DETAILED ACTION
The present application has been made of the record and currently claims 1-3 are pending.
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 without traverse of Species II, Figs. 4A and 5, in the reply filed on 9/11/2025 is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 1-2 are being considered and claim 3 is withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “To provide a pipe in which the pipe having been fixed is prevented from being loosened by co-rotation.”.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, lines 4-5, the limitation “or the cap nut member” should be removed as applicant elected Species II in the reply filed on 9/11/2025.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 2, the limitation “wherein a third pipe is provided between the first and second pipes connected to the blocks, and the third pipe has the outward flange and the male thread member or the cap nut member at both ends thereof” is unclear to the examiner because:
claim 1 requires: “the other end portion of the first pipe is provided with a male thread member that is inserted onto the first pipe, has male threads on a peripheral surface thereof, and abuts against the outward flange”, and
claim 2 requires: “the third pipe has the outward flange and the male thread member at both ends thereof”.
Therefore, a first pipe would comprise a male threaded and a third pipe would comprise male threaded ends on both sides (ex., a male threaded end of a first pipe cannot connect to a male threaded end of a third pipe) which is not shown in the elected embodiment of figure 4A and figure 5.
To proceed with prosecution, the limitation “wherein a third pipe is provided between the first and second pipes connected to the blocks, and the third pipe has the outward flange and the male thread member or the cap nut member at both ends thereof” will only be interpreted as “wherein a third pipe is provided between the first and second pipes connected to the blocks, and the third pipe has the outward flange and the male thread member at both ends thereof such that one end portion of the third pipe is the other end portion of the first pipe comprising the male thread member while the other end portion of the first pipe is a cap.” It is noted that while the examiner is only interpreting the claims to proceed with prosecution, applicant is still required to amend the claims to overcome the 112(b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN-209781914) in view of Strei (U.S. Patent No. 9,157,824) and in further view of Reid (NPL, 2013).
In regards to claim 1, Chen discloses:
A pipe (2, fig. 1; see fig. 1 hereinafter) that connects a block (5) having an internal flow path (see near 5) and an open end of the flow path on a surface thereof (ex., see either of the other flow paths of the connector), the pipe comprising:
at least a first pipe (2), wherein one end portion of the first is provided with a tapered surface (ex., see the end of the pipe) that comes into contact with a tapered seal portion formed at an open end of the block (ex., see fig. 1) and a male thread portion closer (ex., 3 in fig. 2) to another end portion of each of the first pipe than the tapered surface (ex., see fig. 2, where the threaded portion is before the tapered surface),
but does not disclose:
a pipe that connects blocks,
a second pipe,
the other end portion is provided with an outward flange, and an annular gasket is interposed between butt end faces of the first and second pipes, and the other end portion of the first pipe is provided with a male thread member that is inserted onto the first pipe, has male threads on a peripheral surface thereof, and abuts against the outward flange, and
the other end portion of the second pipe is provided with a cap nut member that is inserted onto the second pipe, has female threads on an inner surface thereof to be screwed with the male threads, and has an inward flange to be engaged with the outward flange.
In regards to the first pipe being connected to two blocks, Strei discloses that it is known that pipes (see figure 4) comprise duplicate ends comprising a coned sealing end (ex., see figure 3 near 40) and male threaded member (ex., 36 in figure 3) that connects to a respective block (ex., 44 and 46 in figure 4) each comprising a coned end (42, fig. 3) that engages the respective coned end of the pipe (ex., fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Chen with the provision of a duplicate opposite end such that both ends of the pipe are identical and each end engages into a block because Strei discloses that it is known to have a pipe to comprise identical ends engaging in blocks and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, duplicating the end of the pipe such that both ends of the pipe are identical and engage in a block, as shown explicitly by Strei, would not produce a new and unexpected result, therefore rending the claim obvious.
In regards to using a metal gasket coupling, Reid discloses that VCR fittings are known to provide many advantages such as the fittings can be disassembled in line (ex., between two ends of a pipe), so you can access the system for repair and upgrades without having to remove multiple parts (ex., instead of removing multiple components to replace a pipe, a VCR fitting in line would provide detachment while keeping the system connected; see page 2 of 10 of the NPL provided herein),
wherein VCR fittings comprise:
a first pipe (see annotated figure below) and a second pipe (see annotated figure),
the other end portion is provided with an outward flange (see annotated figure), and
an annular gasket (see annotated figure) is interposed between butt end faces of the first and second pipes (see annotated figure), and
the other end portion of the first pipe is provided with a male thread member (see annotated figure) that is inserted onto the first pipe, has male threads on a peripheral surface thereof, and abuts against the outward flange (see annotated figure), and
the other end portion of the second pipe is provided with a cap nut member (see annotated figure) that is inserted onto the second pipe, has female threads on an inner surface thereof to be screwed with the male threads (see annotated figure), and has an inward flange to be engaged with the outward flange (see annotated figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the pipe of Chen in view of Strei with the provision of at least one VCR fitting to meet the limitation of claim 1 because Reid discloses that VCR fittings at least provide the benefit of being able to disassemble a pipe fixed between two points so you can access the system for repair and upgrades without having to remove multiple parts (see page 2 of 10 of the NPL; see also page 6, where this is common to use in welded and threaded systems, ex., the threaded system of Chen).
PNG
media_image1.png
800
1245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, as best understood, Chen in view of Strei and Reid discloses:
The pipe according to claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein a third pipe is provided between the first and second pipes connected to the blocks, and the third pipe has the outward flange and the male thread member or the cap nut member at both ends thereof.
In regards to providing a duplicate VCR fitting in the reversed configuration, while Chen in view of Strei and Reid does not explicitly disclose using an addition VCR fitting in the reversed configuration, such modification would have been a mere engineering design choice suited for its intended use and desired parameters as a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Chen in view of Strei and Reid with the provision of an additional VCR fitting (ex., second fitting) to further provide the benefit of removably connecting sections of a pipe because Reid discloses that VCR fittings at least provide the benefit of being able to disassemble a pipe fixed between two points so you can access the system for repair and upgrades without having to remove multiple parts (see page 2 of 10 of the NPL) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)) which modifying the pipe of Chen in view of Strei and Reid to comprise a pipe comprising two VCR fittings would not produce a new and unexpected result.
In regards to the reversed configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify either of the first or second VCR fitting of the reversed configuration to meet the limitation of claim 2 because rearranging the position of either VCR fitting would not have modified the operation of the device and such reversal of parts would have been a mere engineering design choice suited for its intended use and desired parameters. In addition, it has been held claims which read on the prior art except with regard to the position were held unpatentable because shifting the position of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peck (U.S. PGPub 2009/0258143) explicitly discloses it is known for metal seal fittings to be directly between two components (ex., vales, tubing, etc.; ex., see paragraph 0195-0196).
Kogure (U.S. Patent No. 11,428,351) discloses that it is known to provide metal seal fittings between two components (ex., see figs. 1 and 2).
Gasche et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,362,731) discloses a very similar pipe end of the present invention (ex., see fig. 1).
Albright et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,382,683) discloses a similar device to the present invention used in high pressure applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679