DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
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, 2, 4, 6, and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinshagen (US 96962).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. 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. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Clm 1: Reinshagen discloses a fluid circuit (see Figs. 1, 2, and above), in particular for aircraft, comprising –
at least one first pipe (B) comprising a first connection end (at 1001, the back wall of b), extending along a first axis (see above) and defining an internal surface (the inside of B) and an external surface (the outside of B), the first connection end comprising a first peripheral connection element (F) as well as a first linking member (D) translationally and rotationally free about the first axis (at least during installation),
at least one second pipe (B)’ comprising a second connection end (at 1002, the back wall of b’), extending along a second axis (see above) and defining an internal surface (the inside of B)’ and an external surface (the outside of B’), the second connection end comprising a second peripheral connection element (F’) as well as a second linking member (D’) translationally and rotationally free about the second axis (at least during installation),
the connection ends (1001 and 1002) of the at least one first and second pipes being fixed and spaced apart by an axial connection clearance (see above),
a linking connector (A, C, and E), to sealingly link the first and second connection ends (see above), comprising: a central sleeve (A, C, and E) comprising a peripheral casing adapted to slide along the second axis (see above), the central sleeve being configured to cooperate (works/functions with), at a first end (the left side, see above), with the first linking member (see above) and, at a second end (the right side, see above), with the second linking member (see above), the central sleeve comprising a plurality of teeth (the multiple a) configured to cooperate with (works/functions with) the second peripheral connection element for possible misalignment between the first axis and the second axis (see above).
Reinshagen fails to disclose that the disclosed teeth are flexible.
However a member being flexible would aid in the piloting of members together to prevent unwanted damage, alternatively, having a member(s) be/being flexible would yield in the same predictable result of forming a secured joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Reinshagen, to have had the disclosed teeth be flexible, with a reasonable expectation of success because at the time of the invention of Reinshagen flexibility of members was used to enhance components, for the purpose of aiding in the piloting of members together to prevent unwanted damage, alternatively, having a member(s) be/being flexible would yield in the same predictable result of forming a secured joint.
Re Clm 2: Reinshagen discloses wherein the flexible teeth of the central sleeve are circumferentially distributed (see above).
Re Clm 4: Reinshagen discloses wherein the first linking member]comprises a corrugated linking portion (linked being defines as associated with) linking the flexible teeth (see above).
Re Clm 6: Reinshagen discloses wherein the linking portion has an external elbow (the outer most radially extending portion) having a first radius of curvature (see above) and an internal elbow (adjacent to F) having a second radius of curvature less than the first radius of curvature (see above).
Re Clm 8: Reinshagen discloses wherein the first linking member and the second linking member are identical (see above).
Re Clm 9: Reinshagen discloses wherein at least one end of the central sleeve comprises a clamping device (C) configured to cooperate with a linking member (see above).
Re Clm 10: Reinshagen discloses wherein the clamping device comprises at least one guide slot (c).
Re Clm 11: Reinshagen discloses wherein the linking connector comprises a first sealing member (C) and a second sealing member (the other C) configured to cooperate respectively with the first connection end and the second connection end in the connection position (see above).
The following is an alternative rejection of claim 1 used for the rejection of claim 12.
Re Clm 1: Reinshagen discloses a fluid circuit (see Figs. 1, 2, and above), in particular for aircraft, comprising –
at least one first pipe (B) comprising a first connection end (at 1001), extending along a first axis (see above) and defining an internal surface (the inside of B) and an external surface (the outside of B), the first connection end comprising a first peripheral connection element (F) as well as a first linking member (D) translationally and rotationally free about the first axis (at least during installation),
at least one second pipe (B)’ comprising a second connection end (at 1002), extending along a second axis (see above) and defining an internal surface (the inside of B)’ and an external surface (the outside of B’), the second connection end comprising a second peripheral connection element (F’) as well as a second linking member (D’) translationally and rotationally free about the second axis (at least during installation),
the connection ends (1001 and 1002) of the at least one first and second pipes being fixed and spaced apart by an axial connection clearance (see above),
a linking connector (A and C), to sealingly link the first and second connection ends (see above), comprising: a central sleeve (A and C) comprising a peripheral casing adapted to slide along the second axis (see above), the central sleeve being configured to cooperate (works/functions with), at a first end (the left side, see above), with the first linking member (see above) and, at a second end (the right side, see above), with the second linking member (see above), the central sleeve comprising a plurality of teeth (the multiple a) configured to cooperate with (works/functions with) the second peripheral connection element for correcting a possible misalignment between the first axis and the second axis (see above).
Reinshagen fails to disclose that the disclosed teeth are flexible.
However a member being flexible would aid in the piloting of members together to prevent unwanted damage, alternatively, having a member(s) be/being flexible would yield in the same predictable result of forming a secured joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Reinshagen, to have had the disclosed teeth be flexible, with a reasonable expectation of success because at the time of the invention of Reinshagen flexibility of members was used to enhance components, for the purpose of aiding in the piloting of members together to prevent unwanted damage, alternatively, having a member(s) be/being flexible would yield in the same predictable result of forming a secured joint.
Re Clm 12: Reinshagen discloses an aircraft comprising a fluid circuit according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the at least one first pipe and the at least one second pipe are made integral with a structure of the aircraft (E), the first and second connection ends of the at least one first and second pipes being fixed and spaced apart by an axial connection clearance (see above).
Re Clm 13: Reinshagen discloses method for connecting at least a first pipe and a second pipe using a linking connector of a fluid circuit according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), the first and second connection ends of the at least one first and second pipes being fixed and spaced apart by an axial connection clearance (see above), the method comprising: a step of moving the central sleeve of the linking connector between the connection the first and second ends (during assembly), the flexible teeth of the central sleeve cooperating with the second peripheral connection element (works/functions with) in order to correct a possible misalignment between the first axis and the second axis (during assembly).
Re Clm 14: Reinshagen discloses a step of cooperating of the second linking member with the central sleeve so as to lock the linking connector (see above, during assembly and after assembled).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 6 in line 10 through page 11 the last line, that the central sleeve cannot slide along an axis, there is no clearance between the pipes, F and F’ are spaced form a and therefore do not interact with each other.
This is not persuasive.
The central sleeve can slide along an axis during assembly. The a can slide into b while D or D and D’ are being tightened. The claim does not specifically recite at what assembly state the sliding occurs. Reinshagen members can slide, during the assembly process. The pipes have a clearance between 1001 and 1002, and note 1001 and 1002 are at a notched end of each respective pipe. Applicant’s assertion that , F and F’ are spaced form a and therefore do not interact with each other in not commensurate with the scope of the claim as the claim merely requires these components to cooperate, which they do.
All claims not specifically argued will stand or fall with the claim from which it/they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7 are 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.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not anticipate all the limitations as recited in independent claim 15.
The prior art does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation (TSM) to modify the prior art as such.
There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant’s invention.
Even though, the individual parts are known per se, there is nothing to teach the specific structures and structural combinations as claimed. More specifically, it is the totality of that which is claimed which does not appear in the art of record.
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 JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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 ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
02/12/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679