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 .
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.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, the newly added limitation “a gap exists between the first fastener and the second fastener after opening the continuous weld joint” contradicts the previous limitation that “the first and second fasteners are welded together at a welding area which forms a continuous weld joint which completely surrounds and seals an inner piping of the first and second fasteners”. Thus, it is unclear if the claimed welded fluid line connection actually positively requires a “continuous weld joint which completely surrounds” or is now open to an interpretation in which the continuous weld joint has been at least partially opened and/or removed. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied. However, it should also be noted that a continuous weld that has been (completely) opened as the claim language allows is structurally identical to when the workpieces are held together before the welding process is initiated. Additionally, a continuous weld that has been (partially) opened as the claim language allows is structurally identical to a partially completed continuous weld.
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) 5 and 7-8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN-114623295A IDS) (hereafter Lin) in view of Patel et al. (US 5,490,680) (hereafter Patel).
With respect to claim 5, Lin teaches a welded fluid line connection (title; and figures), comprising: a first fastener (left flange 1) connected to a first fluid line (left side “a”) and a first/second fastener (right flange 1) connected to a second fluid line (right side “a”), wherein each fastener comprises a connection surface (broadest reasonable interpretation, i.e., any portion of a surface/edge that is ultimately being joined is a connection surface) for mutual connection, wherein the connection surface of the first fastener faces the connection surface of the second fastener (figures 2-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lin also teaches wherein the first and second fasteners are welded together at a welding area (111) which forms a continuous weld joint (1111+1112+1113) which completely surrounds and seals an inner piping of the first and second fasteners, a sealing element (141) provided between the first fastener and the second fastener, wherein the sealing element is positioned between the inner piping and the welding area and completely surrounds and seals the inner piping (figures 2-3 and 7; and the machine translation), wherein the sealing element (14) contacts the connection surfaces (the right vertical surface/edge of left flange 1) for mutual connection of both the first fastener (left flange 1) and the second fastener (right flange 1) (figures 2-3; and the machine translation), and such that the sealing element remains in contact with the connection surfaces of both the first fastener and the second fastener while a gap (the non-welded interface gap between the left and right flanges) exists between the first fastener and the second fastener after opening the continuous weld joint (figures 2-3; and the machine translation). Note that when the left and right flanges are intrinsically held together for circumferential welding the structure of the weldment of Lin will be the same as that of a circumferential weld that has had the entire continuous joint opened/removed. Furthermore, when the weld of Lin is initially started and before the completion of the weld, the structure of the weldment of Lin will be the same as to that of a continuous weld joint that has had a portion opened/removed.
Lin also teaches that the sealing ring 141 is made of ethylene propylene diene rubber food grade silica gel ring (machine translation), but does not explicitly state that the sealing element is compressed between the first fastener and the second fastener.
However, Patel teaches using a sealing ring (31, 31’) in a similar configuration in which the sealing ring is compressed (figures 1-3 and 7; column 4, lines 8-57; and column 5, line 57-column 6, line 17).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the compression seal of Patel in the arrangement of Lin in order to enhance the seal between the two flanges.
With respect to claim 7, Lin teaches wherein the first fluid line, or the second fluid line, or both are configured as a pipe (title; figures; and paragraph [n0001]); or the first fluid line, or the second fluid line, or both is configured as an equipment unit of a fluid line installation; or the first and second fasteners are configured as flanges (figures 2-3); or the first and second fluid lines are configured to transport liquid hydrogen; or any combination thereof (title; figures; and paragraph [n0001]).
With respect to claim 8, Lin teaches wherein locating elements (13/131 or 15/16) provided are between the first and second fasteners and are configured to exactly position the first and second fasteners relative to each other (figures 2-3 and 7; and the machine translation).
Claim(s) 5 and 7-8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 58-18180) (IDS) (hereafter JP ‘180) in view of Patel et al. (US 5,490,680) (hereafter Patel).
