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 06/09/2026 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 11-13 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 11 recites “a free end of the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert” which is unclear because claim 11 previously recited “a first free end to a second free end”. It is unclear if the free end is the same or different from the previously recited first free end or second free end. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “[[a]] the second free end of the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert…the second free end…”.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 112th second paragraph.
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, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 5,961,154 hereinafter “Williams”) in view of Mohan (WO 2005/059423 A1) and further in view of Watanabe (JP 2022164783 A).
In regard to claim 1, Williams discloses a fiber reinforced laminate pipe joint (Fig. 7 and in 3:34-52 discloses the invention relates to fiber reinforced pipes (FRP), therefore, the pipe joint shown in Fig. 7 is at least a fiber reinforced laminate pipe joint), the pipe joint comprising:
a first pipe (Fig. 7, first pipe 68);
a second pipe (Fig. 7, second pipe 70), wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipes (Fig. 7 and in 3:55-67 discloses the first and second pipes are FRP and in 1:32-36 discloses FRPs incorporate resins. Also, see https://beetleplastics.com/custom-frp-fabrications/about-fiberglass/resins-in-frp/ that discloses FRPs are known to incorporate resins); and
a pipe joint insert (Fig. 7, slip collar 60 defines a pipe joint insert), partially inserted inside the first pipe and partially inserted inside the second pipe (Fig. 7 shows 60 is partially inserted to both 68 and 70), wherein the pipe joint insert is bonded to the first pipe and the second pipe (Figs. 7-7A, 60 is at least bonded to 68 and 70 by sealant at 94), wherein the pipe joint insert includes a resin-based fiber reinforced laminate (Fig. 7 and in 3:55-60 discloses 60 can be made of FRP which are resin based as previously mentioned), wherein a bonding agent in the fiber reinforced laminate of the pipe joint insert is distinct from a bonding agent utilized to bond the pipe joint insert to the first pipe (Figs. 7-7A, the bonding agent to form the FRP of 60 is distinct from the sealant 94 since they are at least distinct and separate parts in order to join 60 with pipes 68 and 70).
Williams does not expressly disclose the pipe joint insert has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end, and wherein the pipe joint insert includes a mitered pipe joint insert.
In the related field of pipe joints with inserts, Mohan teaches a pipe joint having an insert that can include a circumferential rib (Fig. 1 shows a pipe joint having an insert at 8 and a rib at 11) or without a rib to have a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end (Fig. 4 shows a pipe joint having an insert 8 without a rib and has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end). The advantage of having a circumferential rib like that of Williams is to allow centering of the pipes to be joined and evenly insert into both pipes (On page 5, lines 11-16 discloses the advantage of having the circumferential locating flange 11). The advantage of an insert without the circumferential rib is to allow the pipe ends to abut each other (On pages 10, lines 30-33, to page 11, lines 1-4, disclose the advantage of having an insert without the rib in order to have the pipe ends abut each other) which at least reduces the amount of leakage pathways as compared to having a circumferential rib defining at least two leakage pathways (Figs. 1 and 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that having the rib may provide advantages of centering, however, also provide additional leakage paths as compared to an insert without a rib).
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 substituted the circumferential rib of Williams for an insert without the circumferential rib with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a desire to abut the pipe ends as taught by Mohan. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally, 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, having an insert without a centering circumferential rib allows for an easier to manufacture part, have less leakage pathways, and less needed material to manufacture.
Furthermore, it is has been held that it would have been obvious to omit elements that are not desired or required. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) and MPEP 2144.04(II)(B). Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, Williams in view of Mohan would reasonably suggest having a centering circumferential rib or not in order to join two pipe ends together depending on whether it is desired or not of needing to abut the pipe ends or needing to center the pipe ends with a circumferential rib.
In the related field of pipe joints with inserts and external laminate, Watanabe discloses a pipe joint orientation (Fig. 2) such that at least one fiber reinforced pipe insert is mitered (Fig. 2, pipe inserts 21, 22, or 23 are mitered similar to applicant’s invention shown in Fig. 8 and in [0018] of the English translation discloses 21-23 are made of fiber reinforced material) in order to form a bent pipe which allows for more efficient pipe routing design.
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 straight pipe insert of Williams in view of Mohan to include a mitered insert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of forming a bent pipe which can allow for more efficient pipe routing as suggested by Watanabe. 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, Williams, Mohan and Watanabe would reasonably suggest a person of ordinary skill in the art that pipe systems are not only straight line pipe systems and having curved pipe sections can lead to less piping and a more efficient pipe routing to save material, cost, and weight of an overall pipe system. Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the orientation of the pipe insert to form known pipe junctions such as elbows, tees, and reducers but instead is the assembly of the pipe insert and external laminate to join at least two pipes together.
In regard to claim 2, Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Williams further discloses further comprising an external lamination partially covering the first pipe and partially covering the second pipe (Fig. 7, outer skins at 26, 28, and/or 30 define an external lamination partially covering 68 and 70).
In regard to claim 3, Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Williams further discloses wherein the substantially consistent outer diameter is configured to interface with an inner diameter of the first pipe and an inner diameter of the second pipe (Fig. 7, 60 has an outer diameter that is configured to interface with an inner diameter of 68 and an inner diameter of 70 as shown. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Williams and Mohan to disclose the substantially consistent outer diameter.).
In regard to claim 5, Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Williams further discloses wherein the bonding agent in the pipe joint insert is fully cured before the pipe joint insert is utilized in the pipe joint (Fig. 7, 60 is a fully cured part prior to be utilized in the pipe joint).
In regard to claim 6, Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Williams further discloses wherein the fiber reinforced laminate of at least one of the first pipe, the second pipe, or the pipe joint insert includes one or more of fiberglass or carbon fiber (Fig. 7 and as previously mentioned above for claim 1, 60, 68, and 70 are FRP which are fiberglass reinforced pipes).
In regard to claim 7, Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Williams further discloses wherein an inner diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe is around less than 3 inches to 54 inches or more (In 7:45-54 discloses the ranges of diameters the pipes can be).
Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe do not expressly disclose wherein the inner diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe is less than 30 inches.
While Williams in view of Mohan and Watanabe do not expressly disclose the inner diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe of less than 30 inches; the inner diameter may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
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 Williams in view of Mohan and Watanabe to have the inner diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe of less than 30 inches, as the inner diameter may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation to have the advantage of lighter weight pipe and more efficient pipe design. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable.
Additionally, applicant’s claimed range of less than 30 inches lacks criticality in light of the specification which in [0031] describes the inner diameter can be greater than 30 inches such as 45 inches, 60 inches, or any other value. Therefore, the claimed range of less than 30 inches appears to be arbitrary and does not provide any non-obvious or unpredictable results.
In regard to claim 9, Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Williams further discloses wherein the first pipe and the second pipe have a same inner diameter (Fig. 7 and 68 and 70 have the same inner diameter).
In regard to claim 10, Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 9, and Williams further discloses wherein the inner diameter is substantially consistent across a longitudinal length of the pipe joint (Fig. 7, the inner diameter of 68 and 70 are consistent across a longitudinal length of the pipe joint as shown) and for a specified margin on either side of the pipe joint (Fig. 7, at least the specified margin shown on either of the pipe joint, the inner diameter of 68 and 70 are consistent).
Claims 11-12, 16-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 5,961,154) in view of Mohan (WO 2005/059423 A1)
In regard to claim 11, Williams discloses a fiber reinforced laminate pipe joint intermediate (See claim 1 above for the same reasons that disclose the same feature), the pipe joint intermediate comprising:
a resin-based first fiber reinforced laminate pipe (See claim 1 above for the same reasons that disclose the same feature); and
a resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert (See claim 1 above for the same reasons that disclose the same feature), an outer diameter of a radially outer surface of the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert configured to interface with an inner diameter of the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe (See claim 1 above for the same reasons that disclose the same feature), wherein the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end, wherein the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert is partially inserted into the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and bonded in place, wherein a bonding agent bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert to the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe is cured (See claim 1 above for the same reasons that disclose the same feature of “wherein the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert…is cured” and Figs. 7-7A, sealant at 94 is at least cured in order to bond 60 to 68).
Williams in view of Mohan do not explicitly disclose the order of curing the bonding agent between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert into the second pipe, and therefore, does not explicitly disclose the second free end of the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert extends outside of the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe;
the second free end of the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert extending outside of the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe is not inside a second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
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 order of assembly of the pipe joint of Williams in view of Mohan to try curing the bond between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert to the second pipe with a reasonable expectation of success because there are a finite number of solutions to join the insert to the pipes. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). In this case, there are only three solutions to joining the insert to the pipes which are curing the bond between the insert and the first pipe first, curing the bond between the insert and the second pipe first, or curing the bond simultaneously between the insert and the first and the second pipes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably cure the bond between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert to the second pipe in order to have at least the advantage of ease of assembling a single pipe to the insert first prior to attaching the insert to another pipe.
Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the order of assembling and curing the insert to the first and second pipes but instead forming a cured bond between the insert and the first and the second pipes. Applicant’s specification lacks any non-obvious or unpredictable results of curing the bond to the first pipe first prior to inserting to the second pipe.
In regard to claim 12, Williams and Mohan disclose the pipe joint intermediate of claim 11, and Williams further discloses wherein the pipe joint insert is circular in cross-section (Fig. 7, 60 is circular in cross-section).
In regard to claim 16, Williams discloses a method of joining a first resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipe to a second resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipe (See claims 1 and 11 above for the same reasons that disclose the same feature), the method comprising:
partially inserting a resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert in place (See claims 1 and 11 above for the same reasons that disclose the same feature); and
partially inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe and bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert in place (See claims 1 and 11 above for the same reasons that disclose the same feature); and
Williams in view of Mohan disclose wherein the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end (See claims 1 and 11 above for the same reasons).
Williams and Mohan do not explicitly disclose the order of curing the bonding agent between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert into the second pipe, and therefore, do not explicitly disclose allowing a bonding agent holding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert in place within the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe to cure and inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
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 order of assembly of the pipe joint of Williams in view of Mohan to try curing the bond between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert to the second pipe with a reasonable expectation of success because there are a finite number of solutions to join the insert to the pipes. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). In this case, there are only three solutions to joining the insert to the pipes which are curing the bond between the insert and the first pipe first, curing the bond between the insert and the second pipe first, or curing the bond simultaneously between the insert and the first and the second pipes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably cure the bond between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert to the second pipe in order to have at least the advantage of ease of assembling a single pipe to the insert first prior to attaching the insert to another pipe.
Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the order of assembling and curing the insert to the first and second pipes but instead forming a cured bond between the insert and the first and the second pipes. Applicant’s specification lacks any non-obvious or unpredictable results of curing the bond to the first pipe first prior to inserting to the second pipe.
In regard to claim 17, Williams and Mohan disclose the method of claim 16, and Williams further discloses comprising:
laminating an external surface of an intersection between the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 7, outer skins at 26, 28, and 30 at least laminates an external surface of an intersection between 68 and 70 as shown).
In regard to claim 18, Williams and Mohan disclose the method of claim 17, and Williams further discloses comprising:
laminating the external surface of the intersection between the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe after the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert has been bonded to the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 7, 60 is at least bonded to 68 and 70 by insertion prior to laminating the external intersection with at least 26, 28, and 30) and a bonding agent has cured (Fig. 7, at least a bonding agent that forms 60 must be cured prior to utilizing 60 in the pipe joint and prior to laminating the external intersection).
In regard to claim 20, Williams and Mohan disclose the method of claim 16, but do not expressly disclose comprising:
applying a clamping force to hold the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe against the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
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 pipe joint of Williams in view of Mohan to include applying a clamping force to hold the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe against the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of ensuring a proper and reliable connection between the first and the second pipes. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation within 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, it would be more durable and stronger to apply a clamping force between 68 and 70 as shown in Fig. 7 to the insert 60 to allow the bonding agent between 60, 68, and 70 to cure and ensure proper alignment or else the pipes would slip away from the insert and not be properly aligned with each other.
In regard to claim 21, Williams and Mohan disclose the method of claim 16, but do not expressly disclose comprising:
shaping the cured bonding agent before partially inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
It is noted that “shaping the cured bonding agent” is described in applicant’s specification in [0067] as “The method 1500 can include shaping (e.g., sanding, grinding, cutting, or otherwise removing material) the cured bonding agent before partially inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe”.
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 pipe joint of Williams in view of Mohan to include shaping the cured bonding agent before partially inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe by removing excess adhesive between the insert and the first pipe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a clean fluid bore that does not have any loose excess adhesive material that may mix into the fluid. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation within 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, uncured excess adhesive 94 of Williams in Fig. 7 may seep and cure towards the fluid bore of the insert and the first pipe, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably remove any loose excess adhesive by 94 in order to allow for a cleaner fluid bore preventing unwanted adhesive mixing into the fluid bore.
Again, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the cleaning or removing of excess bonding agent but instead having a bonding agent joining the insert to at least two pipes.
In regard to claim 22, Williams and Mohan disclose the method of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose comprising:
utilizing an elongated swabbing instrument to remove excess bonding agent from bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert to the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe, wherein the elongated swabbing instrument allows for the removal of excess bonding agent from an area outside the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
See claim 21 above for the same reasons.
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 pipe joint of Williams in view of Mohan to include utilizing an elongated swabbing instrument to remove excess bonding agent from bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert to the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe, wherein the elongated swabbing instrument allows for the removal of excess bonding agent from an area outside the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and second fiber reinforced laminate pipe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a clean fluid bore that does not have any loose excess adhesive material that may mix into the fluid. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation within 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, uncured excess adhesive at 94 of Williams in Fig. 7 may seep and cure towards the fluid bore of the insert and the first pipe, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably remove any loose excess adhesive by 94 in order to allow for a cleaner fluid bore preventing unwanted adhesive mixing into the fluid bore. This also applies to the area outside of the first and second pipes to ensure a clean surface.
Also, see https://houseofpuff.com/blog/11-secrets-for-how-to-clean-a-pipe/?srsltid=AfmBOop9adraXofvsh9vfoV9hQDMHhxeiZqIC_z7xWwTdUyf6bgnL_va and https://davepools.com/how-to-remove-pvc-pipe-glue/ such that it is known to remove excess and unwanted materials in pipes.
Additionally, applicant’s specification describes the swabbing instrument as a cloth attached to a pole which is not a new and non-obvious or unpredictable apparatus for cleaning hard to reach areas. See https://www.amazon.com/Telescopic-Cleaning-Brush%EF%BC%8CCleaning-Squeegee-Extendable/dp/B0F38B9R6L?th=1 such that devices are commercially available that include poles with various attachment to the end of the pole to reach hard to reach areas.
Claims 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 5,961,154) in view of Mohan (WO 2005/059423 A1) and further in view of Watanabe (JP 2022164783 A).
In regard to claim 13, Williams and Mohan disclose the pipe joint intermediate of claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the pipe joint insert includes a mitered pipe joint insert.
In the related field of pipe joints with inserts and external laminate, Watanabe discloses a pipe joint orientation (Fig. 2) such that at least one fiber reinforced pipe insert is mitered (Fig. 2, pipe inserts 21, 22, or 23 are mitered similar to applicant’s invention shown in Fig. 8 and in [0018] of the English translation discloses 21-23 are made of fiber reinforced material) in order to form a bent pipe which allows for more efficient pipe routing design.
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 straight pipe insert of Williams in view of Mohan to include a mitered insert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of forming a bent pipe which can allow for more efficient pipe routing as suggested by Watanabe. 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, Williams, Mohan and Watanabe would reasonably suggest a person of ordinary skill in the art that pipe systems are not only straight line pipe systems and having curved pipe sections can lead to less piping and a more efficient pipe routing to save material, cost, and weight of an overall pipe system. Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the orientation of the pipe insert to form known pipe junctions such as elbows, tees, and reducers but instead is the assembly of the pipe insert and external laminate to join at least two pipes together.
In regard to claim 23, Williams and Mohan disclose the method of claim 16, and Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe disclose wherein the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert includes a mitered fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert (See claim 13 above for the same reasons).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 5,961,154) in view of Mohan (WO 2005/059423 A1) and Watanabe (JP 2022164783 A) and further in view of Christer (EP 0830540 B1).
Williams, Mohan, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising a support member, configured to support the pipe joint insert during the forming of the pipe joint, wherein the support member is removeable after the pipe joint is formed.
In the related field of pipe joints, Christer teaches removable support members in order to prevent unwanted expansion in a pipe joint (Fig. 1 shows pipe support members 3a, 3b which as shown in Fig. 3 to be removed and in [0011] discloses the advantage of having the removable pipe support members 3a, 3b which is to allow prevention of unwanted expansion).
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 pipe joint of Williams in view of Mohan and Watanabe to include at least one pipe support member with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of tightly fixing the pipe insert to the first and second pipes to prevent unwanted expansion such that the insert would tightly bond to the first and second pipes as suggested by Christer. 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, Williams, Mohan, Watanabe, and Christer would reasonably suggest a person of ordinary skill in the art that a pipe support member applying pressure to the insert would ensure the bonding agent between the insert and the first and the second pipes to properly cure and join the parts together. Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not a removable support member but instead is the assembly of the pipe insert and external laminate to join at least two pipes together.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apicella (US 2017/0254463 A1) in view of Mohan (WO 2005/059423 A1) and Watanabe (JP 2022164783 A) and further in view of Sun (CN 113998921 A).
In regard to claim 1, Apicella discloses a fiber reinforced laminate pipe joint (Fig. 10A shows a pipe joint and in [0024] and [0088] disclose the pipe sections 42 and 43 and the insert ring 22 are fiber reinforced laminates), the pipe joint comprising:
a first pipe (Fig. 10A, first pipe 42);
a second pipe (Fig. 10A, second pipe 43), wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are fiber reinforced laminate pipes (Fig. 10A, pipes 42 and 43 are fiber reinforced laminate pipes as disclosed in [0088] since they are cured pipes at final assembly in order to transfer fluid); and
a pipe joint insert (Fig. 10A, ring 22 defines a pipe joint insert), partially inserted inside the first pipe and partially inserted inside the second pipe (Fig. 10A), wherein the pipe joint insert is bonded to the first pipe and the second pipe (Fig. 10A, primer and adhesive layer 60 and 70 bonds the 42 and 43 to 22), wherein the pipe joint insert includes a resin-based fiber reinforced laminate (Fig. 10A, and in [0024] discloses 22 is a fiber reinforced laminate and in [0074] and [0113] disclose the insert can include a polymer resin), wherein a bonding agent in the fiber reinforced laminate of the pipe joint insert is distinct from a bonding agent utilized to bond the pipe joint insert to the first pipe (Fig. 10A, in [0094] discloses 22 is can be formed by bonding agents such as epoxy which is at least distinct from the bonding agent at 60 and 70 which includes primer material. Additionally, the bonding agents are distinct in such a way one is used to form the ring 22 and the other at 60 and 70 are for adhesively joining parts together.).
Apicella does not expressly disclose the first pipe and the second pipe include resin to be resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipes. In [0082-0087] disclose the pipes are fiber reinforced cementitious pipes which can include concrete, mortar, grout, and hydraulic paste;
wherein the pipe joint insert has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end; and
wherein the pipe joint insert includes a mitered pipe joint insert.
In the related field of fiber-reinforced pipes, Sun teaches fiber reinforced concrete pipes can include resin (In [n0005] of the English translation disclose the invention relates to fiber reinforced concrete pipes with resins) in order to have at least the advantage of increasing resistance to acids, alkalis, and corrosion and increase wear resistance and compressive strength in addition to improving shrinkage, toughness, and resistance to deformation (In [n0003] of the English translation discloses the known advantages of resin in fiber reinforced concrete pipes and [n0005-n0008] discloses the invention provides further improvements utilizing resins in a fiber reinforced concrete pipe).
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 fiber reinforced concrete pipes of Apicella to include resin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of increasing resistance to acids, alkalis, and corrosion and increase wear resistance and compressive strength in addition to improving shrinkage, toughness, and resistance to deformation as taught by Sun.
Additionally, see https://www.tencom.com/blog/fiberglass-pipes-used-to-reinforce-concrete-sewer-structures?srsltid=AfmBOooPpUPOmEfiZNRCOAglncgegUO202B9j90J_cSdpwoZLzCnYQ7u and https://thompsonpipegroup.com/engineered-composites/ such that fiber reinforced concrete pipes with resins are well known and commercially available. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider resin in the cementitious matrix of Apicella.
In the related field of pipe joints with inserts, Mohan teaches a pipe joint having an insert that can include a circumferential rib (Fig. 1 shows a pipe joint having an insert at 8 and a rib at 11) or without a rib to have a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end (Fig. 4 shows a pipe joint having an insert 8 without a rib and has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end). The advantage of having a circumferential rib like that of Williams is to allow centering of the pipes to be joined and evenly insert into both pipes (On page 5, lines 11-16 discloses the advantage of having the circumferential locating flange 11). The advantage of an insert without the circumferential rib is to allow the pipe ends to abut each other (On pages 10, lines 30-33, to page 11, lines 1-4, disclose the advantage of having an insert without the rib in order to have the pipe ends abut each other) which at least reduces the amount of leakage pathways as compared to having a circumferential rib defining at least two leakage pathways (Figs. 1 and 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that having the rib may provide advantages of centering, however, also provide additional leakage paths as compared to an insert without a rib).
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 substituted the circumferential rib of Apicella for an insert without the circumferential rib with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a desire to abut the pipe ends as taught by Mohan. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally, 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, having an insert without a centering circumferential rib allows for an easier to manufacture part, have less leakage pathways, and less needed material to manufacture.
Furthermore, it is has been held that it would have been obvious to omit elements that are not desired or required. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) and MPEP 2144.04(II)(B). Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, Apicella in view of Mohan would reasonably suggest having a centering circumferential rib or not in order to join two pipe ends together depending on whether it is desired or not of needing to abut the pipe ends or needing to center the pipe ends with a circumferential rib.
In the related field of pipe joints with inserts and external laminate, Watanabe discloses a pipe joint orientation (Fig. 2) such that at least one fiber reinforced pipe insert is mitered (Fig. 2, pipe inserts 21, 22, or 23 are mitered similar to applicant’s invention shown in Fig. 8 and in [0018] of the English translation discloses 21-23 are made of fiber reinforced material) in order to form a bent pipe which allows for more efficient pipe routing design.
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 straight pipe insert of Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun to include a mitered insert with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of forming a bent pipe which can allow for more efficient pipe routing as suggested by Watanabe. 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, Apicella in view of Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe would reasonably suggest a person of ordinary skill in the art that pipe systems are not only straight line pipe systems and having curved pipe sections can lead to less piping and a more efficient pipe routing to save material, cost, and weight of an overall pipe system. Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the orientation of the pipe insert to form known pipe junctions such as elbows, tees, and reducers but instead is the assembly of the pipe insert and external laminate to join at least two pipes together.
In regard to claim 2, Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Apicella further discloses further comprising an external lamination partially covering the first pipe and partially covering the second pipe (Fig. 10A, external lamination at 50 which is a composite wrap at least partially covering 42 and 43).
In regard to claim 3, Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Apicella further discloses wherein the substantially consistent outer diameter is configured to interface with an inner diameter of the first pipe and an inner diameter of the second pipe (Fig. 10A, outer diameter of 22 that is radially below 42 and 43 is configured to interface by adhesively connecting to an inner diameter of 42 and an inner diameter of 43).
In regard to claim 5, Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Apicella further discloses wherein the bonding agent in the pipe joint insert is fully cured before the pipe joint insert is utilized in the pipe joint (Fig. 10A, 22 is a solid distinct ring which is at least fully cured prior to forming the pipe joint).
In regard to claim 6, Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Apicella further discloses wherein the fiber reinforced laminate of at least one the pipe joint insert, the first pipe, and the second pipe includes one or more of fiberglass or carbon fiber (In [0094] discloses both fiberglass and carbon fiber).
In regard to claim 7, Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Apicella further discloses wherein an inner diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe is at least less than 144 inches (In [0086] discloses 42 and 43 can have outer diameters from about 12 inches to about 144 inches, therefore, the inner diameter would at least be less than 144 inches which includes at least values of less than 30 inches).
Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe do not expressly disclose wherein the inner diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe is less than 30 inches.
While Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe do not expressly disclose the inner diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe of less than 30 inches; the inner diameter may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
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 Apicella in view of Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe to have the inner diameter of the first pipe and the second pipe of less than 30 inches, as the inner diameter may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation to have the advantage of lighter weight pipe and more efficient pipe design. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable.
Additionally, applicant’s claimed range of less than 30 inches lacks criticality in light of the specification which in [0031] describes the inner diameter can be greater than 30 inches such as 45 inches, 60 inches, or any other value. Therefore, the claimed range of less than 30 inches appears to be arbitrary and does not provide any non-obvious or unpredictable results.
In regard to claim 9, Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, and Apicella further discloses wherein the first pipe and the second pipe have a same inner diameter (Fig. 10A, inner diameters of 42 and 43 are the same).
In regard to claim 10, Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 9, and Apicella further discloses wherein the first pipe and the second pipe have the inner diameter that is substantially consistent across a longitudinal length of the pipe joint (Fig. 10A, the inner diameter of 42 and 43 is substantially consistent across a longitudinal length of the pipe joint as shown) and for a specified margin on either side of the pipe joint (Fig. 10A, inner diameters of 42 and 43 are substantially consistent for a specified margin on either side of the pipe joint as shown and similar to the applicant’s invention).
Claims 11-12, 16-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apicella (US 2017/0254463 A1) in view of Mohan (WO 2005/059423 A1) and further in view of Sun (CN 113998921 A).
In regard to claim 11, Apicella discloses a fiber reinforced laminate pipe joint intermediate (Fig. 10A shows at least a fiber reinforced laminate pipe joint intermediate. An intermediate step can be defined prior to applying wrap 50.), the pipe joint intermediate comprising:
a first fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 10A, first pipe 42 which is a fiber reinforced laminate pipe as previously mentioned above for claim 1); and
a resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert (Fig. 10A, insert 22 is a fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert and in [0074] and [0113] disclose the insert can include a polymer resin as previously mentioned above for claim 1), an outer diameter of a radially outer surface of the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert configured to interface with an inner diameter of the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 10A, radially outer surface of 22 near 60 is configured to interface by adhesively bonding with an inner diameter of 42), wherein the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert is partially inserted into the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and bonded in place (Fig. 10A, 22 is partially inserted into 42 as shown and bonding by adhesive and primer 60 and 70), wherein the second free end of the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert extends outside of the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 10A, an opposite portion of 22 for pipe 43 extends outside of 42); and
a bonding agent bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert to the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe is cured (Fig. 10A, 22 is partially inserted into 42 as shown and bonding by adhesive and primer 60 and 70 which are at least cured at some point).
Apicella does not expressly disclose the first pipe and the second pipe include resin to be resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipes. In [0082-0087] disclose the pipes are fiber reinforced cementitious pipes which can include concrete, mortar, grout, and hydraulic paste;
wherein the pipe joint insert has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end; and
the second free end of the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert is not inside a second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
In the related field of fiber-reinforced pipes, Sun teaches fiber reinforced concrete pipes can include resin (In [n0005] of the English translation disclose the invention relates to fiber reinforced concrete pipes with resins) in order to have at least the advantage of increasing resistance to acids, alkalis, and corrosion and increase wear resistance and compressive strength in addition to improving shrinkage, toughness, and resistance to deformation (In [n0003] of the English translation discloses the known advantages of resin in fiber reinforced concrete pipes and [n0005-n0008] discloses the invention provides further improvements utilizing resins in a fiber reinforced concrete pipe).
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 fiber reinforced concrete pipes of Apicella to include resin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of increasing resistance to acids, alkalis, and corrosion and increase wear resistance and compressive strength in addition to improving shrinkage, toughness, and resistance to deformation as taught by Sun. Also, see additional support in claim 1 above.
Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun disclose wherein the pipe joint insert has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end (See claim 1 above for the same reasons).
Although Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun do not explicitly disclose the order of curing the bonding agent between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert into the second pipe, and therefore, do not explicitly disclose allowing a bonding agent holding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert in place within the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe to cure and inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
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 order of assembly of the pipe joint of Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun to try curing the bond between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert to the second pipe with a reasonable expectation of success because there are a finite number of solutions to join the insert to the pipes. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). In this case, there are only three solutions to joining the insert to the pipes which are curing the bond between the insert and the first pipe first, curing the bond between the insert and the second pipe first, or curing the bond simultaneously between the insert and the first and the second pipes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably cure the bond between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert to the second pipe in order to have at least the advantage of ease of assembling a single pipe to the insert first prior to attaching the insert to another pipe.
Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the order of assembling and curing the insert to the first and second pipes but instead forming a cured bond between the insert and the first and the second pipes. Applicant’s specification lacks any non-obvious or unpredictable results of curing the bond to the first pipe first prior to inserting to the second pipe.
In regard to claim 12, Apicella, Mohan, and Sun disclose the pipe joint intermediate of claim 11, and Apicella further discloses wherein the pipe joint insert is circular in cross-section (Fig. 10A, 22 is circular in cross-section).
In regard to claim 16, Apicella discloses a method of joining a first fiber reinforced laminate pipe to a second fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 10A, first and second pipes 42 and 43 which both are fiber reinforced laminate pipes as previously mentioned above for claim 1), the method comprising:
partially inserting a resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 10A, insert 22 which is a fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert and in [0074] and [0113] disclose the insert can include a polymer resin as previously mentioned above from claim 1 and 22 is inserted into 42 as shown) and bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert in place (Fig. 10A, bonding by adhesive and primer at 60 and 70); and
partially inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 10A, 22 is inserted into 43) and bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert in place (Fig. 10A, bonding by adhesive and primer at 60 and 70).
