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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-28 and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-28 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: “joint, connected” in line 4 of claim 11 should be --joint connected--; “dissolver, disposed” in line 3 of claim 19 should be --dissolver disposed--; “inlet, disposed” in line 4 of claim 19 should be --inlet disposed--; “outlet, disposed” in line 6 of claim 19 should be --outlet disposed--; “valve, disposed” in line 24 of claim 19 should be --valve disposed--; “valve, disposed” in line 26 of claim 19 should be --valve disposed--. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP-H10231968-A (hereinafter Guest).
Regarding claim 11, Guest teaches an adapter structurally capable of being configured to be connected to a water pipe. The adapter comprising a first joint (16) comprising a position-limiting projection part (where 17 is pointing in Fig. 1) structurally capable of being configured to be connected to a water pipe; a second joint (18) connected to the first joint and comprising a joint position-limitation part (about where 26 and 27 are pointing in Fig. 1) structurally capable of being configured to be engaged with an interface position-limitation part of an inlet or an interface position-limitation part of an outlet, the second joint structurally capable of being configured to be pivotably disposed in the inlet or the outlet; and an annular groove (19) configured to receive a sealing ring (21) and disposed on a circumferential surface (see Fig. 1) of the second joint, wherein the joint position-limitation part is disposed between the annular groove and the first joint (see Fig. 1), and wherein an outer diameter of the second joint at a portion other than the annular groove is less than an outer diameter of the joint position-limitation part (see Fig. 1).
Regarding cliam 12, the adapter according to claim 11, wherein the joint position-limitation part is an annular protrusion extending outwards from an outer surface of the second joint, wherein the interface position-limitation part of the intended inlet is an annular protrusion (similar to annular flange 25) extending inwards from an inner wall of the inlet, and wherein the interface position-limitation part of the intended outlet is an annular protrusion extending inwards from an inner wall of the outlet (similar to annular flange 25).
Regarding claim 13, the adapter according to claim 11, wherein the first joint obliquely extends toward one side of the second joint (see Fig. 1), and wherein an angle formed between an axis of the first joint and an axis of the second joint is an obtuse angle (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the adapter according to claim 11, wherein the interface position-limitation part of the intended inlet or the interface position- limitation part of the intended outlet comprises an interface baffle ring (similar to flange 25), wherein the joint position-limitation part comprises a joint baffle ring (about 27), wherein an inner diameter (the diameter of the groove between 27 and 26) of the interface baffle ring of the intended inlet or an inner diameter (similar to inner diameter of flange 25) of the interface baffle ring of the intended outlet is less than an outer diameter of the joint baffle ring, and wherein the outer diameter of the second joint at the portion other than the annular groove is less than the outer diameter of the joint baffle ring (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the adapter according to claim 14, further comprising an additional annular groove (20), wherein the annular groove and the additional annular groove are disposed on the second joint along an axial direction of the second joint and are spaced part from each other (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the adapter according to claim 11, wherein the joint position-limitation part comprises a joint baffle ring (about 27) integrally formed on the second joint (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the adapter according to claim 11, wherein the position-limiting projection part comprises a position-limiting projecting ring (about where 17 is pointing) integrally formed on the first joint (see Fig. 1), wherein a ring surface of the position-limiting projecting ring is an inclined plane (see Fig. 1), and wherein a radius of the ring surface of the position-limiting projecting ring increases along a direction from the first joint to the second joint.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest.
Guest teaches all of the claimed limitations as discussed above and further discusses that the connector is made from plastic but remains silent as to the first joint is injection-molded with the second joint. Attention is directed to Guest’s para. [0007] of the English translation which acknowledge of molded plastic process via “molded plastic container 13”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make, the adapter of Guest, from injection-molded process as acknowledge by Guest as a matter of utilizing well-known process in the art.
Claim(s) 19-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (discussed in the previous Office action) in view of Guest (discussed above).
Regarding cliam 19, Applicant asserts in Remark section B that the amended claim 19 further incorporates all amended limitations of claim 14 and “independent claims 19 and 26 recite the features consistent with those discussed above for amended independent claim 11. Chen teaches all of the claimed limitations as discussed in the previous Office action except for the amended limitations of claims 11 and 14.
Although the structures of the Chen adapter are different from that being claimed, attention is directed to the Guest reference which teaches an analogous adapter as discussed above regarding claims 11-17.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the adapter of Chen with the adapter as taught by Guest, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 20, the added limitation “wherein the outer diameter of the second joint of the first water pipe adapter at the portion other than the annular groove of the first water pipe adapter is less than the outer diameter of the joint baffle ring of the first water pipe adapter, wherein the outer diameter of the second joint of the second water pipe adapter at the portion other than the annular groove of the second water pipe adapter is less than the outer diameter of the joint baffle ring of the second water pipe adapter” is fully taught by the above combination of Chen and Guest.
Regarding claim 21, the above combination of Chen and Guest fully met the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 22, the above combination of Chen and Guest fully met the claimed limitations (see claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 23, the above combination of Chen and Guest fully met the claimed limitations (see claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 24, the above combination of Chen and Guest fully met the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 25, the above combination of Chen and Guest fully met the claimed limitations (see claim 13 above).
Regarding claims 26-28 and 30, Applicant asserts in Remark section B that the amended claim 19 further incorporates all amended limitations of claim 14 and “independent claims 19 and 26 recite the features consistent with those discussed above for amended independent claim 11. Chen teaches all of the claimed limitations as discussed in the previous Office action except for the amended limitations of claims 11 and 14.
Although the structures of the Chen adapter are different from that being claimed, attention is directed to the Guest reference which teaches an analogous adapter as discussed above regarding claims 11-17.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the adapter of Chen with the adapter as taught by Guest, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06. In so doing, the methods as claimed are fully met by the above combination of Chen and Guest.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/TUAN N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights