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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 02 January 2026 is acknowledged.
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 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the actuating step”. This limitation is indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear whether this refers to a step claimed in claim 1 or if it is intended to newly claim an additional actuating step. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “the rotating step”.
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.
Claims 1-5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathison et al. (US 4,817,671).
With regard to claim 1, Mathison discloses a method (i.e. at least in that is discloses how the plug is installed) of restricting fluid flow (i.e. as it is a plug shown installed in conduit 20 in Fig. 2. Additionally the abstract, etc. discloses the sealing it performs which is a type of restricting fluid flow) through a conduit (pipeline 20 shown in Fig. 2 is a type of conduit) having an inner wall (i.e. the inner wall of 20 as seen in Fig. 2), the method comprising: positioning a mechanical plug (10) in the conduit (as seen in Fig. 2) with the mechanical plug in a disengaged configuration (as described in the abstract, col 5. lines 25-41 etc. as this actuating is described as happening when in the conduit), the mechanical plug including a first plug portion (14) having a female section (i.e. the female portion receiving 11 as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), a second plug portion (11) having a male section (i.e. the portion of 11 including at least 12) received in the female section (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), a threaded fastener (13 with 18) extending through the first plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.) and engaging the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), and a seal (16) supported on the male section of the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.); rotating the threaded fastener of the mechanical plug to move the first plug portion and the second plug portion toward each other and transition the mechanical plug to an engaged configuration (as described in the abstract, col. 5 lines 25-41, etc.); and compressing the seal on the male section of the second plug portion (as described in the abstract, col. 2 lines 54-58, col. 5 lines 25-41, etc.), thereby pressing the seal against the inner wall to seal the conduit (as described in the abstract, col. 2 lines 54-58, col. 5 lines 25-41, etc.).
With regard to claim 2, Mathison discloses pushing (as described in col. 3 lines 23-35, etc.) a plurality of locking pins (15) laterally outward to engage the inner wall and center the mechanical plug in the conduit (as seen in Fig. 2, etc., described in col. 3 lines 23-35, etc.).
With regard to claim 3, Mathison discloses that the pushing step occurs during the actuating step and before the compressing step (as disclosed between col. 3 lines 23-35, etc. and col. 2 lines 54-58, col. 5 lines 25-41, etc. as the pushing occurs by direct result of the rotating step and at least partially before the seal is fully compressed/pressed against the inner wall).
With regard to claim 4, Mathison discloses that pushing the plurality of locking pins includes engaging the plurality of locking pins with a cam surface (42 as seen in Fig. 1, shown as engaged and described in in col. 3 lines 23-35, etc. as engaged) on the male section of the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1) as the first plug portion and the second plug portion move toward each other (as would be seen in Fig. 1, as described in col. 3 lines 23-35, etc.).
With regard to claim 5, Mathison discloses grasping a first handle (i.e. the nut 18 or the outer surface thereof, which Examiner notes must be grasped by something as it is disclosed in the abstract, col. 5 lines 25-41, etc. as tightened via rotation (e.g. see the threading)) coupled to the threaded (as seen in Figs. 1, etc.).
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kipp (US 3,586,056).
With regard to claim 1, Kipp discloses a method (i.e. at least in that is discloses how the plug is installed) of restricting fluid flow (i.e. as it is a plug shown installed in conduit 5 in Fig. 1. Additionally the abstract, etc. discloses the sealing it performs which is a type of restricting fluid flow) through a conduit (pipe 5 shown in Fig. 1 is a type of conduit) having an inner wall (i.e. the inner wall of 5 as seen in Fig. 1), the method comprising: positioning a mechanical plug (as seen in Figs. 1-4) in the conduit (as seen in Fig. 1) with the mechanical plug in a disengaged configuration (as described in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc. as this actuating is described as happening when in the conduit), the mechanical plug including a first plug portion (24) having a female section (i.e. the female portion receiving 6 as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), a second plug portion (6) having a male section (i.e. the portion of 6 including at least 7) received in the female section (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), a threaded fastener (35 with 36) extending through the first plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.) and engaging the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), and a seal (one 30) supported on the male section of the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.); rotating the threaded fastener of the mechanical plug to move the first plug portion and the second plug portion toward each other and transition the mechanical plug to an engaged configuration (as seen in Fig. 1, as described in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc.); and compressing the seal on the male section of the second plug portion (as described in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc.), thereby pressing the seal against the inner wall to seal the conduit (as described in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc.).
With regard to claim 7, Kipp discloses that the seal is a first seal (as seen in Fig. 1), and further comprising compressing a second seal (the other 30, described as compressed in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc.) on the male section of the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1), thereby pressing the second seal against the inner wall to seal the conduit (as seen in Fig. 1, described in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc.).