Apicella does not expressly disclose the first pipe and the second pipe include resin to be resin-based fiber reinforced laminate pipes. In [0082-0087] disclose the pipes are fiber reinforced cementitious pipes which can include concrete, mortar, grout, and hydraulic paste;
wherein the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end; and
allowing a bonding agent holding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert within the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe to cure before partially inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
In the related field of fiber-reinforced pipes, Sun teaches fiber reinforced concrete pipes can include resin (In [n0005] of the English translation disclose the invention relates to fiber reinforced concrete pipes with resins) in order to have at least the advantage of increasing resistance to acids, alkalis, and corrosion and increase wear resistance and compressive strength in addition to improving shrinkage, toughness, and resistance to deformation (In [n0003] of the English translation discloses the known advantages of resin in fiber reinforced concrete pipes and [n0005-n0008] discloses the invention provides further improvements utilizing resins in a fiber reinforced concrete pipe).
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 fiber reinforced concrete pipes of Apicella to include resin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of increasing resistance to acids, alkalis, and corrosion and increase wear resistance and compressive strength in addition to improving shrinkage, toughness, and resistance to deformation as taught by Sun. Also, see additional support in claim 1 above.
Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun disclose wherein the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert has a substantially consistent outer diameter from a first free end to a second free end (See claim 1 above for the same reasons).
Although Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun do not explicitly disclose the order of curing the bonding agent between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert into the second pipe, and therefore, do not explicitly disclose allowing a bonding agent holding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert in place within the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe to cure and inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
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 order of assembly of the pipe joint of Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun to try curing the bond between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert to the second pipe with a reasonable expectation of success because there are a finite number of solutions to join the insert to the pipes. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). In this case, there are only three solutions to joining the insert to the pipes which are curing the bond between the insert and the first pipe first, curing the bond between the insert and the second pipe first, or curing the bond simultaneously between the insert and the first and the second pipes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably cure the bond between the insert and the first pipe prior to inserting the insert to the second pipe in order to have at least the advantage of ease of assembling a single pipe to the insert first prior to attaching the insert to another pipe.
Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the order of assembling and curing the insert to the first and second pipes but instead forming a cured bond between the insert and the first and the second pipes. Applicant’s specification lacks any non-obvious or unpredictable results of curing the bond to the first pipe first prior to inserting to the second pipe.
In regard to claim 17, Apicella, Mohan, and Sun disclose the method of claim 16, and Apicella further discloses comprising:
laminating an external surface of an intersection between the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 10A, composite wrap 50 laminates an external surface of an intersection between 42 and 43 similar to the applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 18, Apicella, Mohan, and Sun disclose the method of claim 17, and Apicella further discloses comprising:
laminating the external surface of the intersection between the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe after the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert has been bonded to the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe (Fig. 10A, insert 22 must be inserted first into 42 and 43 prior to applying 50) and a bonding agent has cured (Fig. 10A, at least bonding agent in 22 is cured, the adhesive at 60 and 70 would be cured prior to applying 50 to avoid unwanted relative movement between 42 and 43 and 22, and after applying 50, a bonding agent in 50 would be cured to complete assembly of the pipe joint shown).
In regard to claim 20, Apicella, Mohan, and Sun disclose the method of claim 16, but do not expressly disclose comprising:
applying a clamping force to hold the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe against the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
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 pipe joint of Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun to include applying a clamping force to hold the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe against the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of ensuring a proper and reliable connection between the first and the second pipes. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation within 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, it would be more durable and stronger to apply a clamping force between 42 and 43 as shown in Fig. 10A to the insert 22 to allow the bonding agent between 22, 42, and 43 to cure and ensure proper alignment or else the pipes would slip away from the insert and not be properly aligned with each other.
In regard to claim 21, Apicella, Mohan, and Sun disclose the method of claim 16, but do not expressly disclose comprising:
shaping the cured bonding agent before partially inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
It is noted that “shaping the cured bonding agent” is described in applicant’s specification in [0067] as “The method 1500 can include shaping (e.g., sanding, grinding, cutting, or otherwise removing material) the cured bonding agent before partially inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe”.
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 pipe joint of Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun to include shaping the cured bonding agent before partially inserting the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert into the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe by removing excess adhesive between the insert and the first pipe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a clean fluid bore that does not have any loose excess adhesive material that may mix into the fluid. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation within 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, uncured excess adhesive at 70 and 60 of Apicella in Fig. 10A may seep and cure towards the fluid bore of the insert and the first pipe, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably remove any loose excess adhesive at 60 and 70 in order to allow for a cleaner fluid bore preventing unwanted adhesive mixing into the fluid bore.
Again, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the cleaning or removing of excess bonding agent but instead having a bonding agent joining the insert to at least two pipes.
In regard to claim 22, Apicella, Mohan, and Sun disclose the method of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose comprising:
utilizing an elongated swabbing instrument to remove excess bonding agent from bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert to the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe, wherein the elongated swabbing instrument allows for the removal of excess bonding agent from an area outside the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and second fiber reinforced laminate pipe.
See claim 21 above for the same reasons.
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 pipe joint of Apicella in view of Mohan and Sun to include utilizing an elongated swabbing instrument to remove excess bonding agent from bonding the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert to the second fiber reinforced laminate pipe, wherein the elongated swabbing instrument allows for the removal of excess bonding agent from an area outside the first fiber reinforced laminate pipe and second fiber reinforced laminate pipe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a clean fluid bore that does not have any loose excess adhesive material that may mix into the fluid. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation within 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, uncured excess adhesive at 70 and 60 of Apicella in Fig. 10A may seep and cure towards the fluid bore of the insert and the first pipe, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably remove any loose excess adhesive at 60 and 70 in order to allow for a cleaner fluid bore preventing unwanted adhesive mixing into the fluid bore. This also applies to the area outside of the first and second pipes to ensure a clean surface.
Also, see https://houseofpuff.com/blog/11-secrets-for-how-to-clean-a-pipe/?srsltid=AfmBOop9adraXofvsh9vfoV9hQDMHhxeiZqIC_z7xWwTdUyf6bgnL_va and https://davepools.com/how-to-remove-pvc-pipe-glue/ such that it is known to remove excess and unwanted materials in pipes.
Additionally, applicant’s specification describes the swabbing instrument as a cloth attached to a pole which is not a new and non-obvious or unpredictable apparatus for cleaning hard to reach areas. See https://www.amazon.com/Telescopic-Cleaning-Brush%EF%BC%8CCleaning-Squeegee-Extendable/dp/B0F38B9R6L?th=1 such that devices are commercially available that include poles with various attachment to the end of the pole to reach hard to reach areas.
Claims 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apicella (US 2017/0254463 A1) in view of Mohan (WO 2005/059423 A1) and Sun (CN 113998921 A) and further in view of Watanabe (JP 2022164783 A).
In regard to claim 13, Apicella, Mohan, and Sun disclose the pipe joint intermediate of claim 11, and Apicella in view of Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose wherein the pipe joint insert includes a mitered pipe joint insert (See claim 1 above for the same reasons).
In regard to claim 23, Apicella, Mohan, and Sun disclose the method of claim 16, and Apicella in view of Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose wherein the fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert includes a mitered fiber reinforced laminate pipe insert (See claim 4 above for the same reasons).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apicella (US 2017/0254463 A1) in view of Mohan (WO 2005/059423 A1), Sun (CN 113998921 A), and Watanabe (JP 2022164783 A) and further in view of Christer (EP 0830540 B1).
Apicella, Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe disclose the pipe joint of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising a support member, configured to support the pipe joint insert during the forming of the pipe joint, wherein the support member is removeable after the pipe joint is formed.
In the related field of pipe joints, Christer teaches removable support members in order to prevent unwanted expansion in a pipe joint (Fig. 1 shows pipe support members 3a, 3b which as shown in Fig. 3 to be removed and in [0011] discloses the advantage of having the removable pipe support members 3a, 3b which is to allow prevention of unwanted expansion).
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 pipe joint of Apicella in view of Mohan, Sun, and Watanabe to include at least one pipe support member with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of tightly fixing the pipe insert to the first and second pipes to prevent unwanted expansion such that the insert would tightly bond to the first and second pipes as suggested by Christer. 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, Apicella in view of Mohan, Sun, Watanabe, and Christer would reasonably suggest a person of ordinary skill in the art that a pipe support member applying pressure to the insert would ensure the bonding agent between the insert and the first and the second pipes to properly cure and join the parts together. Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not a removable support member but instead is the assembly of the pipe insert and external laminate to join at least two pipes together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Williams in view of Mohan and Watanabe do not disclose all the features of claim 1 because Watanabe would not have a bonding agent that is distinct from a bonding agent utilized to bond the pipe joint insert to the respective pipe member 11-14, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the Examiner only relied upon Watanabe for the recitation of “wherein the pipe joint insert includes a mitered pipe joint insert” and not with regard to the distinct bonding agent of claim 1. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments appear to bodily incorporate features of Watanabe not relied upon by the Non-Final Rejection filed on 03/09/2026. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and failed to reasonably consider the combination of Williams in view of Mohan and Watanabe described in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 03/09/2026.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Williams nor Mohan disclose “a free end…” as amended in claim 11, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the recitation is unclear under 112(b). See the updated rejection above. Also, the feature of a free end of the insert not inside a second fiber reinforced laminate pipe is not a new and inventive idea because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably attach an insert that is intended for joining two pipes to a first pipe and a second pipe at the same time or a different time. Such order of connection does not provide any nonobvious and unexpected result and applicant’s specification lacks any sufficient details of any nonobvious and unexpected results. Inserting the insert into the first pipe prior to the second pipe may even be considered common sense when joining an insert for only two pipes. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and failed to provide sufficient evidence of any nonobvious and unexpected result of the order of assembling the insert relative to the first pipe and the second pipe.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Williams does not disclose claim 16, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree for the same reasons above for claim 11 such that curing one end of the insert to the first pipe first prior to inserting the insert into the second pipe does not provide any nonobvious results or unexpected results in light of applicant’s specification. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Apicella in view of Mohan, Williams, and Watanabe do not disclose claims 1, 11, and 16 for the same reasons above with regard to Williams in view of Mohan and Watanabe, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree for the same reasons above. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In regard to the dependent claims, the applicant’s arguments relied upon the same arguments above for claims 1, 11, and 16. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons above for claims 1, 11, and 16.
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
Prosecution Insights