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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claimed intermediate portion in Cattrell has now been interpreted to also include at least the flange (52).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, Catrell now meets the limitation “wherein the intermediate portion is within the aperture relative to at least the width of the aperture.”
Applicant argues:
“Cattrell includes a flange 52 on the shank 30 of the support pin 32 (see Cattrell at col. 2, lines 45-46 and Fig. 1). As shown in the second annotated version of Fig. 1 (see the Office Action at page 8), the flange 52 is positioned relative to the width of the aperture. As recited above, amended claims 21, 36, and 38 claim that the intermediate portion is within the aperture relative to at least the width of the aperture. Cattrell does not teach or suggest that the intermediate portion is within the aperture relative to at least the width of the aperture. In fact, Cattrell teaches the exact opposite, as the flange 52 is positioned external to the aperture relative to at least the width of the aperture. Understandably, the flange 52 of Cattrell is designed to be larger than the aperture, which is defined by the first socket of the first component and the second socket of the second component, as the flange 52 is sized to impact the end of the adjacent component. Specifically, Cattrell recites that the support pin 32 is then tightened by means of the screwdriver slot 56 until the flange 52 jams against the end of hub 28 (see Cattrell at col. 2, lines 61-64). Therefore, the intermediate portion of Cattrell cannot and would not be within the aperture relative to at least the width of the aperture, as it would impact the functionality of the flange. Cattrell recites that the criticality of the flange 52 and the support pin 32 is to pull the split sleeve collar 46 into the bore 44, clamping the spherical head 48 securely, and at the same time bringing the outer spherical portion of said ball element 36 into frictional contact with the aforementioned resilient annulus 34, thereby forming a pressure seal at the contact (see Cattrell at col. 2, lines 64-69).”
To make clear how the instant application defines the aperture 206, paragraph [0029] of the specification offers the following: “According to the non-limiting aspect of FIG. 2, the first and second sockets 114, 118 can collectively define an aperture 206 that can traverses (sic) through the body of each socket 114, 118 along the longitudinal axis L (FIG. 1). As will be discussed, the aperture 206 can be geometrically configured to accommodate and properly seat the joint fastener 108, whose geometrical configuration will also be described in further detail below.” So, the aperture is defined as extending through the body of each socket (114, 118). As indicated in subsequent paragraph [0039], the space that is defined between the sockets, and referenced by the leader line for aperture 206 in Figure 4, is referred to as a gap in the aperture. This gap can be adjusted to define the degree to which the joint fastener can tilt, as discussed in paragraph [0046] and shown in Figure 4. Now referring to Figure 2, the intermediate portion (208) is shown to be within the aperture (206), the leader line for which references the gap within the aperture which is between the first and second sockets relative to at least the width of the aperture. So, the aperture is defined so as to include the interior of each of the first and second sockets 114, 118, as well as the gap between the sockets. In Cattrell, flange (52) has now been interpreted as part of the claimed intermediate portion. And as shown in Figure 1 of Cattrell and specified in the foregoing annotated figure and the annotated figure below, Catrell’s intermediate portion resides within the aperture, relative to at least the width of the aperture. The portion of the aperture between the first and second components, like in the instant application, defines the amount of tilt between the components.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the art rejections have been maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "208" and "502" have both been used to designate the same structure (see Figs. 2 and 5); in Fig. 4, the leader line for “206” is touching the fastener 108, and therefore incorrectly references the fastener and not the aperture (note the leader line for “206” in Fig. 2). 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. 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 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) 21-23, 25-26, 28 and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cattrell (US 2,824,758).
As to claim 21, and with reference to the following annotated figure, Cattrell discloses a gimbal assembly for a flexible conduit configured to convey a medium, the gimbal assembly comprising: a first component comprising a first socket defining a first cavity of a first geometric configuration; a second component comprising a second socket defining a second cavity of a second geometric configuration, the first component and second component cooperating to define an aperture therebetween; and a joint fastener configured to couple the first socket to the second socket, wherein the joint fastener comprises a first portion that geometrically corresponds to the first cavity, an intermediate portion (see annotated figure, yet now considered to also include flange 52) disposed at least partially within the aperture, and a second portion that geometrically corresponds to the second cavity; wherein a width of the aperture defines an amount of tilt between the first component and the second component (as depicted in the figures below, a larger or smaller width of the aperture defines the amount of or tilt between the two components 10, 12), wherein the intermediate portion is within the aperture relative to at least the width of the aperture.