With regard to claim 8, Kipp discloses that compressing the first seal includes compressing the first seal between the first plug portion and an intermediate washer (31 as seen in Fig. 1), and wherein compressing the second seal includes compressing the second seal between the intermediate washer and the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 10, Kipp discloses allowing fluid flow through the first plug portion and the second plug portion via a bypass valve (18 or 18 with 20, which as a pipe through the plug with a removable cap is considered a bypass valve and as described in col. 1 line 72 to col. 2 line 12, fluid flows through the two plug portions via such when the cap is removed).
With regard to claim 16, Kipp discloses a method (i.e. at least in that is discloses how the plug is installed) of restricting fluid flow (i.e. as it is a plug shown installed in conduit 5 in Fig. 1. Additionally the abstract, etc. discloses the sealing it performs which is a type of restricting fluid flow) through a conduit (pipe 5 shown in Fig. 1 is a type of conduit) having an inner wall (i.e. the inner wall of 5 as seen in Fig. 1), the method comprising: positioning a mechanical plug (as seen in Figs. 1-4) in the conduit (as seen in Fig. 1) with the mechanical plug in a disengaged configuration (as described in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc. as this actuating is described as happening when in the conduit), the mechanical plug including a first plug portion (24) having a female section (i.e. the female portion receiving 6 as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), a second plug portion (6) having a male section (i.e. the portion of 6 including at least 7) received in the female section (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), a threaded fastener (35 with 36) extending through the first plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.) and engaging the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), and a seal (one 30) supported on the male section of the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.); actuating the threaded fastener of the mechanical plug to move the first plug portion and the second plug portion toward each other and transition the mechanical plug to an engaged configuration (as seen in Fig. 1, as described in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc.); compressing the seal on the male section of the second plug portion (as described in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc.), thereby pressing the seal against the inner wall to seal the conduit (as described in the abstract, col. 2, lines 60-72, etc.); and allowing fluid flow through the first plug portion and the second plug portion via a bypass valve (18 or 18 with 20, which as a pipe through the plug with a removable cap is considered a bypass valve and as described in col. 1 line 72 to col. 2 line 12, fluid flows through the two plug portions via such when the cap is removed).
With regard to claim 17, Kipp discloses that the bypass valve includes a pipe (20) extending through the first plug portion and the second plug portion (as seen in Fig. 1 with Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 18, Kipp discloses that allowing fluid flow through the first plug portion and the second plug portion includes removing a cap (18) from an end of the pipe (i.e. the threaded end thereof as seen in Figs. 1-4, and disclosed as being removed in col. 1 line 72 to col. 2 line 12, col. 2 lines 13-25, etc.)).
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.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathison et al. (US 4,817,671) alone.
With regard to claim 6, Mathison discloses grasping a second handle (38, disclosed as grasped by something in col. 2 line 67 through col. 3 line 7, etc. as the disclosed tethering is a type of grasping) extending from the mechanical plug (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.), but fails to disclose if such is performed while rotating the threaded fastener (though clearly from a mechanical perspective the structure of Mathison is capable of such and is likely that the disclosed tethering is intended to be when the plug is not actuated). However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the method of Mathison such that the grasping of the second handle is performed while rotating the threaded fastener as Examiner takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples of similar devices having two handles disclosed as being used simultaneously (e.g. grasping a stationary handle to bias while grasping and rotating a rotatable handle). Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of temporarily tethering the plug of Mathison in the conduit while the plug is actuated to the engaged configuration, thus preventing the plug from moving beyond a desired point and/or preventing rotation of the plug when attempting to rotate the threaded fastener (thus allowing the necessary relative rotation between the threaded shaft and threaded nut to compress the seal).
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipp (US 3,586,056) alone.
With regard to claim 19, Kipp is silent as to whether the allowing step occurs before the actuating step and the compressing step. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Kipp such that the allowing step occurs before the actuating step and the compressing step as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with methods of plugs/restrictors having passages that are open before installation (and thus allow for fluid to flow through). Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of easier insertion as one would not have to deal with an inadvertent pressure build up downstream in the conduit and/or to equalize pressure so that the plug does not move position during the actuating and compression steps.
With regard to claim 20, Kipp is silent as to whether the allowing step occurs after the actuating step and the compressing step. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Kipp such that the allowing step occurs after the actuating step and the compressing step (e.g. not installing the cap of Kipp until after the plug is in the engaged configuration) as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with methods of plugs/restrictors having passages that are open after installation (and thus allow for fluid to flow through). Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of allowing fluid to be withdrawn from one side of the plug to the other (e.g. as disclosed as desirable in Kipp col. 1 line 72 to col. 2 line 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
Claim 9 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675