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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4 and 9 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.
Claim 4 recites “proximate to a threaded region including the thread” which is unclear because claim 1 previously recited “a threaded region” and is unclear if the threaded region of claim 4 is the same or different from the threaded region of claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “proximate to a second threaded region including the thread threaded region because it seems redundant since claim 1 previously recited the thread configured to directly engage the threaded region.
Claim 9 recites “the abutting face of the pipeline closure hub adapter portion is obliquely angled” which lacks antecedent basis and is unclear. The recitation “the abutting face” which was previously recited in claim 8 refers to the pipeline closure extension and not to the pipeline closure hub adapter portion. Also, applicant’s invention of the pipeline closure hub adapter portion does not have an obliquely angled surface for sealing purposes. It is the pipeline closure extension and the pipeline closure hub that have corresponding oblique angled surfaces for sealing purposes. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the abutting face of the pipeline closure extension
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeth et al. (US 10,480,696 B2, hereinafter “Leeth”).
In regard to claim 1, Leeth discloses a coupling assembly (Fig. 2 shows a coupling assembly) connecting an existing pipeline closure hub (Fig. 2, the pipe 20 defines at least a pipeline closure hub. See note below with regard to “an existing pipeline closure hub” which does not structurally differentiate from a pipe.), the existing pipeline closure hub having an external coupling portion (Fig. 2, the external threaded portion of 20 defines an external coupling portion) and defining an opening portion (Fig. 2, open end of 20 defines an opening portion), the coupling assembly comprising:
a pipeline closure extension (Fig. 2, pipe 10 defines at least a pipeline closure extension. See note below with regard to “a pipeline closure extension” which does not structurally differentiate from a pipe.), the pipeline closure extension configured to be positioned in an abutting relationship with the opening portion (Fig. 2, 10 is in an abutting relationship with the opening portion of 20 as shown), the pipeline closure extension including:
a junction portion (Fig. 2, junction portion near 25) including an abutting portion configured to abut the opening portion (Fig. 2, 10 has at least one abutting portion in contact with the opening portion of 20); and
a fastener (Fig. 2, the sub-assembly 120 and split ring 110 defines at least a fastener), the fastener extending around the junction portion (Fig. 2, 110 and 120 are radially around the junction portion), the fastener including:
a closure hub adapter portion (Fig. 2, sub-assembly 120 defines a closure hub adapter portion) including a thread formed in the closure hub adapter portion (See image below, 120 includes internal threads);
wherein the closure hub adapter portion including the thread is a single structure (See image below, the internal threads is formed as a single structure with 120), the thread configured to be directly engaged with a threaded region of the existing pipeline closure hub (See image below, the internal threads are configured to be directly engaged with the indicated threaded region of the existing pipeline closure hub. The indicated threaded region can be reasonably interpreted as including the threads of 125 that threads onto the external threads of 20.);
a pipeline closure extension fastener ring coupled with the pipeline closure extension (Fig. 2, split ring 110 defines a fastener ring which is coupled to 10);
wherein the closure hub adapter portion and the pipeline closure extension fastener ring are joined (Fig. 2, 110 and 120 are joined together as shown).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that 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. See MPEP § 2114. In this case, the limitation “existing pipeline closure hub” and “a pipeline closure extension” are recitations of intended use and that does not structurally differentiate from a pipe. See Fig. 2 of applicant’s drawings at 100 and 220 which are the recitations of “existing pipeline closure hub” and “a pipeline closure extension” such that the recitations would only require the structural feature of a pipe.
Leeth does not expressly disclose connecting a pipeline closure to the existing pipeline closure hub and the pipeline closure extension extends from the pipeline closure.
Applicant’s claimed “pipeline closure” is shown in Fig. 2 at 210 and the specification describes it as a known commercially available closure product as Bandlock in paragraphs [0025]. The crux of applicant’s invention is not to a known closure such as Bandlock that is conventionally welded to the pipeline closure extension 220 but rather the fastener 250, pipeline 220, and pipeline 100.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling assembly of Leeth to include a known pipeline closure such as Bandlock with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a known reliable closure meeting ASME and ASTM standard requirements and providing a secondary pressure relief point. See https://www.celerosft.com/en-us/brands/gd-engineering/products/quick-opening-closure-bandlock2, https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/band-locking-horizontal-Quick-Opening-Closure_60493338366.html, and https://www.xinlian-pipelinepigging.com/pressure-vessel-and-pressure-pipe-component/quick-opening-closure/asme-u-stamp-steel-bandlock-quick-opening.html such that Bandlock is a well-known product for pipelines and a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably connect a Bandlock along a pipeline. Even butt-welded end caps are known to a person of ordinary skill in the art for temporary closure of a pipeline system for future extension as disclosed at https://www.gurugautamsteels.com/buttweld-asme-b169-end-cap.html.
Accordingly, as previously disclosed above, the crux of applicant’s invention is not a conventional closure such as Bandlock that is conventionally butt-welded to a pipe 220 shown in Fig. 2 of applicant’s drawings but rather the pipe coupling between pipes 220 and 100.
See the following image of an overlay of Leeth with a Bandlock closure.
PNG
media_image2.png
486
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The above image is Fig. 2 of Leeth with an overlay with a Bandlock closure. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably connect the pipes 10 and/or 20 of Leeth to additional fittings or pipes as disclosed in 2:40-51.
In regard to claim 2, Leeth discloses the coupling assembly of claim 1, wherein the junction portion has a larger diameter than a diameter of the pipeline closure extension proximate to the pipeline closure (See image below),
PNG
media_image3.png
506
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the junction portion including:
an abutment face on the pipeline closure extension (See image below, the junction portion includes at least one abutment face on the pipeline closure extension);
wherein the abutment face is configured to form a seal with an opposing abutment face on the existing pipeline closure hub (See image below, the at least one abutment face is configured to form a seal with an opposing abutment face on the pipeline closure hub by contact and a gasket similar to the applicant’s invention).
PNG
media_image4.png
414
453
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 3, Leeth discloses the coupling assembly of claim 1, wherein the fastener includes coupling portions configured to couple the pipeline closure extension with the existing pipeline closure hub (Figs. 1 and 2, split ring 110 has coupling portions at 12 which are configured to couple 10 with 20);
wherein the fastener is configured to engage with the junction portion (Fig. 2 and see image above for claim 2, the fastener 110 and 120 is configured to engage with the junction portion).
In regard to claim 5, Leeth discloses the coupling assembly of claim 1, wherein the pipeline closure extension includes an angled abutment surface (See image above for claim 2, the abutment faces are at least an angled abutment surface having a respective angle).
In regard to claim 6, Leeth discloses the coupling assembly of claim 1, wherein the pipeline closure extension is welded to the pipeline closure (See reasons above for claim 1 such that bandlock closures are known commercially available products manufactured with ends intended for conventional butt welds).
In regard to claim 7, Leeth discloses the coupling assembly of claim 1 wherein the pipeline closure extension fastener ring is joined with the closure hub adapter portion with one or more fastening components (Fig. 3, one or more fastening components as bolts at 115 for joining 110 to 120).
In regard to claim 8, Leeth discloses a pipeline closure adapter (Fig. 2 shows at least a pipeline closure adapter) comprising:
a pipeline closure extension including an outer surface (See claim 1 above for the same reasons, and Fig. 2, 10 has an outer surface), the pipeline closure extension welded to a pipeline closure at a first portion of the pipeline closure extension (See claim 1 above for the same reasons, the portion at the butt weld between the indicated pipeline closure extension and pipeline closure) and having an abutting portion at a second portion of the pipeline closure extension, the abutting portion having an abutting face (See claims 1 and 2 above for the same reasons, the junction portion includes an abutting portion having at least one abutting face), the abutting face configured to contact a corresponding opening surface of a pipeline closure hub (See claim 2 above for the same reasons, the at least one abutting face is in contact with a corresponding opening surface of the indicated pipeline closure hub); and
a fastener configured to secure the pipeline closure extension to the pipeline closure hub (See claim 1 above for the same reasons), the fastener including:
a pipeline closure hub adapter portion including a mating surface as a single piece, the mating surface including a thread formed in an interior face of the pipeline closure hub adapter portion (Fig. 2, 120 defines a pipeline closure hub adapter portion which has an internal threading mating surface near 125 which is formed as a single piece with 120);
wherein the mating surface is configured to contact at least a threaded region of an external surface of the pipeline closure hub (See claim 1 above for the same reasons with regard to the internal threads contacting a threaded region of an external surface of 20); and
a pipeline closure extension fastener ring portion including a flange portion (Fig. 2, split ring 110 defines a pipeline closure extension fastener ring portion which includes a flange portion similar to the applicant’s invention such that it forms a ring shape) and an internal surface facing the outer surface of the pipeline closure extension (Fig. 2, 110 has an internal surface facing the outer surface of 10);
wherein the pipeline closure hub adapter portion is coupled with the pipeline closure extension fastener ring portion to secure the pipeline closure extension to the pipeline closure hub (Fig. 2, 120 is coupled with 110 in order to secure 10 to 20).
In regard to claim 9, Leeth discloses the pipeline closure adapter of claim 8, wherein the abutting face of the pipeline closure extension is obliquely angled and configured to form a seal against the corresponding opening surface of the pipeline closure hub obliquely angled abutting face (See image above for claim 2, at least one of the abutting faces for both the pipeline closure extension and the pipeline closure hub have corresponding obliquely angled abutting faces that are configured to form a contact seal against the corresponding opening surface of the pipeline closure hub).
In regard to claim 10, Leeth discloses the pipeline closure adapter of claim 8, wherein the mating surface includes a threaded portion (Fig. 2, threaded portion near 125);
wherein the threaded portion includes a corresponding thread to a thread on the pipeline closure hub (Fig. 2, threads at 125 of 120 and the threads of 20 are corresponding to each other).
In regard to claim 11, Leeth discloses the pipeline closure adapter of claim 8, wherein the pipeline closure hub adapter portion is configured to rotate around the outer surface of the pipeline closure hub (Fig. 2, relative rotation between 120 and 20 by the threads near 125).
In regard to claim 12, Leeth discloses the pipeline closure adapter of claim 8, wherein the pipeline closure hub adapter portion and the pipeline closure extension fastener ring portion are coupled with one or more of bolts or screws (Fig. 2, bolts at 115).
In regard to claim 13, Leeth discloses the pipeline closure adapter of claim 8, wherein the pipeline closure extension is slidably retained with the pipeline closure extension fastener ring portion (Fig. 2, 110 and 10 are in slidable relationship since 110 fits over 10 as shown).
In regard to claim 14, Leeth discloses a method of joining a pipeline closure with a pipeline closure hub, the method comprising:
coupling a pipeline closure extension with the pipeline closure;
placing the pipeline closure extension in abutting relationship with an opening portion of the pipeline closure hub;
sleevably engaging a pipeline closure hub adapter portion on an external surface of the pipeline closure extension;
arranging a pipeline closure extension fastener ring onto an external surface of the pipeline closure hub adapter portion;
coupling the pipeline closure extension fastener ring to the pipeline closure hub adapter portion; and
arranging a threaded interior face of the pipeline closure hub adapter portion in a mating relationship with a corresponding threaded region of the pipeline closure hub;
wherein the threaded interior face is formed as a single piece with the pipeline closure hub adapter portion (See claims 1 and 8 above for the same reasons that require the same structure of claim 14. The processes of “coupling…placing…sleevably engaging…arranging…coupling…” are generic processes that are required to assemble the coupler of Leeth.).
In regard to claim 15, Leeth discloses the method of joining the pipeline closure of claim 14, including:
forming a seal between the pipeline closure extension and the pipeline closure hub (Fig. 2, seal at 25 which seals between 10 and 20);
sealing the pipeline closure extension against the opening portion (Fig. 2, 25 prevents fluid from passing towards the opening portion); and
fixing a fastener on an external surface of the pipeline closure extension (See claims 1 and 8 above for the same reasons).
In regard to claim 16, Leeth discloses the method of joining the pipeline closure of claim 14, including threading the pipeline closure hub adapter portion on the pipeline closure hub (See claims 4 and 10 above for the same reasons).
In regard to claim 17, Leeth discloses the method of joining the pipeline closure of claim 14, wherein coupling the pipeline closure hub adapter portion with the pipeline closure extension includes securing with at least one of bolts or screws (See claim 12 above for the same reasons).
In regard to claim 18, Leeth discloses the method of joining the pipeline closure of claim 14, including replacing an existing coupling joining the pipeline closure with the pipeline closure hub with the pipeline closure extension (See claim 1 above for the same reasons).
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably replace existing pipeline components to further expand pipeline systems. As previously mentioned, see https://www.gurugautamsteels.com/buttweld-asme-b169-end-cap.html that discloses pipeline systems can include fluid stop ends that allow for future pipeline expansion which would require replacing end caps or known Bandlock closures to further expand existing pipelines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipeline system of Leeth to replace existing components for future pipeline expansion with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of the option to further expand a pipeline system or even replace old worn-out components.