PNG
media_image3.png
330
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
386
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
314
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 22, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 21, wherein the first portion is dimensionally configured to be immovably seated within the first cavity (screwed in).
As to claim 23, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 1, wherein the second portion is configured to be movably retained by the second socket such that the first component can rotate relative to the second component about the second socket. Refer to foregoing annotated figure and col. 1-3.
As to claim 25, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 21, wherein an outer surface of the first portion of the joint fastener substantially contacts an inner surface of the first socket when seated within the first cavity. Refer to foregoing annotated figure and col. 1-3.
As to claim 26, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 25, wherein the first portion is dimensionally configured to establish a friction fit between the joint fastener and the first socket when seated within the first cavity. Refer to foregoing annotated figure and col. 1-3.
As to claim 28, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 21, wherein the joint fastener further comprises a third portion that differs in geometric configuration from the first portion and the second portion. Refer to foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 36, Cattrell discloses a gimbal assembly for a flexible conduit configured to convey a medium, the gimbal assembly comprising: a first component comprising a first socket defining a first cavity of a first geometric configuration; a second component comprising a second socket defining a second cavity of a second geometric configuration, the first component and second component cooperating to define an aperture therebetween; a joint fastener configured to couple the first socket to the second socket, wherein the joint fastener comprises a first portion that geometrically corresponds to the first cavity, an intermediate portion (see annotated figure, yet now considered to also include flange 52) that disposed at least partially within the aperture, wherein the aperture having a frustoconical configuration, and wherein the first portion is dimensionally configured to establish a friction fit between the joint fastener and the first socket when seated within the first cavity; and wherein a width of the aperture defines an amount of tilt between the first component and the second component (as depicted in the figures below, a larger or smaller width of the aperture defines the amount of or tilt between the two components 10, 12), wherein the intermediate portion is within the aperture relative to at least the width of the aperture.
PNG
media_image3.png
330
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
322
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
386
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
314
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 37, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 36, wherein the first portion is dimensionally configured to be immovably seated within the first cavity, and wherein the second portion is configured to be movably retained by the second socket such that the first component can rotate relative to the second component about the second socket.
As to claim 38, and with reference to the following annotated figure, Cattrell discloses a gimbal assembly for a flexible conduit configured to convey a medium, the gimbal assembly comprising: a first component comprising a first socket defining a first cavity of a first geometric configuration; a second component comprising a second socket defining a second cavity of a second geometric configuration, the first component and second component cooperating to define an aperture therebetween; a joint fastener configured to couple the first socket to the second socket, wherein the joint fastener comprises a first portion that geometrically corresponds to the first cavity, an intermediate portion (see annotated figure, yet now considered to also include flange 52) that geometrically corresponds to the aperture such that the intermediate portion can be immovably seated within the aperture, and a second portion that geometrically corresponds to the second cavity, wherein the first portion is dimensionally configured to be immovably seated within the first cavity, and wherein the second portion is configured to be movably retained by the second socket such that the first component can rotate relative to the second component about the second socket; and wherein a width of the aperture defines an amount of tilt between the first component and the second component (as depicted in the figures below, a larger or smaller width of the aperture defines the amount of or tilt between the two components 10, 12), wherein the intermediate portion is within the aperture relative to at least the width of the aperture.
PNG
media_image3.png
330
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
386
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
314
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattrell in view of Rohwedder (US 7,677,606).
As to claim 24, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 21, except for further comprising a flexible bellows disposed between and coupled to the first component and the second component.
However, Rohwedder teaches a similar gimbal joint assembly that incorporates bellows (11), which seals the connector while simultaneously allowing high mobility and articulation (see col. 3, ll. 26-28).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cattrell to incorporate a bellows between the first and second components, as taught by Rohwedder, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to completely seal the connector while simultaneously allowing high mobility and articulation.
Claim(s) 27 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattrell in view of Hommel (US 2006/0210376).
As to claim 27, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 21, except that the aperture defined by the first component and the intermediate portion of the joint fastener both comprise a frustoconical configuration, and wherein the second geometric configuration is hemispheric.
However, Hommel teaches a threaded bolt connection for securing two parts together, particularly for multi-screwed mechanical housing parts. Hommel’s bolt includes a head portion (3), shank portions (4, 5) and a frustoconical portion (2), which guarantees a reliant and economical tightening function with many uses (see [0006]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cattrell’s bolt, with a frustoconical portion (a sealing cone portion), as taught by Hommel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to guarantee a reliant and economical tightening function that provides sealing.
