Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on March 27th, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cruz Gonzalez et. al. (US 11536408).
Regarding claim 1, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: A lateral insert for a mainline conduit, the insert comprising: a tubular portion having a longitudinal length adapted to be inserted into a service aperture of the mainline conduit (interface device 106/301 with a longitudinal portion 302 inserted into a service aperture [Col. 8, lines Fig. 2 and 3]), the tubular portion comprising first and second open ends (device 301 has a first opening 302B and second opening 302A [Col. 8, lines 45-51 and Fig. 4]); and an inner fluid channel between the first and second open ends (inner channel 318 between first opening 302B and second opening 302A [Fig. 5]); and a flange radially extending from the tubular portion, the flange being adapted to rest against a liner of the mainline conduit (flange portion, circled in image below, adapted to enclose about opening of the conduit [Fig. 5, and Col. 10, line 66 – Col. 11, line 5]. Furthermore, regarding the adaption to rest against a liner, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because an apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, or elsewhere in a claim, then it meets the claim.).
PNG
media_image1.png
437
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 1, the tubular portion having an outer diameter decreasing along the longitudinal length away from the flange portion (The tubular portion of the device 301 has an outer diameter that decreases along the longitudinal length [Fig. 4-5 and Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 4]).
Regarding claim 3, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 2, the tubular portion having a conical shape (The tubular portion is generally conical [Fig. 4-5 and Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 4]).
Regarding claim 4, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 3, the conical shape of the tubular portion forming an angle α between an outer surface of the tubular portion and a base of the flange (As the tubular portion is conical and diameter decreases, there is an angle between the outer surface tubular portion and the base [Fig. 4-5]).
Regarding claim 5, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 4, the angle α being greater than 90° (The angle between the outer surface tubular portion and the base is greater than 90° as the portion is generally conical and decreases along the tubular portion [Fig. 4-5]).
Regarding claim 10, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 1, the first end of the tubular portion comprising a beveled edge forming an angled reinforcement ring (Flange towards the first end contains beveled edge 310B [Fig. 5 and Col. 10 line 66 – Col. 11 line 5]).
Regarding claim 11, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 10, the angled reinforcement ring having a thickness allowing flexing of the insert to adapt to the shape of the service aperture (The beveled edge 310B has a structure to allowing the profile to match the opening [Col. 10 line 66 – Col. 11 line 5]).
Regarding claim 14, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 1, the insert being made of resilient and flexible material (Device 301 is taught to be made of a flexible and durable material: TPU [Col. 8, lines 25-30]).
Regarding claim 15, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 14, the material being thermoplastic polyurethane (Device 301 is taught to be made of thermoplastic polyurethane [Col. 8, lines 25-30]).
Regarding claim 16, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 1, the tubular portion and the flange forming a single piece (Device 301 is formed in a single piece [Fig. 3-5]).
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.
Claims 6-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz Gonzalez et. al. (US 11536408) in view of Yamada (US 20190093812).
Regarding claim 6, Cruz Gonzalez et. al. teaches: The insert of claim 1 but fails to teach the ribs extending along a portion of the longitudinal length of the tubular portion.
Yamada teaches: a tubular portion comprising ribs extending along a portion of the longitudinal length of the tubular portion (Engagement legs 25 are ribs extending along the tubular portion 2 for a portion of the longitudinal length [Fig. 1(a) and 2(a)]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Cruz Gonzalez et. al. with the teachings of Yamada in order to effectively lock and seal the device in an aperture as the engagement ribs of Yamada coupled with the flanged portion were taught to properly seal the device in an opening (Para. 42, lines 6-16).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cruz Gonzalez et. al. and Yamada teaches: The insert of claim 6, the ribs comprising a tapered portion away of the flange (The rib 25 comprises a tapered portion between 25a and 25c which is tapered away from the flange portion [Yamada - Fig. 4(b)]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Cruz Gonzalez et. al. and Yamada teaches: The insert of claim 7, the tapered portion being at an angle β with the base of the flange. (As the rib 25 comprises a tapered portion, there is an angle between the base and the portion itself [Yamada - Fig. 4(b)]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cruz Gonzalez et. al. and Yamada teaches: The insert of claim 8, the angle β being comprised between 96° and 97°. (As the rib 25 comprises a tapered portion, there is an angle between the base and the portion itself and appears to be around 97° [Yamada - Fig. 4(b)]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to find the angles, as claimed, of the tapered portion to effectively interact with the aperture, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cruz Gonzalez et. al. and Yamada teaches: The insert of claim 1, the flange comprising a substantially flat portion extending radially from the tubular portion and an angled lip portion extending from the substantially flat portion (On the flange portion, there is an angled lip 11 extending radially from a flat portion [Yamada – Fig. 4(b)]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cruz Gonzalez et. al. and Yamada teaches: The insert of claim 12, the lip portion extending from the substantially flat portion at an angle of about 45° (The lip portion extends at an angle of about 45° [Yamada – Fig. 4b]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Anders (US 20100187813) teaches a connector having a tubular member and flange for connecting a main pipe to a lateral pipe (Abstract and Figs. 2-5).
Foos (US 20140338616) teaches a plug seal with extending flange having a lip portion and ribs for contact in a shaft (Abstract and Fig. 5)
Dedrick (US 20210372418) teaches a water pump insert that has a hollow portion extending from one open end to a second and a flange with a beveled edge for contact with an aperture (Abstract and Fig. 2).
Bontus (US 20200132234) teaches a fitting with a hollow inner portion extending from one open end to a second for use with connecting a main pipe liner to a branch conduit (Abstract and Figs. 2 and 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. If Craig Schneider cannot be reached, please contact Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JOSHUA D LEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights