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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claims require a new grounds of rejection as the previous limitations only required that the blanking element be separate and distinct from the spacer element as currently claimed.
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) 1, 8, 10, 13, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young US 2,271,282 and Monson US 5,582,211.
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses a separator system comprising an upstream element including a first fluid conduit (fig. 1, conduit at approximately 10), a downstream element including a second fluid conduit (fig. 1, conduit at approximately element 11), a spacer element 20 (fig. 4) including a third conduit (aperture 21) and a blanking element (disk portion 19). The separator system is convertible between a first configuration and a second configuration (the blind 18 can be inserted in two configurations), wherein the first configuration includes the upstream element, the downstream element, and the spacer element arranged between and connected to the upstream element and the downstream element such that the third fluid conduit fluidly connects the first and second fluid conduits (in a first position as seen in fig. 2, the spacer is placed within the flow path to allow a flow therethrough); and
wherein the second configuration includes the upstream element, the downstream element, and the blanking element arranged between and connected to the upstream element and the downstream element such that the blanking element fluidly isolates the first fluid conduit from the second fluid conduit (in the second configuration, the blind element 18 is flipped so that the disk portion 19 is inserted to prevent flow through the piping, column 2 lines 36-40).Young further discloses fasteners (sleeves 14 and 15) wherein in the first configuration, the fasteners clamp together the upstream element, the downstream element and the spacer element such that the first, second and third fluid conduits coaxially align (shown in fig. 2, described in column 3, lines 10-15) and in the second configuration, the fasteners clamp together the upstream element, the downstream element and the blanking element such that the blanking element forms a fluid separator between the first and second fluid conduits (column 2 lines 36-40). Young discloses the blanking element as a separate and distinct element from the spacer element in that they are at opposite ends of the same device, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made them two separate pieces in order to prevent the unused end from protruding and potentially being damaged and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Young does not explicitly teach the first configuration as having the fasteners extending through respective fastener holes in each of the upstream element, the downstream element and the spacer element or the second configuration as having the fasteners extend though the fastener holes, the upstream element, the downstream element and the blanking element in the manner claimed.
Monson teaches a blanking element (purging blind 10) for a flow path as seen in fig. 1A and fig. 2 in which a blind 10 is inserted into a flow path of an upstream (right side of fig. 2) and downstream (left side of fig. 2) element and in which fasteners 27 extend through respective fastener holes in each of the upstream element, the downstream element and blanking element as claimed (column 5, lines 45-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Monson with those of Young to replace the fasteners of Young with similar bolts which extend through the elements to allow for easier removal and reconfiguration of the blind without the need for specialized tools.
Regarding claim 8, Young discloses the blanking element as comprising a plate shaped body and a handle extending therefrom (fig. 4 element 22 can be interpreted as a handle) with a through hole 21 in the handle. Young does not explicitly teach the visual indicator attached to the handle via the through hole as claimed. Young is directed towards a spectacle blind assembly which is used so that the element, when inserted into a pipe can be clearly seen and interpreted as whether the pipe is open or closed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included any visual indicator through the hole to better draw attention to the state of the pipe when it is in a closed configuration since flags and other elements were known in the art for that purpose.
Regarding claim 10, Young discloses a fluid transport system including the upstream portion, downstream portion and separator system of claim 1, wherein the upstream element is connected to the upstream portion, the downstream element is connected to the downstream portion, the first configuration fluidly connects the upstream portion with the downstream portion and the second configuration fluidly isolates the upstream portion from the downstream portion as described above and shown in the figures.
Regarding claim 13, Young discloses the blanking element as comprising a plate shaped body and a handle extending therefrom (fig. 4 element 22 can be interpreted as a handle) with a through hole 21 in the handle. Young does not explicitly teach the visual indicator attached to the handle via the through hole as claimed. Young is directed towards a spectacle blind assembly which is used so that the element, when inserted into a pipe can be clearly seen and interpreted as whether the pipe is open or closed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included any visual indicator through the hole to better draw attention to the state of the pipe when it is in a closed configuration since flags and other elements were known in the art for that purpose.
Regarding claim 16, the method of using the system of Young includes putting the separator system into the second configuration to prevent a fluid within the upstream portion from being transported through the second configuration and to the downstream portion (column 2 lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 20, when in use the separator is installed between the upstream and downstream portions of Young as claimed.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Monson and Cosby US 2014/0332192.
Regarding claim 4, Young teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the upstream and downstream braze tails in the manner claimed. Cosby teaches brazing and improved surface features for enhancing brazing in which a braze tail 110 is brazed to a face (fig. 1A) of an element for handing a fluid. Cosby is directed towards the connection of piping elements to a flow path and it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Cosby with those of Young in order to provide a braze tail similar to that of Cosby to allow for an extension to be securely attached to the upstream and downstream elements for transporting the fluid therethrough.
