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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/05/2025 has been fully considered and made of record. As such, the objection to the abstract, claims 17-20 and rejection of claim 3 under 112(b), as outlined in the Final office action mailed 03/19/2026, have been withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of DE102017116850.8 with filing date of 25 July 2017 has been filed in parent Application No. 16/632,300 on 17 January 2020. However, it is noted that independent claim 12 as amended on 04/10/2024 recites a newly added limitation of “shrinking an entire periphery of the hollow body with heat directed simultaneously from multiple directions to different portions of the hollow body to achieve a homogeneous shrinkage of the hollow body” which does not have any supports in DE102017116850.8 foreign application. It appears that this newly added limitation may have support as early as 01/31/2019 as disclosed in WO2019020719A1 publication.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that the rejection of independent claim 12 will be followed by the rejection of dependent claims 2-10 and 13 and 15-20.
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) 2-3, 5, 9, 12-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke et al. (US 4,141,576, hereinafter “Lupke”) in view of Corbett, JR. et al. (US 20190195409A1, hereinafter “Corbett” with priority date of 12/22/ 2017 for provisional application 62/609,479 which pre-dates the earliest filing date of 01/31/2019).
As applied to claim 12, Lupke teaches a method of encasing a pipe arrangement, the pipe arrangement comprising a pipe joint (embodiment of Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5, col. 2, lines 25-48) which has at least two pipe ends (ends of pipes 10 and 11) which are fixed together by a mechanical joint (auxiliary sleeve of heat shrinkable thermoplastic material 16/17, Figs. 4 and 5) and in which the at least two pipe ends and also the mechanical joint are enclosed with a hollow body (heat shrinkable sleeve 12, Fig. 5), wherein the mechanical joint includes a pipe coupling (mechanical joint includes pipe coupling which includes outer cylindrical portion of relatively hard material and an internal annular portion 17 of relatively soft material) having a fastener on a periphery of the pipe coupling (silicon-rubber O-rings 18 positioned on external surface of 16/17 are considered as fasteners, Fig. 5), the method comprising steps of deforming the hollow body by a thermal treatment for thermal deformation of the hollow body (heat-shrinkable sleeve 12); and shrinking (col. 2, lines 9-24) an entire periphery of the hollow body to achieve a homogeneous shrinkage process of the hollow body and seal the hollow body against the pipe ends and the mechanical joint (uniform shrinkage at an entire periphery, see Lupke, col. 2, lines 13-14 disclosing “the sleeve is heated so as to shrink to its stable state” reads on the claimed “shrinking an entire periphery of the hollow body” since Lupke does not disclose local heating).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Lupke implicitly teaches that the entirety of the hollow body is simultaneously and uniformly shrinks by the application of the heat, however, fails to explicitly teach the is directed simultaneously from multiple directions to different portions of the hollow body.
Corbett teaches that is well-known in the art of fabricating pipe joints to heat shrink pipe sections using any suitable heat shrinking technology such as one selected from the group consisting of an open flame, an oven and a pressure chamber over a selected area of the pipe joint (paragraph [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was filed to employ into the method of Lupke a heat source such as an oven which provides heat directed simultaneously from multiple directions to different portions of the hollow body, as taught by Corbett, as an effective means of providing a secured, uniform and enhanced joint between the pipe ends resulting in a homogenous joint with a single heating step which results in substantial manufacturing cost saving.
As applied to claim 2, Lupke as modified by Corbett teaches the invention cited including Lupke further teaches wherein the deformed hollow body comprises a shrink tube (12, Figs. 1 and 5).
As applied to claim 3, Lupke as modified by Corbett teaches the invention cited including Lupke further teaches wherein the mechanical joint is formed from a pipe coupling comprising one or more segments (auxiliary sleeve includes outer cylindrical portion 16 and internal annular portion 17 with peripheral grooves formed inside of the portion 16 allowing placement of O-rings 18 and corrugated portions of pipes 10 and 11, see Fig. 5).
As applied to claim 5, Lupke as modified by Corbett teaches the invention cited including Lupke further teaches wherein the hollow body has a sealing function and contains a sealing mass or material (interlocking and registration of corrugated form of hollow body 12 with corrugated portions of the pipe ends functions as sealing mass and material, col. 2, lines 13-21).
As applied to claim 9, Lupke as modified by Corbett teaches the invention cited including Lupke further teaches wherein the hollow body is provided at least at one side with an adhesive layer (13, Fig. 1) provided over a part or a full surface area of the one side.
As applied to claim 13, Lupke as modified by Corbett teaches the invention cited including Lupke further teaches wherein the hollow body comprises a sleeve (12) around the pipe joint (Figs. 1 and 5).
As applied to claim 15, Lupke as modified by Corbett teaches the invention cited including Lupke further teaches steps of placing the hollow body (already formed sleeve 12) over a first pipe end of the at least two pipe ends (10, 11); connecting the first pipe end (10) to a second pipe end (11) of the at least two pipe ends with the mechanical joint (16/17); and placing the hollow body (2) over the first pipe end, the second pipe end, and the mechanical joint (Figs. 1, 4 and 5). Note that the hollow body (12) and mechanical joint (16/17) are each already in sleeve form and not a wrap-around form and as such, the only way they can be assembled with the pipes is by the order of claimed steps.
