DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-6 are rejected.
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 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 5 that Nakata does not disclose a single plane surface, the examiner respectfully disagrees as “a first side”, “second side”, “single plane surface”, “double plane surface” are broad limitations. For example, using applicants figure in annotated figure 4 below, applicant defines the first side as a single plane surface and a second side as a double plane surface, however, the double plane surface can reasonably be comprised of a third and fourth side just like the first side (ex., a double plane surface is comprised of two planar surfaces each defining a side as shown in annotated figure of Nakata below).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
765
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Manner of Making Amendments
With respect to the manner of making amendments, applicants are reminded of the changes shown by markings for the claims. In this instance, claim 1 should have an underline depicting the newly added limitation(s) “and comprising a first side facing the inclined surface and a second side facing away from the inclined surface, the first side being” and “the second side being”. See 37 CFR 1.121 (c). All future submissions must use proper status identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(c), or the response will be held to be non-compliant.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakata et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2011/0108753).
Claim 1, Nakata discloses:
A pipe-fitting device (see fig. 20 hereinafter) comprising:
a fitting body (1) comprising a cavity (ex., entire inner surface of the fitting body) along the length of the fitting body,
an inner threaded portion (see threaded connection near 25a) extending into the cavity from a first end (ex., near 25a) of the fitting body, and
an inclined surface (19) at a depth inside the cavity from the first end; and
a flare packing (102; see also fig. 21) provided inside the cavity of the fitting body and comprising a first side (see “Single Plane Surface” in annotated fig. 21 below) facing the inclined surface and a second side (ex., “Double Plane Surface” in annotated fig. 21) facing away from the inclined surface comprising a single plane surface (see annotated fig. 21 below) that abuts the inclined surface of the fitting body and the second side being a double plane surface (see annotated fig. 21) having different inclination angles,
the double plane surface facing away (see annotated fig. 21) from the inclined surface such that each surface of the double plane surface forms an acute angle in a direction facing outward from the flare packing with respect to the central axis of the cavity (see annotated fig. 21).
PNG
media_image2.png
765
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata as applied to claim 1 and in view of Kim et al. (KR-20150073571).
In regards to claim 2, Nakata discloses:
The pipe-fitting device of claim 1, wherein the fitting body comprises a second end comprising a pipe inserted into a socket (see fig. 20),
but does not disclose:
wherein the fitting body further comprises an outer threaded portion extending in from a second end of the fitting body,
the pipe-fitting device further comprising a fixing nut comprising a first end portion configured to rotatably couple to the outer threaded portion of the fitting body, and
a second end portion of the fixing nut comprising an inner circumference that is narrower than an inner circumference of the first end portion of the fixing nut.
In regards to the fitting body packing, Kim discloses a similar pipe-fitting device (see fig. 11) comprising a fitting body (400) comprising an outer threaded portion (302) extending in from a second end of the fitting body,
the pipe-fitting device further comprising
a fixing nut (300) comprising a first end portion configured to rotatably couple to the outer threaded portion of the fitting body (see near 302), and
a second end portion of the fixing nut comprising an inner circumference that is narrower than an inner circumference of the first end portion of the fixing nut (see lowest point near 303),
wherein providing an outer threaded portion on the second end threadingly engaged with the nut comprising a collet (500) and a fitting body packing (330) at least provides the benefits of reducing the labor of the operator and improving the working time and efficiency (see lines 366-368 of the translated document provided herein; see also lines 375-376 that providing threads provides work convince).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the second non-threaded end and the pipe of Nakata with the second outer threaded end, pipe, nut, collet, and fixing nut packing of Kim (ex., entire second end assembly) because Nakata discloses a device which differs from the claim device by a replacement of the entire second end of Kim, Kim discloses a similar device comprising the known entire outer threaded second end comprising a nut, collet, and fixing nut packing to provide the benefit of at least reducing the labor of the operator and improving the working time and efficiency (see lines 366-368; see also lines 375-376 that providing threads provides work convince), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the one known second end comprising a pipe for another similar second end comprising a pipe and outer threads for a nut assembly because simply replacing one connection end for another connection end would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to claim 3, Nakata in view of Kim further discloses:
The pipe-fitting device of claim 2, further comprising a fixing nut packing (330, fig. 11 of Kim) placed inside the fixing nut (see fig. 11 of Kim),
the fixing nut packing for preventing movement of the fixing nut, when a pipe has been inserted into the fitting body through the second end of the fixing nut, by pressing against the pipe (ex., compare figs. 10 and 11 of Kim).
In regards to claim 4, Nakata in view of Kim further discloses:
The pipe-fitting device of claim 3, further comprising a collet (500, fig. 11 of Kim) provided inside the fixing nut abutting the fixing nut packing,
wherein the fitting body further comprises an inner inclined surface (see near 500 in fig. 11 of Kim) that narrows while extending into the cavity from the second end of the fitting body such that the collet presses inward against the pipe when the fixing nut is rotated and tightened (ex., see fig. 11 of Kim).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata in view of Kim as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Blackwell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,908,211).
In regards to claim 5, Nakata in view of Kim discloses:
The pipe-fitting device of claim 4, but does not disclose the use of tape.
In regards to the tape, Blackwell discloses that tape is used to secure two elements together in a pipe connection (see fig. 1; see col. 3, lines 4-6; see col. 3, line 40 – col. 4, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use tape over outer circumferential surfaces of the fitting body and the fixing nut of Nakata in view of Kim to further secure the fitting body and the fixing nut because Blackwell discloses that it is known in the field of coupling pipes that tape is used to secure two elements together in a pipe connection (see fig. 1; see col. 3, lines 4-6; see col. 3, line 40 – col. 4, line 2).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Takagi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,708,186).
In regards to claim 6, Nakata discloses:
The pipe-fitting device of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
a fitting body packing provided at a depth inside the cavity from a second end of the fitting body.
In regards to the fitting body packing, Takagi discloses a similar pipe-fitting device (see fig. 2) comprising a fitting body (9) comprising an outer threaded portion (11) extending in from a second end of the fitting body,
the pipe-fitting device further comprising
a fixing nut (12) comprising a first end portion configured to rotatably couple to the outer threaded portion of the fitting body (see near 11), and
a second end portion of the fixing nut comprising an inner circumference that is narrower than an inner circumference of the first end portion of the fixing nut (see lowest point of 14),
wherein providing an outer threaded portion on the second end with a collet (4) comprising a ring (3) and a fitting body packing (8) at least provides the benefits such that:
“In joining pipes with the pipe joint according to this invention, it is not required to carry the pipes to the working table, but the pipes can be joined together on the site of assembly by using a conventional spanner”,
“Combined with the use of a torque of low order mentioned above, the fact that a very low manual force is required for forming the groove on the pipe by form rolling makes it possible to join pipes of larger diameter than those which have hitherto been joined by conventional intrusion joints”, and
“The pipe joint according to this invention has particular utility in pipes of small thickness in which conventional intrusion joints have no application, thus, this invention permits great reductions in the cost of piping operations” (5:31-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the second end and the pipe of Nakata with the second outer threaded end, pipe, nut, collet, ring, and fitting body packing of Takagi (ex., entire second end assembly) because Nakata discloses a device which differs from the claim device by a replacement of the entire second end of Takagi, Takagi discloses a similar device comprising the known entire outer threaded second end comprising a nut, collet, flare packing, and ring to provide the benefit of at least a reduction in piping reductions (5:31-45), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the one known second end comprising a pipe for another similar second end comprising a pipe and outer threads for a nut assembly because simply replacing one connection end for another connection end would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
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 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