Regarding claim 5, in Cosby further teaches a braze cup 120 as part of the connection into which the braze tail 110 is inserted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included the braze cup of Cosby as well as the braze tail in order to provide a fitting for the tail to attach to on both the upstream and downstream elements for forming a joint and providing a secure connection between the elements.
Regarding claim 11, Young teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the upstream and downstream braze tails in the manner claimed. Cosby teaches brazing and improved surface features for enhancing brazing in which a braze tail 110 is brazed to a face (fig. 1A) of an element for handing a fluid. Cosby is directed towards the connection of piping elements to a flow path and it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Cosby with those of Young in order to provide a braze tail similar to that of Cosby to allow for an extension to be securely attached to the upstream and downstream elements for transporting the fluid therethrough.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young and Monson as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of Condon US 5,287,730.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Young teaches sealing gaskets 17 which are arranged on the upstream and downstream side of the spacer element in a slot 16 to form a fluid-tight seal when the separator is inserted. When in the first configuration, the seal is formed between the downstream element the spacer and the upstream element, and in the second configuration, the seal is formed between the downstream element, the blanking element and the upstream element. Young does not explicitly disclose the gaskets as being O-rings arranged in a groove as claimed.
Condon teaches a leakage test apparatus in which an upstream and downstream portion of a flow system (top and bottom of fig. 5) are separated by a test plate 58 and each portion includes an O-ring 56 arranged in an O-ring groove 54. Condon is considered to be analogous art in the area of fluid handling and sealing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have combined the teachings of Condon with those of Young to replace the gaskets with O-rings and grooves which retain them in place during use to prevent their dislodging during repeated use to ensure a fluid tight seal remains over time.
Regarding claim 9, Young teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the blind hole extending into the downstream element to the second fluid conduit so as to be in communication with the second fluid conduit as claimed. Condon teaches a separator system in which an upstream and downstream element as divided by a separator 58 and a blind hole 36 extends into one of the elements. Since Condon is in the same field as Young with regard to fluid handling, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a similar blind hole to Young to either the upstream or downstream element in order to allow for the introduction or removal of fluids to test the leak tightness of the system.
Regarding claims 12, Young teaches sealing gaskets 17 which are arranged on the upstream and downstream side of the spacer element in a slot 16 to form a fluid-tight seal when the separator is inserted. When in the first configuration, the seal is formed between the downstream element the spacer and the upstream element, and in the second configuration, the seal is formed between the downstream element, the blanking element and the upstream element. Young does not explicitly disclose the gaskets as being O-rings arranged in a groove as claimed.
Condon teaches a leakage test apparatus in which an upstream and downstream portion of a flow system (top and bottom of fig. 5) are separated by a test plate 58 and each portion includes an O-ring 56 arranged in an O-ring groove 54. Condon is considered to be analogous art in the area of fluid handling and sealing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have combined the teachings of Condon with those of Young to replace the gaskets with O-rings and grooves which retain them in place during use to prevent their dislodging during repeated use to ensure a fluid tight seal remains over time.
Regarding claim 14, Young teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the blind hole extending into the downstream element to the second fluid conduit so as to be in communication with the second fluid conduit as claimed. Condon teaches a separator system in which an upstream and downstream element as divided by a separator 58 and a blind hole 36 extends into one of the elements. Since Condon is in the same field as Young with regard to fluid handling, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added a similar blind hole to Young to either the upstream or downstream element in order to allow for the introduction or removal of fluids to test the leak tightness of the system.
Regarding claim 17, Young discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the step of testing for a presence of leaks in the downstream portion by introducing a test fluid under pressure into the downstream portion. Condon teaches leak testing an area surrounding a separator 58 in a piping which defines an upstream and downstream area (either side of the separator as seen in fig. 5). Condon introduces a test fluid into the piping system and monitors a change to determine if a leak exists (column 9, lines 28-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Condon with those of Young in order to provide a similar pressure testing method to Young to determine if any leaks are present in a system which could affect its performance.
Regarding claim 18, when used in the first configuration as in claim 1 above, the fluid would be transported from the upstream portion, through the first configuration, to the downstream portion as the channel would be open to allow flow.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, Monson and Condon as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Mitchell.
Regarding claim 19, Young and Condon disclose the claimed method but do not explicitly teach the test fluid as including nitrogen gas and the service fluid including oxygen gas. Mitchell discloses a medical gas delivery system which can transport both oxygen and nitrogen therethrough. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Young and Condon which include leak testing a fluid line with those of Mitchell in order to test for leaks using an inert gas such as nitrogen prior to filling the system with oxygen for safe operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art cited above fails to teach the claimed limitations of claim 15 including the specific medical gas system in the claimed arrangement.
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 Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855