As applied to claims 16-17, the combination of Lupke and Corbett teaches the invention cited including encasing the arrangement having a pipe joint with at least two pipe ends. Lupke further teaches providing the first pipe end with a peripherally extending groove (end of corrugated pipe 10, Fig. 9); coupling the peripherally extending groove of the first pipe end to a different peripherally extending groove of a second pipe end (end of corrugated pipe 11, Fig. 9) of the at least two pipe ends with the mechanical joint (22, Fig. 9) and forming a first grooved pipe end and a second grooved pipe end of the at least two pipe ends, each having the respective peripherally extending groove (pipe ends of the corrugated pipes 10 and 11, Fig. 9); and surrounding the first pipe end and the second pipe end with the mechanical joint (22, Fig. 9) and that the mechanical joint comprise a pipe coupling with a plurality of segments (heat shrinkable sleeve 22 can be considered to have a plurality of segments when is heat activated as different parts may heat up at different times during the heating step) with a fastener (separate sealing ring 23, col. 2, lines 61-64, Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke et al. (US 4,141,576, hereinafter “Lupke”) in view of Corbett, JR. et al. (US 20190195409A1, hereinafter “Corbett”) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of in view of Shimizu (US 10,145,498).
As applied to claim 4, the combination of Lupke and Corbett teaches the invention cited including encasing a pipe arrangement comprising a pipe joint of at least two pipe ends but does not explicitly teach the pipe arrangement includes a T-piece with three pipe ends.
Shimizu teaches that is well-known in the art of flow path manufacturing to fabricate a pipe arrangement having a structure defining a T shaped flow path including three connection pipe portions (Fig. 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have utilized a T-piece including three pipe ends configuration for the pipe arrangement and pipe joint of Lupke/Corbett, as taught by Shimizu, as an effective means of maximizing the usage of the pipe joint in more than two pipes and thus controlling a variety of flow channels.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke et al. (US 4,141,576, hereinafter “Lupke”) in view of Corbett, JR. et al. (US 20190195409A1, hereinafter “Corbett”) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 204512674U, hereinafter “Xu”).
As applied to claim 6, the combination of Lupke and Corbett teaches the invention cited including a heat shrinkable hollow body made of thermoplastic but does not explicitly teach wherein the hollow body has a flame-inhibiting properties.
Xu teaches a heat shrinkable tube (5) with a flame-retardant sleeve (6) directly sleeved on the heat shrinkable tube (5, English Machine Translation, page 2, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a fire-inhibiting layer to the shrinkable hollow body of Lupke/Ingram, as taught by Xu, as an effective means of enhancing the flame-inhibiting properties of the hollow body that would withstand the high temperature environment.
Claim(s) 6 in alternative and claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke et al. (US 4,141,576, hereinafter “Lupke”) in view of Corbett, JR. et al. (US 20190195409A1, hereinafter “Corbett”) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mamish et al. (US 20170343149, hereinafter “Mamish”).
As applied to claim 6, Lupke as modified by Corbett teaches the invention cited including wherein the hollow body has properties (the material is thermoplastic and thermoplastic has properties). However, the combination does not explicitly teach a flame-inhibiting properties for the hollow body.
Mamish teaches two pipe ends being joined together and protected with a heat shrink sleeve, similar to that of Lupke as modified by Ingram. Mamish also teaches a flame-inhibiting properties (see paragraph [0046], element 36 which contains glass material and glass has flame-inhibiting properties). Where such would add strength to mating structures and to aid in the protecting of the underlying structure. Accordingly, Mamish teaches flame-inhibiting properties (see paragraph [0046], element 36 which contains glass material and glass has flame-inhibiting properties), for the purpose of adding strength to mating structures and to aid in the protecting of the underlying structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Lupke/Corbett, to have included a flame-inhibiting properties, as taught by Mamish, with a reasonable expectation of success because an additional layer of protection is being added to the structure of Lupke/Corbett, which structure is similar to Mamish, for the purpose of adding strength to mating structures and to aid in the protecting of the underlying structure.
As applied to claim 7, the combination of Lupke and Corbett teaches the invention cited including a pipe arrangement but does not explicitly teach the pipe arrangement is equipped with a leakage monitoring means.
Mamish teaches two pipe ends being joined together and protected with a heat shrink sleeve, similar to that of Lupke as modified by Corbett. Mamish further teaches a leakage monitoring means (see Figs. 1, 3, 4, and 10, the skin on the hand of the person, or the person’s eyes, or ears, or nose). Where such would be able to ensure that the joint was assembled correctly. Accordingly, Mamish teaches a leakage monitoring means (see Figs. 1, 3, 4, and 10, the skin on the hand of the person, or the person’s eyes, or ears, or nose), for the purpose of providing a means to insure the joint was assembled properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Lupke as modified by Corbett, to have included a leakage monitoring means, as taught by Mamish, with a reasonable expectation of success because in individual assembling a joint has senses which can detect a leak in the joint, for the purpose of providing a means to insure the joint was assembled properly.
