DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1, 4, and 6-19 are rejected and claims 2, 3, and 5 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments regarding the drawing objection, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the drawing objection was not related to claim 9 but instead related to claim 1 regarding the partial outer curvatures of the upper, lower, and outer convolute(s) being equally sized. It is noted for the benefit of applicant that if applicant intended to claim in claim 1 that “each of the partial outer curvatures of the upper and lower convolutes is equally sized” instead of “each partial outer curvature is equally sized” then the drawing objection would be withdrawn as that is shown throughout the figures.
In response to applicants arguments on page 11 that Brenan does not disclose the space between each corrugation would not permit horizontal compression or expansion, the examiner respectfully disagrees as Brenan explicitly discloses that providing the corrugations increases the flexibility of the joint (2:82-85). In addition, structurally, both the present invention and the prior art comprise corrugations on the side wall and corrugations inherently provide flexibility, therefore, there is nothing structural of Brenan that would prevent such functional limitation from being met.
Applicant’s remaining arguments 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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the upper convolutes … the lower convolutes … the outer convolute … each have a partial outer curvature … each partial outer curvature is equally sized” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 11-12, “each partial outer curvature is equally sized” appears should be “each partial outer curvature of the upper and lower convolutes are equally sized”
In claim 1, line 18, the limitation “the rings formed” should be “the ridges formed” because the upper and lower convolutes comprise ridges “that create the appearance of rings”.
In claim 1, line 18, “comprises ridges” should be “is comprised of ridges” or “is defined as ridges” as the upper convolutes do no further comprise ridges but instead are further defined as ridges (ex., the convolutions do not have ridges on the outer curvature).
In claim 8, line 2, “defines ridges” should be “defines the ridges”.
In claim 8, lines 1-2, “the partial outer curvature” should be “the partial outer curvature of the plurality of upper and lower convolutes” as the ridges are formed by the upper and lower convolutes (ex., see claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claim 9, the limitation “each of the ridges is filled with material” is being interpreted as a protruding ridge comprising a solid body (ex., a protruding annular rib; ex., “being filled with” is simply being interpreted as a non-hollow structure).
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.
Claims 6 and 12 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.
In regards to claim 6, the limitation of the plurality of upper convolutes that “form at least two rings” is unclear to the examiner as to how the upper convolutes can comprise rings, ridges, and partial outer curvatures all at the same time. In other words, the combination of claim 1 and 6 requires the convolutes to have a partial outer curvature, comprises ridges that create the appearance of rings, and form a first plurality of rings (ex., comprises convolutes that comprises ridges that create the appearance of rings and comprises convolutes that forms rings).
It appears applicant is attempting to further define the ridges of the convolutes such that they are formed as rings (ex., claiming that the ridges are annular ridges or circumferentially continuous ridges).
To proceed with prosecution, the examiner will interpret “wherein the plurality of upper convolutes form at least two rings that encircle the central opening” as “wherein the ridges of the plurality of upper convolutes are formed as at least two rings”.
It is noted to applicant that while the examiner is interpreting the limitation to proceed with prosecution, the applicant is still required the amend the claims.
In regards to claim 12, the limitation of the plurality of upper and lower convolutes “form a plurality of rings” is unclear to the examiner as to how the upper and lower convolutes can comprise rings, ridges, and partial outer curvatures all at the same time. In other words, the combination of claim 1 and 12 requires the convolutes to have a partial outer curvature, comprises ridges that create the appearance of rings, and form a first plurality of rings (ex., comprises convolutes that comprises ridges that create the appearance of rings and comprises convolutes that forms rings).
It appears applicant is attempting to further define the ridges of the convolutes such that they are formed as rings (ex., claiming that the ridges are annular ridges or circumferentially continuous ridges).
To proceed with prosecution, the examiner will interpret “wherein the plurality of upper convolutes form a first plurality of rings and the plurality of lower convolutes form a second plurality of rings, wherein the first and second plurality of rings are configured to pivot about a central axis of the central opening responsive to sideways pressure to the bellows member or off-axis lateral misalignment” as “wherein the ridges of the plurality of upper convolutes are formed as first plurality of rings and the ridges of the plurality of lower convolutes are formed as second plurality of rings, wherein the first and second plurality of rings are configured to pivot about a central axis of the central opening responsive to sideways pressure to the bellows member or off-axis lateral misalignment”.
It is noted to applicant that while the examiner is interpreting the limitation to proceed with prosecution, the applicant is still required the amend the claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 10 is 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.
In regards to claim 10, the limitation “wherein the plurality of upper convolutes form ridges and the plurality of lower convolutes form ridges such that there are spaces between each ridge“ fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends as claim 1 already requires this limitation “wherein adjacent upper convolutes are separated by a first space and adjacent lower convolutes are separated by a second space such that the adjacent upper convolutes and the adjacent lower convolutes comprise ridges that create the appearance of rings that encircle the central opening”.
