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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 03/03/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4 and 6-7 under 35 USC 102 by Inaba, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Inaba and Ohrn et al.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba (US 4,732,414) in view of Ohrn et al (US 6,116,290).
As to claim 1 and with reference to the following annotated figure, Inaba discloses a coupling for a double-walled pipe having an inner wall and an outer wall, the inner wall having an inner lumen, and the inner wall and the outer wall delimiting an outer lumen, the coupling comprising: an inner section (51a’) forming a passage in fluid communication with the inner lumen (Fig. 4A); and an outer section arranged radially adjacent to the inner section, wherein a material of the outer section is interrupted in a radial direction multiple times in an area corresponding to a radial range between the inner wall and the outer wall (as at 51b’ and 51c’); and wherein the outer section comprises a plurality of pockets (51b’, 51c’), including an inner pocket (51b’) and a radially outwardly arranged outer pocket (51c’), forming the interruptions of the material of the outer section, each pocket of the plurality of pockets forming a through hole open on both sides along a longitudinal direction of the coupling (Fig. 4A) and having respective ends a circumferential direction (opposing diametrical ends).
Inaba fails to teach each pocket of the plurality of pockets having respective planar walls forming ends of each pocket along a circumferential direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ohrn et al teaches a pipeline having a plurality of pockets defined by circular openings or planar walls, as shown in his figures. Ohrn et al also teaches an insulating barrier (20) arranged in or between the passages (18) or planar walls of the pipe.
PNG
media_image2.png
342
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
328
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inaba such that the plurality of pockets has planar walls forming ends of each pocket along a circumferential direction, as taught by Ohrn et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative design construction, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inaba so as to further comprise: an insulating barrier arranged in each pocket of the plurality of pockets in a fluid tight manner, wherein the plurality of pockets has planar walls forming ends of each pocket along a circumferential direction, as taught by Ohrn et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative design construction that mitigates heat loss.
As to claim 4, Inaba/Ohrn et al discloses the coupling according to claim 3, wherein two or more inner pockets (51b’) are arranged adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction (Fig. 4B), and wherein at least one inner spoke is provided which connects the inner section with the outer section in a radial direction and separating a pair of the two or more inner pockets at their respective ends in the circumferential direction. Refer to the foregoing annotated figures.
As to claim 6, Inaba/Ohrn et al discloses the coupling according to claim 4, wherein two or more outer pockets (51c’) are arranged adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction, and wherein the coupling further comprises: an outer flange; and at least one outer spoke connecting the outer section with the outer flange in the radial direction and separating the pair of the two or more outer pockets. Refer to the foregoing annotated figures.
As to claim 7, Inaba/Ohrn et al discloses the coupling according to claim 6, wherein the at least one outer spoke is arranged at a circumferential position deviating from a circumferential position of the at least one inner spoke. Refer to the foregoing annotated figures.
As to claim 8, Inaba/Ohrn et al discloses the coupling according to claim 1, except for further comprising: an insulating barrier (20, Ohrn et al) arranged in each pocket of the plurality of pockets in a fluid tight manner.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba in view of Ohrn et al, and further in view of Stumm, Jr. (US 2,838,072).
As to claim 3, Inaba/Ohrn et al discloses the coupling according to claim 1, except that the plurality of pockets includes a spiral pocket spiraling around a longitudinal direction of the coupling.
However, Stumm teaches a pipe coupling which utilizes a spiral shape for grooves (37) in order to obtain a longer passage so as to manipulate fluid flow for a desired outcome (3: 32-48).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inaba/Ohrn et al such that the plurality of pockets includes a spiral pocket spiraling around a longitudinal direction of the coupling, as taught by Stumm, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to manipulate fluid flow for a particular application or design requirement, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 5, Inaba/Ohrn et al/Stumm, Jr. discloses the coupling according to claim 3, wherein two or more outer pockets are arranged adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction, and wherein the coupling further comprises: an outer flange; and at least one outer spoke connecting the outer section with the outer flange in a radial direction and separating a pair of the two or more outer pockets at their respective ends in the circumferential direction. Refer to the following annotated figure.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dybevik et al discloses a coupling for connecting double-walled pipes, which allows for both circular pockets and pockets defined by planar walls along the circumference.
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 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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
Prosecution Insights