In regard to claim 20, Leeth discloses the method of joining the pipeline closure of claim 14, including slidably retaining the pipeline closure extension in one or more of the pipeline closure extension fastener ring and the pipeline closure hub adapter portion (Fig. 2, 10 is slidably retained in 110 and/or 120 as shown).
In regard to claim 21, Leeth discloses the pipeline closure adapter of claim 8, wherein the abutting face configured to sealingly engaged with a seal on an external surface of a corresponding opening surface of the pipeline closure hub (See image above for claim 2, one of the abutting faces of the pipeline closure extension is configured to sealing engage with a seal on an external surface of a corresponding surface of the pipeline closure hub).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeth (US 10,480,696 B2) in view of Fanguy et al. (US 2014/0374122 A1, hereinafter “Fanguy”).
In regard to claim 4, Leeth discloses the coupling assembly of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the closure hub adapter portion includes a lug arranged along an exterior surface of the closure hub adapter portion proximate to a second threaded region including the thread;
wherein the lug is configured to rotate the coupling assembly to the existing pipeline closure hub.
In the related field of pipe couplings joined by a threaded coupler, Fanguy teaches a closure hub adapter portion (Fig. 14, part at 615 defines a closure hub adapter portion) includes a lug arranged along an exterior surface of the closure hub adapter portion (Fig. 14, lugs 617 on an exterior surface of 615) proximate to a second threaded region including a thread (Fig. 15, 617 are proximate to a threaded region near 630 which includes an internal thread at 630);
wherein the lug is configured to rotate the coupling assembly to an existing pipeline closure hub (Fig. 15, existing pipeline closure hub at 30 and in [0062] discloses lugs 617 are for rotating 615 relative to 30) in order to have at least the advantage of a structure for ease of rotating and assembling the closure hub adapter portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure hub adapter portion of Leeth to include a lug arranged along an exterior surface of the closure hub adapter portion proximate to a second threaded region including the thread; wherein the lug is configured to rotate the coupling assembly to the existing pipeline closure hub with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of ease of rotation and assembling the closure hub adapter portion as taught by Fanguy. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Fanguy reasonably suggests lugs for ease of rotation and assembly as compared to a threaded closure hub adapter portion without any lugs or structure assisting rotation.
In regard to claim 19, Leeth discloses the method of joining the pipeline closure of claim 14, and Leeth in view of Fanguy disclose including:
utilizing a lug extending from an exterior surface of the pipeline closure hub adapter portion to rotate the pipeline closure hub adapter portion coupled to the pipeline closure extension to tighten the pipeline closure hub adapter portion with the pipeline closure hub (See claim 4 above for the same reasons).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 with respect to claims 1, 8, 14, and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Leeth does not disclose the features of claim 21, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Leeth discloses at least corresponding sealing surfaces between the pipeline closure extension and the pipeline closure hub similar to applicant’s invention. See the attached image to claim 2 above indicated at the abutting surfaces such that at least a gasket contacts external surfaces of both the pipeline closure extension and the pipeline closure hub and additionally includes direct contact as a seal. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Leeth does not disclose claim 1 as currently amended, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because see the updated rejection above such that Leeth discloses all the features of currently amended claim 1. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant relied upon the same arguments for claim 1 for claims 8 and 14. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons above for claim 1.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the locking ring and the collar of Leeth are not a single structure as required by claim 1, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because claim 1 recites “wherein the closure hub adapter portion including the thread is a single structure” which the Examiner only relied upon 120 as the closure hub adapter portion that is a single structure with internal threads. If applicant intended the claimed fastener to be a single integrally formed part with the closure hub adapter portion, then it must be properly claimed. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Leeth does not teach or suggest forming threads directly on the collar 121 that would directly engage with the threaded region 130 of 20, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because 121 of Leeth defines a closure hub adapter portion that has integrally formed internal threads which at least directly engage a threaded region defined by the threads of locking ring 125 and the threads of 20 since claim 1 does not restrict what is included in “a threaded region” and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpreted a threaded region to be an area having threads which the threads of 125 and 20 are threaded components defining an area with threads. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for all teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the updated rejection that includes the prior art Fanguy that teaches external lugs for rotation.
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 William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679