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 § 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) 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 1,830,780) and in view of Badger (U.S. Patent No. 1,929,401).
In regards to claim 1, Brennan discloses:
A bellows member (see fig. 7) for connecting two plumbing interfaces, the bellows member comprising:
a first cuff end (see annotated fig. 7);
a second cuff end (see annotated fig. 7);
a central opening (see annotated fig. 7, where the central opening is the entire space within the body); and
a bellows body (see annotated fig. 7) comprising:
a plurality of upper convolutes (see annotated fig. 7), each upper convolute forming an upper ring (ex., each convolute is considered an ring);
a plurality of lower convolutes (see annotated fig. 7), each lower convolute forming a lower ring (ex., each convolute is considered an ring); and
an outer convolute (see annotated fig. 7),
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute each have a partial outer curvature (ex., see fig. 7), and each partial outer curvature is equally sized (ex., see fig. 7, where each curvature appears the same),
wherein adjacent upper convolutes are separated by a first space and adjacent lower convolutes are separated by a second space (see annotated fig. 7),
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes are configured to compress or expand horizontally (see annotated fig. 7),
wherein the plurality of lower convolutes are configured to compress or expand horizontally (see annotated fig. 7), and
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute are of the same material (2:79-82),
but does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute are monolithically formed.
In regards to being monolithically formed, Badger discloses:
A bellows member (see annotated fig. 1 below) for connecting two plumbing interfaces, the bellows member comprising:
a first cuff end (see annotated fig. 1);
a second cuff end (see annotated fig. 1);
a central opening (see annotated fig. 1);
a bellows body (11) comprising:
a plurality of upper convolutes (see annotated fig. 1),
each upper convolute forming an upper ring (see annotated fig. 1);
a plurality of lower convolutes (see annotated fig. 1),
each lower convolute forming a lower ring (see annotated fig. 1); and
an outer convolute (see annotated fig. 1),
wherein adjacent upper convolutes are separated by a first space and adjacent lower convolutes are separated by a second space (see annotated fig. 1), and
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes are configured to compress or expand horizontally (see annotated fig. 1), and
wherein the plurality of lower convolutes are configured to compress or expand horizontally (see annotated fig. 1, where there is nothing structural from preventing this), and
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute are the same material (lines 70-77),
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute are monolithically formed and are the same material (lines 70-77; “monolithically formed” is being interpreted as a single integrated structure as the flanges are welded together by electric welding so that the disks are jointed in a single unitary structure of homogenous character).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bellows body of Brennan to be monolithically formed and of the same material because Badger discloses that it is known for bellows to be as a single unitary structure to provide a homogenous character and it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) in MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
2230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
762
1127
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the plurality of upper convolutes and the plurality of lower convolutes extend radially from the central opening along a horizontal plane (see annotated fig. 7 above, where each of the convolutes extend radially along a horizontal plane).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood, Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein “the ridges of” the plurality of upper convolutes “are formed as” at least two rings that encircle the central opening,
a first inner ring with a smaller diameter than a second outer ring (see annotated fig. 7, where each ring is stacked radially).
In regards to claim 8, Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the partial outer curvature defines “the” ridges (see annotated fig. 7).
In regards to claim 10, as best understood, Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the plurality of upper convolutes form ridges and the plurality of lower convolutes form ridges such that there are spaces between each ridge (see annotated fig. 7).
In regards to claim 11, Brennan in view of Badger discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein a vertical height of the bellows member is about 0.5 inches to about four inches.
In regards to the vertical height, while Brennan in view of Badger does not expressly disclose “a vertical height of the bellows member is about 0.5 inches to about four inches”, the “vertical height” 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the vertical height of Brennan in view of Badger such that “the vertical height of the bellows member is about 0.5 inches to about four inches”, as the “vertical height” 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 12, as best understood, Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the “ridges of the” plurality of upper convolutes “are formed as” a first plurality of rings and “the ridges of the” the plurality of lower convolutes “are formed as” a second plurality of rings,
wherein the first and second plurality of rings are configured to pivot about a central axis of the central opening responsive to sideways pressure to the bellows member or off-axis lateral misalignment (structurally, there is nothing preventing this functional limitation from being met).
In regards to claim 13, Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the first cuff end is configured to couple with a lower flange of a waste drain ball valve (structurally, there is nothing preventing coupling of the end of a bellows to another device), and
the second cuff end is configured to couple with a raise shoulder of an adapter (structurally, there is nothing preventing coupling of the end of a bellows to another device)
In regards to claim 14, Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein at least the first space between adjacent upper convolutes and the second space between adjacent lower convolutes are the same length (see annotated fig. 7 above hereinafter, where the spaces appear to be uniform).