With respect to claim 5, JP ‘180 teaches a welded fluid line connection (title; and figures), comprising: a first fastener (left flange 1) connected to a first fluid line (left side pipe and a first/second fastener (right flange 2) connected to a second fluid line (right side pipe”), wherein each fastener comprises a connection surface (broadest reasonable interpretation, i.e., any portion of a surface/edge that is ultimately being joined is a connection surface) for mutual connection, wherein the connection surface of the first fastener faces the connection surface of the second fastener (figures 2-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
441
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JP ‘180 also teaches wherein the first and second fasteners are welded together at a welding area (5) which forms a continuous weld joint which completely surrounds and seals an inner piping of the first and second fasteners, a sealing element (6) provided between the first fastener and the second fastener, wherein the sealing element is positioned between the inner piping and the welding area and completely surrounds and seals the inner piping (figures 1-3), wherein the sealing element (6) contacts the connection surfaces (the left vertical surface/edge of right flange 2) of both the first fastener (left flange 1) and the second fastener (right flange 1) (figures 1-3); and such that the sealing element remains in contact with the connection surfaces of both the first fastener and the second fastener while a gap exists (the non-welded interface gap between the left and right flanges) between the first fastener and the second fastener after opening the continuous weld joint (figures 2-3; and the machine translation). Note that when the left and right flanges are intrinsically held together for circumferential welding the structure of the weldment of JP ‘180 will be the same as that of a circumferential weld that has had the entire continuous joint opened/removed. Furthermore, when the weld of JP ‘180 is initially started and before the completion of the weld, the structure of the weldment of JP ‘180 will be the same as to that of a continuous weld joint that has had a portion opened/removed.
JP ‘180 does not explicitly state that the sealing element is compressed between the first fastener and the second fastener.
However, Patel teaches using a sealing ring (31, 31’) in a similar configuration in which the sealing ring is compressed (figures 1-3 and 7; column 4, lines 8-57; and column 5, line 57-column 6, line 17).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the compression seal of Patel in the arrangement of JP ‘180 in order to enhance the seal between the two flanges.
With respect to claim 7, JP ‘180 teaches wherein the first fluid line, or the second fluid line, or both are configured as a pipe (broadest reasonable interpretation) (figure 1); or the first fluid line, or the second fluid line, or both is configured as an equipment unit of a fluid line installation; or the first and second fasteners are configured as flanges (figures 1 and 3); or the first and second fluid lines are configured to transport liquid hydrogen; or any combination thereof (figures 1 and 3).
With respect to claim 8, JP ‘180 teaches wherein locating elements (the stepped and mating interface(s) in figures 1-3) provided are between the first and second fasteners and are configured to exactly position the first and second fasteners relative to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that none of these references discloses a configuration in which the sealing element will necessarily remain in contact both connection surfaces when while a gap exists between the two fasteners. Rather, each discloses a sealing element in a groove. As would be appreciated, when the fasteners are pulled apart, the surface of the sealing element not in the groove is likely to cease contacting the connection surface of the opposite fastener. In other words, there is nothing in these designs that would necessarily result in the sealing element staying in contact with both connections surfaces while a gap is created by opening the welded joint. As discussed above, by maintaining the seal when the weld is opened, the sealing element prevents material from falling into the joint during the opening process.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s argument regarding the fasteners being pulled apart is not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claim merely recites “opening the continuous weld joint.” In other words, the limitation does not positively require separating and/or pulling apart the first and second fasteners. As mentioned above, there are 112b issues regarding the newly added limitation. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to recognize that when the left and right flanges of the prior art are intrinsically held together for circumferential welding the structure of the weldment of the prior will be the same as that of a circumferential weld that has had the entire continuous joint opened/removed. In addition, when the weld of the prior art is initially started and before the completion of the weld, the structure of the weldment of the prior art will be the same as to that of a continuous weld joint that has had a portion opened/removed.
It should be noted that process limitations in product claims are generally not dispositive on patentability unless it is shown that the process limitations produce a materially different product. MPEP §2113. When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113. When the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct and not the examiner to show the same process as making. In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The applicant has failed to persuasively argue and/or provide evidence that the structure of Lin and/or JP ‘180 will not meet the structure of the claimed welded fluid line connection at the points in manufacturing identified by the examiner above. Accordingly, the examiner maintains that the intermediate products of Lin and/or JP ‘180 in combination with Patel meet the structural limitations of the claims.
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 KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights