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 Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 1, “is” should be --in--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwarz et al (US 5,407,236).
As to claim 1 and with reference to the following annotated figure, Schwartz et al discloses a coupler comprising: a body having a first end and a second end; a flange arranged at the first end of the body; and an engagement rib between the first end and the second end, wherein an inside surface of the body has a mating pattern configured to mate with a complementary mating pattern of a first piping.
PNG
media_image1.png
407
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Schwartz et al discloses the coupler of claim 1, wherein a cross section of the engagement rib is a triangle. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 3, Schwartz et al discloses the coupler of claim 1, wherein the triangle is a right triangle. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 4, Schwartz et al discloses the coupler of claim 1, wherein the mating pattern of the body resembles an undulating surface. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 5, Schwartz et al discloses the coupler of claim 4, wherein the undulating surface is configured to mate with a corrugated pipe. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 8, Schwartz et al discloses the coupler of claim 1, further comprising: a retaining collar around the body. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
Claim(s) 9-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano et al (US 10,935,171).
As to claim 9 and with reference to the following annotated figure, Nakano et al discloses a system comprising: a body having a first mating surface; a first piping extending through the body and having a second mating surface facing the first mating surface; a retaining collar around the body; a second piping having an end between the retaining collar and the body; and at least one seal between the first piping and the second piping to create a water tight seal.
PNG
media_image2.png
630
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, Nakano et al discloses the system of claim 9, wherein an outside surface of the body has an engagement rib engaging the second piping. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 11, Nakano et al discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the body has a stop flange in contact with an end of the second piping. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 12, Nakano et al discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the first piping is a corrugated piping and the first mating surface is configured to mate with corrugations of the first piping. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 13, Nakano et al discloses the stem of claim 12, except that the at least one seal resides is a valley of the corrugated piping. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 15, Nakano et al discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the retaining collar applies a compressive force to the second piping. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al in view of Treichel (US 7,004,510).
As to claim 6, Schwartz et al discloses the coupler of claim 1, except for further comprising: at least one seal, and
As to claim 7, Schwartz et al discloses the coupler of claim 6, except that the at least one seal is an O-ring.
However, Treichel teaches a similar corrugated pipe coupling, which employs O-rings seals (48, 50) between inner and outer parts to ensure proper sealing between the parts.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwartz et al to include a seal (an O-ring seal), with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Treichel, in order to establish a fluid seal for the Schwartz et al assembly.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al.
As to claim 14, Nakano et al discloses the system of claim 13, except that the at least one seal is a plurality of seals residing in a plurality of valleys of the corrugated piping.
However, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nakano et al so as to include an additional projecting portion (28) in an adjacent valley, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
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.
Each of Schwartz et al ‘236, Sheng et al, Martin, Treichel, White, and Hujisawa et al discloses a pipe fitting similar to Applicant’s claimed invention.
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 9-930pm, mid-day flex 2-4pm.
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