In regards to claim 15, Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the first cuff end includes a band clamp (42, annotated fig. 7) configured to secure the first cuff end to a beaded lower flange of a waste drain ball valve (ex., the band clamp or clamping washer appears there would be nothing structural of preventing an attachment to a similar end comprising a bead near 43 of a waste ball drain valve).
In regards to claim 16, Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 15, wherein the second cuff end includes a band clamp (42, annotated fig. 7) configured to secure the second cuff end to a raised shoulder of an adapter (structurally, there is nothing preventing coupling of the end of a bellows to another device).
In regards to claim 17, Brennan in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the bellows body is monolithically formed as single continuous piece of the same material (ex., see the rejection of claim 1 above).
In regards to claim 18 Brennan further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute each have a semi-circle shape forming the partial outer curvature (see annotated fig. 7).
In regards to claim 19 Brennan in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the outer convolute joins an upper convolute and a lower convolute (ex., see the monolithically formed device of Badger where monolithically forming the device of Brennan would meet the limitation of the claim as the overlap would no longer be present),
the outer convolute extends radially from the central opening along a horizontal plane (ex., see fig. 1 of Badger), and
the plurality of upper convolutes and the plurality of lower convolutes extend radially from the horizontal plane (ex., see fig. 1 of Badger).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Killian (U.S. Patent No. 3,107,931) and in view of Brennan.
In regards to claim 1, Killian discloses:
A bellows member (see near 11, fig. 4; it is noted herein that the bellows of fig. 4 is being relied upon for being a monolithically formed bellows without a mesh 17 as stated in 3:59-62 and fig. 1 hereinafter for illustrative purposes) for connecting two plumbing interfaces (14, 15, fig. 1), the bellows member comprising:
a first cuff end (19, left side);
a second cuff end (19, right side);
a central opening (see near 37); and
a bellows body (11, fig. 4) comprising:
an outer convolute (16),
wherein the outer convolute have a partial outer curvature (see fig. 4), and
the entire bellows member is monolithically formed of the same material (3:59-62),
but does not disclose:
a plurality of upper convolutes, each upper convolute forming an upper ring;
a plurality of lower convolutes, each lower convolute forming a lower ring; and
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute each have a partial outer curvature, and each partial outer curvature is equally sized,
wherein adjacent upper convolutes are separated by a first space and adjacent lower convolutes are separated by a second space such that the adjacent upper convolutes and the adjacent lower convolutes comprise ridges that create the appearance of rings that encircle the central opening,
wherein the first space between adjacent upper convolutes and the second space between adjacent lower convolutes allows the rings formed by the plurality of upper and lower convolutes to compress or expand horizontally,
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes are configured to compress or expand horizontally,
wherein the plurality of lower convolutes are configured to compress or expand horizontally, and
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes are monolithic.
In regards to the plurality of upper and lower convolutions, Badger discloses:
A bellows member (see annotated fig. 1 below) for connecting two plumbing interfaces, the bellows member comprising:
a first cuff end (see annotated fig. 1);
a second cuff end (see annotated fig. 1);
a central opening (see annotated fig. 1);
a bellows body (11) comprising:
a plurality of upper convolutes (see annotated fig. 1),
each upper convolute forming an upper ring (see annotated fig. 1);
a plurality of lower convolutes (see annotated fig. 1),
each lower convolute forming a lower ring (see annotated fig. 1); and
an outer convolute (see annotated fig. 1),
wherein adjacent upper convolutes are separated by a first space and adjacent lower convolutes are separated by a second space (see annotated fig. 1), and
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes are configured to compress or expand horizontally (see annotated fig. 1), and
wherein the plurality of lower convolutes are configured to compress or expand horizontally (see annotated fig. 1, where there is nothing structural from preventing this), and
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute are the same material (lines 70-77),
wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute are monolithically formed and are the same material (lines 70-77)
wherein providing the plurality of upper and lower convolutes increases the bellows elastic flexibility (1:56-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bellows of Killian with the provision of a plurality of upper and lower convolutes to meet the limitation of claim 1 to provide the benefit of increasing the bellows elastic flexibility, as taught by Badger (1:56-60).
PNG
media_image2.png
762
1127
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the plurality of upper convolutes and the plurality of lower convolutes extend radially from the central opening along a horizontal plane (ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Badger above hereinafter).
In regards to claim 6, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the plurality of upper convolutes form at least two rings that encircle the central opening, a first inner ring with a smaller diameter than a second outer ring (ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Badger).
In regards to claim 8, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the partial outer curvature defines “the” ridges (ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Badger).
In regards to claim 10, as best understood, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the plurality of upper convolutes form ridges and the plurality of lower convolutes form ridges such that there are spaces between each ridge (ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Badger).
In regards to claim 11, Killian in view of Badger discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a vertical height of the bellows member is about 0.5 inches to about four inches.
In regards to the vertical height, while Killian in view of Badger does not expressly disclose “a vertical height of the bellows member is about 0.5 inches to about four inches”, the “vertical height” 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the vertical height of Killian in view of Badger such that “the vertical height of the bellows member is about 0.5 inches to about four inches”, as the “vertical height” 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 12, as best understood, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the “ridges of the” plurality of upper convolutes “are formed as” a first plurality of rings and “the ridges of the” the plurality of lower convolutes “are formed as” a second plurality of rings (ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Badger),
wherein the first and second plurality of rings are configured to pivot about a central axis of the central opening responsive to sideways pressure to the bellows member or off-axis lateral misalignment (structurally, there is nothing preventing this functional limitation from being met).
In regards to claim 13, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the first cuff end is configured to couple with a lower flange of a waste drain ball valve (structurally, there is nothing preventing coupling of the end of a bellows to another device; see 1:12-14, where valves explicitly mentioned), and
the second cuff end is configured to couple with a raise shoulder of an adapter (structurally, there is nothing preventing coupling of the end of a bellows to another device)
In regards to claim 14, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein at least the first space between adjacent upper convolutes and the second space between adjacent lower convolutes are the same length (ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Badger).
In regards to claim 15, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the first cuff end includes a band clamp (see fig. 2 of Killian) configured to secure the first cuff end to a beaded lower flange of a waste drain ball valve (structurally, there is nothing preventing coupling of the end of a bellows to another device).
In regards to claim 16, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 15, wherein the second cuff end includes a band clamp (see near 27 in fig. 1) configured to secure the second cuff end to a raised shoulder of an adapter (structurally, there is nothing preventing coupling of the end of a bellows to another device).
In regards to claim 17, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the bellows body is monolithically formed as single continuous piece of the same material (ex., see the rejection of claim 1 above).
In regards to claim 18, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute each have a semi-circle shape forming the partial outer curvature (ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Badger).
In regards to claim 19, Killian in view of Badger further discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the outer convolute joins an upper convolute and a lower convolute (ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Badger),
the outer convolute extends radially from the central opening along a horizontal plane (ex., see fig. 1 of Badger), and
the plurality of upper convolutes and the plurality of lower convolutes extend radially from the horizontal plane (ex., see fig. 1 of Badger).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Killian in view of Brennan and in further view of Ory (GB-1209195).
In regards to claim 7, Killian in view of Brennan discloses:
The bellows member of claim 1, wherein the bellows body is formed of PVC (3:59-61),
but does not disclose:
wherein the bellows body is formed from at least one of thermoplastic urethane polyester, polyurethane, nitrile, synthetic rubber, fluoropolymer elastomer, silicone, neoprene, or any combination thereof.
In regards to the rubber material, Ory discloses a similar device where expansion members are known to be made of rubber (see lines 16-18 or lines 39-40 of the translated document provided herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a synthetic rubber material for the bellows of Killian in view of Brennan because Ory discloses that it is known to use a rubber material for a similar device (see lines 16-18) 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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Killian in view of Brennan and in further view of Crump (U.S. Patent No. 6,398,266).
In regards to claim 9, Killian in view of Brennan discloses:
The bellows member of claim 8, wherein a partial interior curvature defines an interior of each of the ridges,
but does not disclose:
wherein the partial interior curvature of each of the ridges is filled with material,
forming an interior surface within the bellows body such that an interior space of the plurality of upper convolutes, the plurality of lower convolutes, and the outer convolute are defined by an interior curvature extending along a horizontal plane and free of interior bulges or ridges.
In regards to the solid ridges, Crump discloses a similar device comprising:
A first embodiment (see fig. 8) comprising multiple ridges (222, 230, fig. 8) on each side of the bellow such that the ridges are a solid body without an interior space (7:12-24), and
A second embodiment comprising ridges (250) such that the ridges are recess/indentations (ex., corrugations) comprising an interior space (7:25-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the ridges of Killian in view of Brennan such that the ridges are filled with material to meet the limitation of claim 9 because Crump discloses that there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions of forming ridges such that the ridges can be either solid or recessed (7:27-31). A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying ridges of Killian in view of Brennan to be either solid or recessed is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hobson (GB-814327) discloses that corrugations (see fig. 3) or ridges (see fig. 1) can be used on rubber expansion joints.
Crouch (U.S. Patent No. 1,670,023) explicitly discloses that providing concentric corrugations provides the benefit of allowing collapsing of the wall (lines 57-60).
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 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
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights