line 18, is a term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “respectively” does not delineate which end portions of the conduit sections are associated with which end portions of the transition coupling when joining the elements together in series. For the same reasons, dependent claims 2-4, which recite the limiting term, are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrame et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200287366 A1) hereinafter Vrame, and in further view of Eilert et al (U.S. Patent 10001231 B2) hereinafter Eilert.
Regarding claim 1, Vrame discloses a method (Title: Conduit Coupling Assembly) of assembling conduit sections (conduit coupling assembly, ¶16), comprising the steps of:
providing a cylindrical conduit section having an interior surface defining an inside diameter, and an exterior surface defining an outside diameter (conduit 12 in FIG. 3 step 1, ¶16);
PNG
media_image1.png
400
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
forming a tapered interior end section on the interior surface of said conduit section, wherein the tapered end section tapers outwardly toward a respective end of said conduit section (FIG. 3 step 3, ¶20, “the present method next contemplates cutting the conduit 12 at an inside surface thereof to form a connection region 14, which is preferably tapered inwardly in a direction away from the conduit opening”);
providing a transition coupling having a generally cylindrical configuration (transition coupling 16 in FIG. 1, ¶21), said transition coupling having an interior surface extending the length (¶16, “Associated electrical wiring or the like can be arranged to extend from within the conduit in the concrete slab, and through the coupling assembly and the associated liquid-tight tubing”, FIG. 3 step 4 depicts the transition coupling having a length fitting the reamed surface of the conduit opening) thereof having an inside diameter dimension corresponding to said inside diameter of said conduit section (FIG. 3 step 4, ¶21, “As illustrated, the inside diameter of the transition coupling 16, as shown in phantom line at 18, is the same as the inside diameter of conduit 12 to facilitate the smooth passage of wiring through the assembled components”),
PNG
media_image2.png
374
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
said transition coupling having a tapered configuration tapering inwardly toward the respective end of the transition coupling (FIG. 3 step 4, ¶21, “The exterior of the transition coupling is provided with a tapered surface which is complementary to the tapered, connection region 14 of the conduit 12”), and a central cylindrical portion between said end portions having an outside diameter the same as said outside diameters of said conduit sections (annotated FIG. 3 step 4 below, the highlighted portion of the transition coupling has an outer diameter that is the same of the conduit 12); and
PNG
media_image3.png
265
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
joining the conduit section to the end portions of said transition coupling by respectively positioning said tapered end portions of said transition coupling in said tapered interior end section of said conduit section (FIG. 3 step 4, ¶21, “the conduit coupling assembly 10 illustrated joined to the conduit 12”).
However, Vrame fails to teach or suggest providing first and second cylindrical conduit sections wherein said inside diameters of said conduit section are the same, and said outside diameters of said conduit sections are the same. Vrame also fails to teach or suggest the said transition coupling having a pair of opposite end portions and joining said conduit sections to each other by joining the opposite end portions of said transition coupling to each of said conduit section.
Eilert discloses an apparatus (Title: Coupling Arrangement for Pipelines) providing first and second cylindrical conduit sections each having an interior surface defining an inside diameter, and an exterior surface defining an outside diameter (FIG. 1, col. 4, ll. 16-21, “The charge air pipe 110 is connected at a first coupling point 112 to a first pipe piece via a first coupling arrangement 10 and is connected at a remotely arranged second coupling point 114 to a second pipe piece via the second coupling arrangement 10”). Eilert discloses the two cylindrical conduit sections wherein said inside diameters of said conduit section are the same, and said outside diameters of said conduit sections are the same (coupling arrangement 10 in FIG. 1 is depicted to be on both ends of the transition element which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the pair of conduit sections to have equal inner and outer diameters as a matter of routine design choice). Eilert also discloses the said transition coupling having a pair of opposite end portions (FIG. 1, col. 4, ll. 40-44, “In order to be able to optimally utilize the advantages of the coupling arrangement 10, it is advisable to provide the coupling arrangement 10 as a pair”) and joining said conduit sections to each other by joining the opposite end portions of said transition coupling to each of said conduit section (FIG. 10, col. 4, ll. 29-31, “The coupling arrangement 10 forms in each case a connection having little movability between two pipes or pipe sections”).
PNG
media_image4.png
480
684
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Vrame discloses the method of preparing a conduit pipe end and the transition element, both having a tapered interior and exterior, respectively, as well as joining the conduit pipe end to the transition element. Still, Vrame but does not mention there being two conduit pipes and instead teaches of a male-female transition element. Eilert’s disclosure is of a coupling arrangement that explains the use of a second conduit pipe that is connected to a first conduit pipe using a male-male transition element. Thus, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that implementing the method taught by Vrame and applying the method of reaming the inner surface of the conduit section to a second conduit of equal dimensions with an inner and outer diameter as well as providing the inserting portion of the transition coupling to the disclosure of Eilert would have yielded the same results as those claimed in claim 1. Applying such a method is therefore predictable, allowing for the usage of a male-male transition element to connect two conduit pipe ends wherein the outer diameters of the conduit pipe ends are inaccessible, i.e., concealed piping.
Regarding claim 2, Vrame further discloses a method of forming a coupling assembly in accordance with claim 1, including cutting each said conduit section at the inside surface thereof by reaming each said conduit section (¶20, “This step is preferably effected by reaming the interior surface of the conduit 12 to provide an inner surface at 14 for assembling the components of the present assembly”). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 2 in the same manner).
Regarding claim 3, Vrame further discloses a method of forming a coupling assembly in accordance with claim 2, including cutting each said conduit section at the inside surface thereof at a taper (FIG. 3 step 3, ¶20, “the present method next contemplates cutting the conduit 12 at an inside surface thereof to form a connection region 14, which is preferably tapered inwardly in a direction away from the conduit opening”). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 3 in the same manner).
Regarding claim 4, Vrame further discloses a method of forming a coupling assembly in accordance with claim 1, wherein said transition coupling comprises polyvinyl chloride (¶21, “the transition coupling 16 is preferably formed for PVC for economical and durable service”). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 4 in the same manner).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729