As to claim 39, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 38, except that the aperture defined by the first component and the intermediate portion of the joint fastener both comprise a frustoconical configuration, and wherein the first portion is dimensionally configured to establish a friction fit between the joint fastener and the first socket when seated within the first cavity.
However, Hommel teaches a threaded bolt connection for securing two parts together, particularly for multi-screwed mechanical housing parts. Hommel’s bolt includes a head portion (3), shank portions (4, 5) and a frustoconical portion (2), which guarantees a reliant and economical tightening function with many uses (see [0006]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cattrell’s bolt, with a frustoconical portion (a sealing cone portion), as taught by Hommel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to guarantees a reliant and economical tightening function that provides sealing.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattrell in view of Hommel, and further in view of Rohwedder.
As to claim 40, Cattrell/Hommel discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 39, except for further comprising a flexible bellows disposed between and coupled to the first component and the second component.
However, Rohwedder teaches a similar gimbal joint assembly that incorporates bellows (11), which seals the connector while simultaneously allowing high mobility and articulation (see col. 3, ll. 26-28).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cattrell/Hommel to incorporate a bellows between the first and second components, as taught by Rohwedder, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to completely seal the connector while simultaneously allowing high mobility and articulation.
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattrell in view of Tracy et al (US 2,921,803).
As to claim 29, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 28, except for further comprising a lock nut configured to mechanically engage the first portion of the joint fastener, thereby securing it to the first socket.
However, Tracy et al teaches a similar gimbal assembly, wherein a lock nut (19) is used to tighten and secure the joint fastener (17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cattrell to include a lock nut to engage the joint fastener, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to tighten and secure the joint fastener to the components.
As to claim 30, Cattrell/Tracy et al discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 29, wherein the lock nut comprises tapped threads (Tracy’s lock nut is threaded), and wherein the first portion comprises a screw configured to engage the tapped threads of the lock nut.
As to claim 31, Cattrell/Tracy et al discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 30, wherein the lock nut is adjustably configured to apply a predetermined load on the joint fastener and the first socket.
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattrell in view of Tracy et al, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”).
As to claim 32, Cattrell/Tracy et al discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 29, except that the mechanical engagement is a press-fit.
As Applicant did not properly challenge the Official Notice of a lock nut that engages a fastener via press-fit, such is considered AAPA.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cattrell/Tracy et al such that the lock nut that engages a fastener via press-fit (otherwise known as a self-clinching nut), as taught by AAPA, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative means suitable to the design application to join the nut and fastener.
It is noted that Applicant indicates that a press-fit engagement is a design alternative to threads. Refer to paragraph [0048].
As to claim 33, Cattrell/Tracy et al discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 29, except that the mechanical engagement is a thermal-fit.
As Applicant did not properly challenge the Official Notice of a lock nut that engages a fastener via thermal-fit, such is considered AAPA.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cattrell/Tracy et al such that the lock nut that engages a fastener via thermal-fit, as taught by AAPA, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative means suitable to the design application to join the nut and fastener.
It is noted that Applicant indicates that a thermal-fit engagement is a design alternative to threads. Refer to paragraph [0048].
As to claim 34, Cattrell/Tracy et al discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 29, except that the lock nut comprises a stake configured to engage at least a portion of the third portion of the joint fastener.
As Applicant did not properly challenge the Official Notice of a lock nut having a stake that is configured to engage a portion of a fastener (bolt), such is considered AAPA.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cattrell/Tracy et al such that the lock nut that engages a fastener via a stake, as taught by AAPA, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative means suitable to the design application to join the nut and fastener.
It is noted that Applicant indicates that a press-fit engagement is a design alternative to threads. Refer to paragraph [0048].
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattrell in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”).
As to claim 35, Cattrell discloses the gimbal assembly of claim 21, except that at least a portion of the second portion of the joint fastener comprises a wear-resistant coating.
As Applicant did not properly challenge the Official Notice of the use of a wear-resistant coating on a joint fastener, such is considered AAPA.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cattrell to include a wear-resistant coating at least on a second portion of the fastener, as taught by AAPA, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to protect the fastener from wear.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-930pm, mid-day flex 2-4pm.
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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679