As applied to claim 8, the combination of Lupke and Ingram teaches the invention cited including a pipe arrangement and pipe joint but does not explicitly teach the joint is additionally provided with a wrapping which has at least one or more of the following properties: a) the wrapping is thermally deformable or chemically deformable and shrinks upon deformation, b) the wrapping has self-welding or self-vulcanizing properties, c) the wrapping includes an additional sealing substance, d) the wrapping has flame-inhibiting properties, and e) the wrapping is provided with an adhesive.
Mamish teaches two pipe ends being joined together and protected with a heat shrink sleeve, similar to that of Lupke as modified by Corbett. Mamish further teaches a wrapping (36 and 34) which has at least one or more of the following properties: a) the wrapping is thermally deformable or chemically deformable and shrinks upon deformation, b) the wrapping has self-welding or self-vulcanizing properties, c) the wrapping includes an additional sealing substance, d) the wrapping has flame-inhibiting properties, and e) the wrapping is provided with an adhesive (34). Where such would add strength to mating structures and to aid in the protecting of the underlying structure. Accordingly, Mamish teaches a wrapping (36 and 34) which has at least one or more of the following properties: a) the wrapping is thermally deformable or chemically deformable and shrinks upon deformation, b) the wrapping has self-welding or self-vulcanizing properties, c) the wrapping includes an additional sealing substance, d) the wrapping has flame-inhibiting properties, and e) the wrapping is provided with an adhesive (34), for the purpose of adding strength to mating structures and to aid in the protecting of the underlying structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Lupke as modified by Corbett, to have included a wrapping (36 and 34) which has at least one or more of the following properties: a) the wrapping is thermally deformable or chemically deformable and shrinks upon deformation, b) the wrapping has self-welding or self-vulcanizing properties, c) the wrapping includes an additional sealing substance, d) the wrapping has flame-inhibiting properties, and e) the wrapping is provided with an adhesive (34), as taught by Mamish, with a reasonable expectation of success because an additional layer of protection is being added to the structure of Lupke as modified by Corbett, which structure is similar to Mamish, for the purpose of adding strength to mating structures and to aid in the protecting of the underlying structure.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke et al. (US 4,141,576, hereinafter “Lupke”) in view of Corbett, JR. et al. (US 20190195409A1, hereinafter “Corbett”) and Mamish et al. (US 20170343149, hereinafter “Mamish”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wilkins et al. (US 8,297,370, hereinafter “Wilkins”).
As applied to claim 10, the combination of Lupke, Corbett and Mamish teaches the invention cited including encasing a pipe arrangement including a pipe joint but does not explicitly teach the pipe arrangement is installed in a firefighting installation including a sprinkler installation in the specific claimed facility.
Wilkins teaches that a firefighting installation comprising a sprinkler installation including a variety of pipe joints/arrangement used in a hospital (col. 5, lines 9-16, col. 8, lines 29-34, col. 9, lines 59-67, Figs. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have installed the pipe arrangement of the Lupke/Corbett/Mamish in a firefighting installation comprising a sprinkler system in a hospital, as taught by Wilkins, as an effective means of providing an enhanced pipe joint arrangement that would withstand the operational environment in the hospital should need arise in case of a fire.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupke et al. (US 4,141,576, hereinafter “Lupke”) in view of Corbett, JR. et al. (US 20190195409A1, hereinafter “Corbett”) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Stevens (US 3,223,439).
As applied to claims 18-20, the combination Lupke and Corbett teaches the invention cited including encasing a pipe arrangement with the first and second pipe ends having peripherally extending grooves with the pipe ends being surrounded by a mechanical joint but fails to explicitly teach the mechanical joint comprise a pipe coupling with a plurality of segments connected with a fastener (as in claim 18), the fastener comprising at least one screw (as in claim 19) and the plurality of segments comprising a first half shell-shaped and a second half shell-shaped segment (as in claim 20).
Stevens teaches a method of fabricating a pipe arrangement including a pipe joint which has two pipe ends (5 and 5, Figs. 1-4) surrounded by a mechanical joint wherein the mechanical joint comprises a pipe coupling with a plurality of segments including a first half shell-shaped segment and a second half shell-shaped segment (12 and plurality of shell sections 9’s, Figs. 3-4) connected with a fastener with the fastener further comprising at least one screw (plurality of screws 14’s, Figs. 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Lubke/Corbett, to substitute the mechanical joint for another such as a mechanical joint comprising a coupling having a plurality of segments of coupling and fastened by a plurality of screws, as taught by Stevens, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predicable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “B”). The resulting method would predictably produce a pipe coupling in a conventional manner without modification of the principles of operation of Lubke.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-10, 12-13 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights