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
Newly submitted claim 22 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 22 recites an outer lip that extends radially outward from the sealing surface while the outer lip of the elected embodiment of Figures 5A-10 is disposed between the groove and the distal end of the pipe fitting.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-22 are pending. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8 and 16, canceled claims 4 and 11, and new claims 21 and 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 8/4/25, with respect to Morroney and Klemm have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of Morroney and Klemm have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/25 in view of Westerlund have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claims 1 and 8, Applicant argues that Westerlund does not disclose or suggest a pipe fitting comprising “a sealing surface between the raised lip and the groove, the raised lip extending radially outward from the sealing surface, and the groove extending radially inward from the sealing surface” as the gasket 15 seals against the alleged raised lip with a chamfered portion positioned between the alleged raised lop and the alleged raised lip end and therefore the sealing surface does not “seal”.
Examiner disagrees.
Westerlund discloses a sealing surface (at 13 as shown in the annotated figure below) between the raised lip and the groove as the sealing surface at 13 forms first and second seals (column 3, lines 30-35). Therefore, Westerlund discloses the sealing surface as recited in claims 1 and 8.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 – delete the duplicate limitation “a sealing surface between the raised lip and the groove”.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 13 recites “further comprising a groove and an outer lip on the pipe fitting…” It is not clear if Applicant is reciting an additional groove or reciting the same groove as already claimed in claim 8 from which claim 13 depends. As it is not clear what Applicant is claiming, Examiner is interpreting that the groove is the same groove as recited in claim 8 and not an additional groove. If this understanding is correct, Applicant needs to amend claim 13 to reflect this understanding.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites wherein the pipe fitting defines a raised lip positioned within the coupling bore, and the raised lip extends radially outward from a sealing surface of the pipe fitting. Claim 8 already recites a pipe fitting with those limitations. Therefore, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 8 from which claim 14 depends.
(Note: claim 15 depends from claim 14 and therefore includes the duplicative subject matter.)
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 2, 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Storcks German Patent No. DE 198 51 723 A1.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 2, Storcks discloses a pipe fitting configured for engagement with a coupling (as shown in Fig 1), the pipe fitting comprising:
a raised lip end defining a raised lip (at 25);
a distal end (end at 16) disposed opposite from the raised lip end, the raised lip (at 25) between the distal end and the raised lip end;
a groove (at 27) between the raised lip (at 25) and the distal end (end at 16); and
a sealing surface (see below) between the raised lip (at 25) and the groove (at 27), the raised lip extending radially outward from the sealing surface, and the groove extending radially inward from the sealing surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Storcks discloses wherein the pipe fitting is selected from the group consisting of an elbow (as shown in Fig 2).
With regard to claim 5, and as shown in Figure 2, Storcks discloses wherein the pipe fitting defines:
an outer lip (at 28) disposed between the groove (at 27) and the distal end (end at 16); and
a sealing surface (as shown above) between the raised lip and the groove.
With regard to claim 21, and as shown in Figure 2, Storcks discloses an outer lip (at 28) positioned between the raised lip (at 25) and the distal end (end at 16).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 12-15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westerlund et al U.S. Patent No. 4,311,248.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 3, Westerlund et al disclose a pipe fitting configured for engagement with a coupling (where the pipe fitting is capable of being configured for engagement with a coupling), the pipe fitting comprising:
a raised lip end defining a raised lip (see below);
a distal end (see below) disposed opposite from the raised lip end, the raised lip between the distal end and the raised lip end;
a groove (see below) between the raised lip and the distal end; and
a sealing surface (see below, also column 3, lines 30-35) between the raised lip (see below) and the groove (see below), the raised lip extending radially outward from the sealing surface, and the groove extending radially inward from the sealing surface (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
271
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 5, and as shown in Figure 3, Westerlund et al disclose wherein the pipe fitting defines:
an outer lip (see above) disposed between the groove and the distal end; and
a sealing surface (see above) between the raised lip and the groove.
With regard to claim 8, and as shown in Figure 3, Westerlund et al disclose a coupling assembly comprising:
a coupling (see above) defining a coupling bore extending through the coupling, the coupling comprising a gasket (see above) disposed within the coupling bore; and
a pipe fitting defining a raised lip end and a distal end disposed opposite from the raised lip end (see above), the raised lip end having a raised lip (see above), the pipe fitting further defining a groove (see above) between the raised lip and the distal end, the pipe fitting further defining a sealing surface (see above, also column 3, lines 30-35) between the raised lip and the groove, the raised lip extending radially outward from the sealing surface, and the groove extending radially inward from the sealing surface, and the raised lip end inserted into the coupling bore (see above);
wherein in a relaxed position:
the gasket is relaxed and uncompressed (where there is no tension on the gasket when the coupling is not fastened to the pipe fitting); and
the coupling is retained on the raised lip end of the pipe fitting (via engagement between the raised lip end and the coupling as shown in Figure 3).
With regard to claim 12, and as shown in Figure 3, Westerlund et al disclose wherein the pipe fitting is positioned within the coupling bore disposed radially outward from the gasket (as shown in Figure 3).
With regard to claim 13, and as shown in Figure 3, Westerlund et al disclose further comprising a groove and an outer lip on the pipe fitting (see above), wherein the coupling defines a ridge (see above), and the outer lip is configured to locate the ridge of the coupling above the groove of the pipe fitting.
With regard to claim 14, and as shown in Figure 3, Westerlund et al disclose wherein the pipe fitting defines a raised lip (see above) positioned within the coupling bore, and the raised lip extends radially outward from a sealing surface (see above) of the pipe fitting.
With regard to claim 15, and as shown in Figure 3, Westerlund et al disclose wherein the gasket defines a center ridge (see above) that contacts the raised lip when the coupling is in a tensioned position.
With regard to claim 21, and as shown in Figure 3, Westerlund et al disclose an outer lip (see above) positioned between the raised lip (see above) and the distal end (see above).
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) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerlund et al in view of Storcks.
With regard to claim 2, Westerlund discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the pipe fitting is an elbow. Storcks teaches that a pipe fitting can be an elbow (as shown in Figure 2) which provides a connection for angled fluid flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pipe fitting be an elbow with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an angled connection as shown by Storcks and because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With regard to claim 9, Westerlund discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the pipe fitting is an elbow. Storcks teaches that a pipe fitting can be an elbow (as shown in Figure 2) which provides a connection for angled fluid flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pipe fitting be an elbow with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an angled connection as shown by Storcks and because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are allowed.
Claims 17-19 are allowed due to their dependency on claim 16.
Conclusion
Beagen, Jr. (previously cited) discloses a pipe fitting (as shown in Figure 8A) with a raised lip end (end at 725a) with a raised lip (at 725a), a groove (at 714a), and a sealing surface (surface between 725a and 714a).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FANNIE KEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1820. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, 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.
/F.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679