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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the boss portion being formed on an outer surface of the flange collar and the combination of the boss portion being formed on an outer surface of the neck flange and also formed on an outer surface of the flange collar must be shown or the features canceled from claim 8. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 1 – delete “Provided are” as the abstract should just set forth the invention.
Lines 5-10 – delete “instead of a method…improves operation convenience” as the abstract should not speak to other methods or inventions, should not speak to purported merits of the invention and should only set forth the invention of the instant application.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 50, lines 3-5 (3 instances) – replace “4” with --5-- after “the first neck flange”.
Correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 – add --plurality of-- between “the” and “annular”.
Line 3 – replace “the” with --an-- before “axis”.
Line 5 – add --plurality of-- between “the” and “jack bolts”.
Line 5 – add --plurality of-- between “the” and “screw through holes”.
Line 6 - replace “fit” with --fits-- after “jack bolt”.
Correction is required.
Claims 9-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 – add --plurality of-- between “the” and “annular”.
Line 5 – replace “the” with --an-- before “axis”.
Line 6 – add --plurality of-- between “the” and “screw through holes”.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, the phrase "nut type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "nut type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Examiner is interpreting that the claims are reciting a nut and not a nut type with regard to the rotatable flange structure. Applicant should note that the phrase “nut type” is scattered throughout the claims and the claims should be examined to remove all instances of “nut type”.
Claim 3 recites “the cutting tool escape section is configured to fit with the flange portion of the first neck flange and the hard washer, a washer fitting section is configured to fit with the hard washer…” It is not clear how the hard washer fits into a cutting escape tool section and also a washer fitting section. Does claim 3 mean to recite that the washer fitting section is a part of the cutting tool escape section? Or does claim 3 mean to recite that the cutting tool escape section fits only with the flange portion of the first neck flange and the washer fitting section fits only with the hard washer? Examiner’s understanding is that the cutting tool escape section fits only with the flange portion of the first neck flange and the washer fitting section fits only with the hard washer. If this understanding is correct, Applicant needs to amend the claim to reflect this understanding or amend the claim to remove the indefiniteness.
Claim 7 recites “wherein a plurality of screw through holes and a plurality of annular protuberances are provided…a plurality of jack bolts are provided…” It is not clear how the flange structure is now reciting a plurality of elements, i.e., the screw through holes, the annular protuberances and the jack bolts, when only one element of each was previously recited in claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Note that claim 1 does not recite “as least one” and only positively recites each element as a singular element. Does Applicant mean to recite “as least one” and then further recite a plurality of elements? Examiner is interpreting that Applicant means to recite “at least one” in claim 1 and then further recite “a plurality of” in claim 7. If this understanding is correct, Applicant needs to amend the claims to reflect this understanding.
Claims 9-15 recite “wherein the nut type rotatable flange structure is provided with a plurality of screw through holes and a plurality of annular protuberances”. It is not clear how the flange structure is now reciting a plurality of elements, i.e., the screw through holes and the annular protuberances, when only one element of each was previously recited in the claim from which each of claims 9-15 depends. Note that the claims, from which claims 9-15 depend, do not recite “as least one” and only positively recite each element as a singular element. Does Applicant mean to recite “as least one” and then further recite a plurality of elements? Examiner is interpreting that Applicant means to recite “at least one” and then further recite “a plurality of” in claims 9-15. If this understanding is correct, Applicant needs to amend the claims to reflect this understanding.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger U.S. Patent No. 1,186,021 in view of Tomohito Japanese Patent No. JP 2013-234734A.
As best understood by Examiner, with regard to claim 1 and as shown in Figure 1, Metzger discloses a nut type rotatable flange structure, comprising:
a nut type rotatable flange collar (at C), having a connecting thread (thread of C opposite B`) on an inner surface from one end of the nut type rotatable flange collar, an annular protuberance (see below) formed on an inner surface of an other end of the nut type rotatable flange collar, and a screw through hole (thru hole of C where E is screwed in) disposed in the annular protuberance in an axial direction of the nut type rotatable flange collar;
a first neck flange (at A), having a neck (at A`) that passes through an inner hole of the annular protuberance (as shown in Fig 1), an outer surface of the neck fitting with the inner hole of the annular protuberance (via the ring D), and a flange portion (at A2) disposed in an inner hole (see below) of the nut type rotatable flange collar, an outer surface of the flange portion fitting with the inner hole of the nut type rotatable flange collar (where the outer surface fits within the inner hold of the collar as shown in Fig 1);
a second neck flange (at B), having an external thread (at B`) on an outer surface of a flange portion (see below) of the second neck flange, the flange portion fitting with the connecting thread of the nut type rotatable flange collar by the external thread of the flange portion (as shown in Fig 1); and
a jack bolt (at E), wherein the jack bolt fits with threads of the screw through hole in the annular protuberance (page 1, lines 71-72), and a screw end of the jack bolt is capable of acting on the flange portion of the first neck flange (where the jack bolt at E is capable of acting on the flange portion of the first neck flange at A, D), so that the flange portion of the first neck flange, the flange portion of the second neck flange, and the sealing gasket are hermetically connected to each other.
However, Metzger does not disclose a sealing gasket disposed between the flange portion of the second neck flange and the flange portion of the first neck flange. Tomohito teaches that a sealing gasket (at 3, see Figure 2) can be disposed between the flange portions of first and second neck flanges to provide additional sealing security during fluid flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sealing gasket disposed between the flange portion of the second neck flange and the flange portion of the first neck flange with a reasonable expectation of success as shown by Tomohito to provide additional sealing security during fluid flow.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As best understood by Examiner, with regard to claim 2, Metzger in view of Tomohito disclose further comprising a hard washer (at D), wherein the hard washer is sleeved on the neck of the first neck flange (as shown in Fig 1), and the hard washer (at D)is abutted against the screw end of the jack bolt (at E) and the flange portion (at A2) of the first neck flange (as shown in Fig 1).
As best understood by Examiner, with regard to claim 3, Metzger in view of Tomohito disclose wherein the inner hole of the nut type rotatable flange collar comprises an internal thread section, a cutting tool escape section, and a protuberance fitting section that are sequentially connected (see above); and the internal thread section is configured to form the connecting thread, the cutting tool escape section is configured to fit with the flange portion of the first neck flange and the hard washer, a washer fitting section (see above) is configured to fit with the hard washer, and the protuberance fitting section is configured to fit the annular protuberance.
As best understood by Examiner, with regard to claim 8, Metzger in view of Tomohito disclose wherein a boss portion (see above) that can interact with a wrench is formed on an outer surface of a neck of the second neck flange (wherein the boss portion is capable of interacting with a wrench).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger U.S. Patent No. 1,186,021 in view of Tomohito Japanese Patent No. JP 2013-234734A and further in view of Kryczun U.S. Patent No. 4,358,119.
As best understood by Examiner, with regard to claim 4, Metzger in view of Tomohito disclose the claimed invention but do not disclose that a solid lubricant coating is arranged on an end surface of at least one side of the hard washer. Kryczun teaches that a lubricant can be used to supplement the sealing effect and to reduce frictional resistance without impairing the seal (column 4, lines 6-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a solid lubricant coating arranged on an end surface of at least one side of the hard washer with a reasonable expectation of success to supplement the sealing effect and to reduce frictional resistance without impairing the seal as taught by Kryczun.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 9-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied are examples of the general mechanical state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANNIE KEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1820. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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.
/F.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679