DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The amendment filed 10-21-2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The original specification [0017] describes a 90 degree fitting and “bending it on site” but the specification does not support the specification amendment and Fig. 17 to a bent tube having 90 degree ends which connects to mounting flanges that comprise an assembly that is configured to be in a raised and lowered position and a tube bending tool to bend the tube.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawing, new Fig. 17 was received on 10-21-2025. This drawing is not acceptable as it contains new matter to a single bent connection tube (1701) having 90 degree ends which connects to mounting flanges (1702) that comprise an assembly that is configured to be in a raised (1701a) and lowered (1701b) position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 21-24 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. Claims 21-24 claim additional tubes and connecting the tubes to the first tube, which limitations do not further limit “A tube swage system” as claimed in claim 1. The scope of claims 21-24 is not ascertainable since it is not clear what a structure of “additional tubes” in claims 21 and 23 are and what “an assembly which can rotate” is in claims 22 and 24. Claims 21-24 seem to be directed to a potential product which is produced by a subsequent connecting method that is enacted to connect additional tubing to the first tube and does not further limit a tube swage system as set forth in claim 1. 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
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster (3,071,993). Foster discloses a tube swage tool for connecting tubes including a first tube (21) and a connector fitting tube (20; Fig. 6) comprising a swaging tool (24) having a first support wheel (26), a second support wheel (26) and a swaging wheel (32) wherein the first support wheel and second support wheel are opposed to the swaging wheel by a variable distance (col. 2, line 70 and col. 3, lines 1-3). The first support wheel (26), second support wheel (26) and swaging wheel (32) rotate about an outer wall of the first tube (20) while the variable distance is incrementally reduced (col. 3, lines 3-12) so that the pressure exerted by the swaging wheel creates an annular boss (34) on an inner wall of the first tube (21, Fig. 6) and creates a coincident groove (35; col. 3, line 15) on the connector fitting tube (20) for secure engagement of the first tube (21) and the connector fitting tube (col. 3, lines 17-21).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoback (4,655,064). Hoback discloses a tube swage tool (Figs. 7 and 8) for connecting tubes including a first tube (81) and a connector fitting tube (82; Fig. 8) comprising a swaging tool (11) having a first support wheel (35), a second support wheel (36) and a swaging wheel (22) wherein the first support wheel and second support wheel are opposed to the swaging wheel by a variable distance (col. 2, lines 53-55 and col. 3, lines 49-53). The first support wheel (35), second support wheel (36) and swaging wheel (22) rotate about an outer wall of the first tube (81) while the variable distance is incrementally reduced so that the pressure exerted by the swaging wheel creates an annular boss (84) on an inner wall of the first tube (81, Fig. 8) and creates an annular groove (Fig. 8) on the connector fitting tube (82) for secure engagement of the first tube (81) and the connector fitting tube (col. 3, lines 59-61).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (GB 2266482). Taylor discloses a tube swage tool (Figs. 3-5) for connecting tubes including a first tube (130) and a connector fitting tube (100; Fig. 4) comprising a swaging tool (10) having a first support wheel (62), a second support wheel (62) and a swaging wheel (40) wherein the first support wheel and second support wheel are opposed to the swaging wheel by a variable distance (inward movement of swaging wheel; page 8, lines 19-24). The first support wheel (62), second support wheel (62) and swaging wheel (40) rotate about an outer wall of the first tube (130) while the variable distance is incrementally reduced so that the pressure exerted by the swaging wheel creates an annular boss (132) on an inner wall of the first tube (130, Fig. 5) to coincide with an annular groove (116; Fig. 4) on the connector fitting tube (100) for secure engagement of the first tube (130) and the connector fitting tube (100).
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) 1,4,5,17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoback (4,655,064) in view of Teramoto et al. (9,793,637). Hoback discloses a tube swage system (Figs. 7 and 8) for connecting tubes including a first tube (81) and a connector fitting tube (82; Fig. 8) comprising a swaging tool (11) having a first support wheel (35), a second support wheel (36) and a swaging wheel (22) wherein the first support wheel and second support wheel are opposed to the swaging wheel by a variable distance (col. 2, lines 53-55 and col. 3, lines 49-53). The first support wheel (35), second support wheel (36) and swaging wheel (22) rotate about an outer wall of the first tube (81) while the variable distance is incrementally reduced so that the pressure exerted by the swaging wheel creates an annular boss (84) on an inner wall of the first tube (81, Fig. 8) and creates an annular groove (Fig. 8) on the connector fitting tube (82) for secure engagement of the first tube (81) and the connector fitting tube (col. 3, lines 59-61). Regarding claims 4 and 5, the swaging wheel (22) of Hoback simultaneously creates at least two annular bosses (84,85) on the first tube (81) and a corresponding number of annular grooves (Fig. 8) on the connector fitting tube (82). Regarding claim 17, the connector fitting tube (82) is hollow (Fig. 8) and an interior communicates with an interior of the first tube (81). Hoback does not disclose that the annular groove on the connector fitting tube is a square shaped annular groove. Teramoto teaches a metal tubular connector (20) having a first square annular groove (27U) that is configured to be connected to a first metal tube (30) by swaging (col. 8, lines 11-19 and col. 9, lines 38-43) with a crimping roller (42) which forms a first annular boss (32; col. 9, lines 54-56) on an inner wall (Fig. 6) of the first metal tube (30) which mechanically engages with the first square annular groove (27U). Regarding claim 21, the tubes (30,20) are configured to connect to additional tubing (10; Fig. 3). Regarding claim 22, the claim language is “can rotate” which does not actually require that any tubes are rotatable to one another but the tubes (30,20) of Teramoto are capable of relative rotation at any time during the crimping of the tubes until the annular boss (32) makes contact with the square annular groove (27U) for mechanical locking. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to swage the first metal tube of Hoback to a connector having a square annular groove as taught by Teramoto in order to suppress a local deformation that occurs when the swaged part of the first tube is pressed into the square annular groove.
Claim(s) 1,17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (3,071,993) in view of Teramoto et al. (9,793,637). Foster discloses a tube swage system (Fig. 7) for connecting tubes including a first tube (21) and a connector fitting tube (20; Fig. 6) comprising a swaging tool (24) having a first support wheel (26), a second support wheel (26) and a swaging wheel (32) wherein the first support wheel and second support wheel are opposed to the swaging wheel by a variable distance (col. 2, line 70 and col. 3, lines 1-3). The first support wheel (26), second support wheel (26) and swaging wheel (32) rotate about an outer wall of the first tube (20) while the variable distance is incrementally reduced (col. 3, lines 3-12) so that the pressure exerted by the swaging wheel creates an annular boss (34) on an inner wall of the first tube (21, Fig. 6) and creates a coincident groove (35; col. 3, line 15) on the connector fitting tube (20) for secure engagement of the first tube (21) and the connector fitting tube (col. 3, lines 17-21). Regarding claim 17, the connector fitting tube (20) is hollow (Fig. 2) and an interior communicates with an interior of the first tube (21). Foster does not disclose that the annular groove on the connector fitting tube is a square shaped annular groove. Teramoto teaches a metal tubular connector (20) having a first square annular groove (27U) that is configured to be connected to a first metal tube (30) by swaging (col. 8, lines 11-19 and col. 9, lines 38-43) with a crimping roller (42) which forms a first annular boss (32; col. 9, lines 54-56) on an inner wall (Fig. 6) of the first metal tube (30) which mechanically engages with the first square annular groove (27U). Regarding claim 21, the tubes (30,20) are configured to connect to additional tubing (10; Fig. 3). Regarding claim 22, the claim language is “can rotate” which does not actually require that any tubes are rotatable to one another but the tubes (30,20) of Teramoto are capable of relative rotation at any time during the crimping of the tubes until the annular boss (32) makes contact with the square annular groove (27U) for mechanical locking. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to swage the first metal tube of Foster to a connector having a square annular groove as taught by Teramoto in order to suppress a local deformation that occurs when the swaged part of the first tube is pressed into the square annular groove.
Claim(s) 1,3-6,9,12,17,18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (GB 2266482) in view of Teramoto et al. (9,793,637). Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses a tube swage system (Figs. 3-5) for connecting tubes including a first tube (130) and a connector fitting tube (100; Fig. 4) comprising a swaging tool (10) having a first support wheel (62), a second support wheel (62) and a swaging wheel (40) wherein the first support wheel and second support wheel are opposed to the swaging wheel by a variable distance (inward movement of swaging wheel; page 8, lines 19-24). The first support wheel (62), second support wheel (62) and swaging wheel (40) rotate about an outer wall of the first tube (130) while the variable distance is incrementally reduced so that the pressure exerted by the swaging wheel creates an annular boss (132) on an inner wall of the first tube (130, Fig. 5) to coincide with an annular groove (116; Fig. 4) on the connector fitting tube (100) for secure engagement of the first tube (130) and the connector fitting tube (100). Regarding claim 3, the connector tube fitting (Fig. 4) is constructed with grooves (116) for the first tube (130) and a second tube (page 6, lines 33-35 and page 7, lines 1-2) for connecting by the swaging tool (10). Regarding claims 4 and 5, the swaging wheel (40) of Taylor simultaneously creates at least two annular bosses (132; Fig. 5) on the first tube (130) to coincide with a corresponding number of annular grooves (116) on the connector fitting tube (100). Regarding claim 6, Taylor discloses in Fig. 5 that a swaging wheel (40) having a plurality of boss creating features (44) is used to form two bosses while an unequal number of grooves (right side; Fig. 5) exist. Claim 9 sets forth "o-ring can be inserted" so it is not clear if this is a possibility or a requirement but Taylor discloses a tube fitting (100; Fig. 4) with an annular groove (118) into which an o-ring (120) is inserted. Regarding claim 12, Taylor discloses that the connector fitting tube (100) has a shoulder (108) to define how far the first tube (130) is positioned over the connector fitting tube. Regarding claim 17, the connector fitting tube (100) is a tube (page 7, lines 6-7) and an interior (bore) communicates with an interior of the first tube (130). Regarding claim 18, the connector tube fitting (100) has a chamfered opening end (104; Fig. 4). Taylor does not disclose that the annular groove on the connector fitting tube is a square shaped annular groove. Teramoto teaches a metal tubular connector (20) having a first square annular groove (27U) that is configured to be connected to a first metal tube (30) by swaging (col. 8, lines 11-19 and col. 9, lines 38-43) with a crimping roller (42) which forms a first annular boss (32; col. 9, lines 54-56) on an inner wall (Fig. 6) of the first metal tube (30) which mechanically engages with the first square annular groove (27U). Regarding claim 21, the tubes (30,20) are configured to connect to additional tubing (10; Fig. 3). Regarding claim 22, the claim language is “can rotate” which does not actually require that any tubes are rotatable to one another but the tubes (30,20) of Teramoto are capable of relative rotation at any time during the crimping of the tubes until the annular boss (32) makes contact with the square annular groove (27U) for mechanical locking. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to swage the first metal tube of Taylor to a connector having a square annular groove as taught by Teramoto in order to suppress a local deformation that occurs when the swaged part of the first tube is pressed into the square annular groove.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (3,071,993) in view of Teramoto et al. (9,793,637) and further in view of Meese (3,196,652). Foster does not disclose a spacer. Meese teaches spacers (32,33) which extend in a vertical direction (Fig. 7) against a surface (extending flange, 31) that is a surface which is not parallel with a longitudinal axis of a tube (21). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to provide spacers against the swaging wheel of Foster as taught by Meese in order to concentrate a force of the swaging wheel at a point when swaging the tube.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoback (4,655,064) in view of Teramoto et al. (9,793,637) and further in view of Helfman (4,942,752). Hoback does not disclose a second swaging wheel. Helfman teaches multiple rollers (13,14,16,17) that are configured to form grooves in workpieces (W). Helfman teaches a configuration of three rollers (Figs. 6A,6B) and four rollers (Figs. 7A,7B) and that the rollers are adjustable for different diameter workpieces on rods (26,27). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to add a second swaging roller to the swaging tool of Hoback as taught by Helfman in order to add extra forming pressure to the tube with another swaging roller.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (3,071,993) in view of Teramoto et al. (9,793,637) and further in view of Taylor (3,283,553). Foster does not disclose a cutting wheel. Taylor teaches a cutting wheel (12) for cutting tubing (21) which is changeable to a swaging wheel (12; col. 2, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute a cutting wheel as taught by Taylor for the swaging wheel of Foster in order to cut the tubing to size.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (3,071,993) in view of Teramoto et al. (9,793,637) and further in view of Riker (2,719,345). Foster does not disclose a saddle bracket which fits into the grooves on the tubing. Riker teaches a saddle bracket (10, Fig. 1) comprising a u-bolt (14) which fits in a groove (24) in a tube (22) which is connected to a tube connector fitting (23). The saddle bracket (10) includes an interior member (18,19) having an inner circumference so that when the saddle bracket presses the interior member against the tube (22), the u-bolt (14) and interior member (18,19) surround the tube (22) and a first and second nut (15) secure the saddle bracket to the tube (col. 3, lines 15-25). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to press a saddle bracket against the first tube of Foster as taught by Riker in order to provide a clamped holding force for the first tube and tube connector fitting. Regarding claim 11, Foster discloses a plurality of grooves and it would be an obvious modification to press and secure a plurality of grooves with additional saddle brackets as taught by Riker as it only involves repetition of existing parts.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (3,071,993) in view of Teramoto et al. (9,793,637) and further in view of Kemp (2,948,170). Foster does not disclose a solid connector fitting. Kemp teaches a tubular connector fitting (43) and a solid connector fitting (37) that is secured to an outer tube (38) by swaging grooves (39,40; col. 3, lines 55-63) by a swaging wheel (30). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to swage a solid connector fitting to a tube with the swaging tooling of Foster as taught by Kemp in order to secure solid cylinders to a tube.
Claim(s) 19,23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (3,071,993) in view of Teramoto et al. (9,793,637) and further in view of Reverman (3,068,563). Regarding claim 19, Foster does not disclose adhesive. Reverman teaches adhesive (16) between a tube (11) and a tube connector fitting (12) which are subjected to swaging with a swaging tool (18,19). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to apply adhesive to the first tube and tube connector fitting of Foster in view of Teramoto as taught by Reverman in order to aid in securing the tubes together.
Regarding claim 23, the tubes of Teramoto (30,20) are configured to connect to additional tubing (10; Fig. 3). Regarding claim 24, the claim language is “can rotate” which does not actually require that any tubes are rotatable to one another but the tubes (30,20) of Teramoto are capable of relative rotation at any time during the crimping of the tubes until the annular boss (32) makes contact with the square annular groove (27U) for mechanical locking. It is an obvious swage tool operation to determine how far inward the swage tool of Foster is advanced into an annular groove as taught by Teramoto so as to secure tubes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-21-2025 have been fully considered. The 102 rejection of claim 20 is repeated as the claim was not amended and does not include the square shaped annular groove which is argued as being an advantage over the prior art of record in the response (10-21-2025; page 10; “REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C 102”).
The reference to Teramoto is used to respond to Applicants’ amendment to claim 1 regarding a connection tube with a square shaped groove which is known in the prior art to be connected with another tube by swaging with a swaging tool including a crimping roller as taught by Teramoto. The Examiner’s position is that it is an obvious modification to swage connection tubes with square shaped annular grooves to a first tube in the swaging systems of Foster, Taylor and Hoback since the swaging tools have swaging rollers that are constructed to move inwardly to connect tubing together whether by creating an annular groove in an inner tube or forcing an outer tube portion into an existing connecting square shaped groove as taught by Teramoto. Regarding claims 21-24, the tubes (30,20) of Foster, Taylor, Hoback and Teramoto are capable of relative rotation at any time during the crimping of the tubes as the crimping tool is incrementally advanced as Teramoto teaches (Fig. 6) as the tool (42) moves inwardly until the annular boss (32) makes contact with the square annular groove (27U) for mechanical locking, it is an obvious swage tool operation to determine how far inward the swage tool is advanced to secure or partially secure tubes.
In Applicants’ response it appears that a connection tube having a square shaped groove used in a method of connecting rotatable tubes is argued as the novelty of the invention but it is not clear how Applicants’ swaging tool system reads over the prior art since the claims are directed to a device as in the claim 1 preamble “A tube swage tool for connecting tubes”. The swaging tools of Foster, Taylor and Hoback are capable of performing the claim 1 function of forming a first annular boss on a first inner wall of the first tube “such that a connector fitting having a square-cut first annular groove is engageable with the first tube by mechanically engaging the square cut first annular groove with the first annular boss” since Teramoto teaches an inwardly moving swaging roller that performs that function for a connector tube having a square annular groove.
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 EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725