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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/29/2024 and 04/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claims
It is noted that the claims filed on 08/29/2024 are the latest amended claims. After a phone call with Christopher R. Monday (Reg. No. 60,929) on 01/07/2026, the intended claims to be examined are the claims filed on 08/29/2024 and the claims filed on 02/21/2025 were for pre-exam formalities.
Drawings
Figures 19-21 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an interval between any adjacent two of the insertion holes” and should be “an interval between an adjacent two of the insertion holes” since the term “any” seem ambiguous and the extended interval is between an adjacent two of the insertion holes and not any of two adjacent insertion holes. See Fig. 3, the extended interval S2 is between only one of two adjacent insertion holes while not at any of the other two adjacent insertion holes.
Claim 6 recites “any adjacent two” and should be “ an adjacent two” for the same reasons above for claim 1.
Claim 6 in the last few lines recite “the pipes a pressing surface” and should be “the pipes; and a pressing surface”.
Claim 6 in the last line recites “the seal member” and should be “the seal member.” that includes a period at the end.
Claim 7 recites “any adjacent two” and should be “ an adjacent two” for the same reasons above for claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the equal intervals. the extended” and should replace the period with a comma to recite “the equal intervals[[.]], the extended”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the pipes” which lacks antecedent basis and unclear if the pipes are referring back to the spigot and socket in claim 1 or are different. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the pipes spigot and the socket”.
Claim 6 recites “the pipes” which is unclear for the same reasons above for claim 2. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the pipes spigot and the socket”.
Claim 7 recites “the pipes” which is unclear for the same reasons above for claim 2. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the pipes spigot and the socket”.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claim 8 is rejected under 112th second paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “the reinforcing member is provided between the two adjacent insertion holes in the extended interval region”, however, claim 1 previously recited the extended interval region is between the two adjacent insertion holes and the extended interval region comprising the reinforcing member. Therefore, claim 5 does not appear to further limit the subject matter.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker et al. (US 3,473,573 hereinafter “Baker”).
In regard to claim 6, Baker discloses a pipe joint (Fig. 2 shows a pipe joint) in which a spigot is inserted into a socket (Fig. 2, portion of pipe 15 that inserts through 31 defines a spigot and inserts into a socket 22) and a seal member is inserted between an outer circumference of the spigot and an inner circumference of the socket (Fig. 2, gasket 27 defines a seal member between an outer circumference of 15 and an inner circumference of 22), the pipe joint comprising:
a gland fitted onto the spigot (Fig. 2, ring 31 defines a gland which is fitted onto 15) so as to face an opening end face of the socket from outside (Fig. 2, 31 faces an opening end face of the socket at 22), the gland being coupled to the socket with a plurality of fixing bolts and nuts so as press the seal member into the socket (Figs. 1 and 2, 31 has lugs 32 which is for nuts and bolts so as to press the seal 26 into the socket of 22), the gland comprising:
a pressing face for pressing the seal member (Fig. 2, the axial face of 31 that faces 26 defines a pressing face for pressing 26);
a plurality of insertion holes where the fixing bolts are inserted (Figs. 1 and 2, lugs 32 define a plurality of insertion holes where the fixing bolts insert through);
an equal interval region in which intervals between the insertion holes in a circumferential direction are kept at equal intervals (Figs. 1 and 2, the lugs 32 of 31 matches the same number of lugs 12 and 31 does not include the lug at 12a as shown in Fig. 2. See image below which is a recreation of showing an axial view of 31 and the lugs 32 which in the rectangular box indicates an equal interval region in which intervals between the insertion holes in a circumferential direction are equal);
an extended interval region in which an interval between an adjacent two of the insertion holes are larger than the equal intervals (See image below, 31 has at least one extended interval region in which an interval between an adjacent two of the insertion holes is larger than the equal intervals), the extended interval region facing an obstacle that interferes with a joining operation of the spigot and the socket (Fig. 2, the extended interval region of 31 faces a wall that pipe 15 extends through, therefore, the wall defines at least an obstacle that interferes with a joining operation for 15 and 22 similar to the applicant’s invention such that an obstacle as described in applicant’s specification can be a wall); and
a pressing surface in contact with the seal member (Fig. 2, the surface of 31 that contacts 26 defines a pressing surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 3,473,573) in view of Seung (KR 20100094048 A).
In regard to claim 1, Baker discloses a gland (Fig. 2, ring 31 defines a gland) provided for a pipe joint (Fig. 2, 31 is for a pipe joint shown) in which a spigot is inserted into a socket (Fig. 2, portion of pipe 15 that inserts through 31 defines a spigot and inserts into a socket 22) and a seal member is inserted between an outer circumference of the spigot and an inner circumference of the socket (Fig. 2, gasket 27 defines a seal member between an outer circumference of 15 and an inner circumference of 22), the gland being fitted onto the spigot so as to face an opening end face of the socket from outside (Fig. 2, 31 fits onto 15 and faces an opening end face of the socket at 22), the gland being coupled to the socket with a plurality of fixing bolts and nuts so as to press the seal member into the socket (Figs. 1 and 2, 31 has lugs 32 which is for nuts and bolts so as to press the seal 26 into the socket of 22), the gland comprising:
a pressing face for pressing the seal member (Fig. 2, the axial face of 31 that faces 26 defines a pressing face for pressing 26);
a plurality of insertion holes where the fixing bolts are inserted (Figs. 1 and 2, lugs 32 define a plurality of insertion holes where the fixing bolts insert through);
an equal interval region in which intervals between the insertion holes in a circumferential direction are kept at equal intervals (Figs. 1 and 2, the lugs 32 of 31 matches the same number of lugs 12 and 31 does not include the lug at 12a as shown in Fig. 2. See image below which is a recreation of showing an axial view of 31 and the lugs 32 which in the rectangular box indicates an equal interval region in which intervals between the insertion holes in a circumferential direction are equal); and
an extended interval region in which an interval between an adjacent two of the insertion holes are larger than the equal intervals (See image below, 31 has at least one extended interval region in which an interval between an adjacent two of the insertion holes is larger than the equal intervals).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baker does not expressly disclose the extended interval region comprises a reinforcing member.
In the related field of pipe joints with a spigot, socket, and seal member, Seung teaches a gland (Fig. 2, gland at 220) for a pipe joint having a spigot, socket, and seal member (Fig. 2, spigot at 1, socket at 113, and seal member at 40 or 210), wherein the gland comprises at least one reinforcing member (Fig. 2, at least one reinforcing protrusion 223 defines a reinforcing member) in order to have the advantage of increased strength of the gland (On page 8, lines 1-4, of the English translation discloses 223 provides increased strength to the gland).
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 extended interval region of Baker to include a reinforcing member as a reinforcing protrusion with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of increased strength as taught by Seung.
In regard to claim 2, Baker and Seung discloses the gland according to claim 1, and Baker further discloses wherein the extended interval region faces an obstacle that interferes with a joining operation for the spigot and socket to each other (Fig. 2, the extended interval region of 31 faces a wall that pipe 15 extends through, therefore, the wall defines at least an obstacle that interferes with a joining operation for 15 and 22 similar to the applicant’s invention such that an obstacle as described in applicant’s specification can be a wall).
In regard to claim 3, Baker and Seung discloses the gland according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing member is provided on a side opposite to the pressing face (Fig. 2 of Seung, 223 is provide on a side opposite of a pressing face of the gland and Baker in view of Seung would have the reinforcing member similarly positioned on an opposite side of the pressing face), protrudes from the side opposite to the pressing face in a separating direction that separates the spigot from the socket (Fig. 2 of Seung, 223 protrudes from the side opposite in a separating direction that separates the spigot from the socket. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Baker and Seung.), and is located outside an inner circumference of the gland in a radial direction (Fig. 2 of Seung, 223 is located outside an inner circumference at 22a in a radial direction. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Baker and Seung.), and
wherein a step portion (Fig. 2 of Seung, a step portion is formed between 223 and 22a. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Baker and Seung.) is formed between the inner circumference of the gland and an inner circumference of the reinforcing member (Fig. 2 of Seung, 223 has two curved corners and the curved corner closer to 220a defines at least an inner circumference since it is more radially inward towards the center of 220. The step portion is formed between 220a and the inner circumference of 223. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Baker and Seung.).
In regard to claim 5, Baker and Seung discloses the gland according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing member is provided between the two adjacent insertion holes in the extended interval region (See claim 1 above for the same reasons such that the reinforcing member and the extended interval region is between the two adjacent insertion holes. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Baker and Seung.).
In regard to claim 7, Baker and Seung disclose a method for joining pipes, comprising:
inserting a spigot into a socket;
coupling a gland to the socket with a plurality of fixing bolts and nuts so as to press a seal member into the socket, the gland being fitted onto the spigot so as to face an opening end face of the socket from outside, the gland including a pressing face for pressing the seal member, a plurality of insertion holes where the fixing bolts are inserted, an equal interval region in which intervals between the insertion holes in a circumferential direction are kept at equal intervals, and an extended interval region in which an interval between an adjacent two of the insertion holes are larger than the equal intervals, the extended interval region including a reinforcing member; and
inserting the seal member between an outer circumference of the spigot and an inner circumference of the socket by inserting the fixing bolts into the insertion holes of the gland (See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Baker and Seung to disclose “A method…of the gland” which recite the same features. The methods of “inserting” and “coupling” are generic method of assembly that are also included in the structure of Baker in view of Seung.) and tightening the fixing bolts and nuts in a state in which the extended interval region of the gland faces an obstacle that interferes with a joining operation of the spigot and the socket (See claim 2 above for the same reasons to combine Baker and Seung to disclose “tightening the fixing bolts…of the spigot and the socket” and in Fig. 2 of Baker, the nuts and bolts are tightened).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 3,473,573) in view of Seung (KR 20100094048 A) and further in view of Engel et al. (US 2,108,848 hereinafter “Engel”).
In regard to claim 4, Baker and Seung disclose the gland according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing member is provided on a side opposite to the pressing face, protrudes from the side opposite to the pressing face in a separating direction that separates the spigot from the socket, and is located outside an inner circumference of the gland in a radial direction (See claim 3 above for the same reasons to combine Baker and Seung to disclose “wherein the reinforcing member…in a radial direction”); and an inner circumference of the reinforcing member (See claim 3 above for the same reasons to combine Baker and Seung to disclose “an inner circumference of the reinforcing member”).
Baker and Seung do not expressly disclose wherein a tapering portion is formed between the inner circumference of the gland and the inner circumference of the reinforcing member, and
wherein the tapering portion tilts outward in the radial direction as the tapering portion extends in the separating direction that separates the spigot from the socket.
In the related field of glands for spigot and socket joints, Engel discloses a gland (Fig. 3, gland at 18 for a spigot 11 and socket 10) having a tapering portion (See image below, indicated tapering portion at an opening of the gland that the spigot inserts through) in order to have at least the advantage of reducing a sharp corner that may damage the spigot and allow for a greater tilt flexibility of the spigot.
PNG
media_image2.png
529
399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 sharp corner opening of 31 of Baker in view of Seung to include wherein a tapering portion is formed between the inner circumference of the gland and the inner circumference of the reinforcing member, and wherein the tapering portion tilts outward in the radial direction as the tapering portion extends in the separating direction with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of reducing a sharp corner that may damage the spigot and allow for a greater tilt flexibility of the spigot as taught by Engel.
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, the tapering portion of Engel would reasonably suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that having a tapered portion or chamfered/beveled portion at an opening of the gland would allow reducing a sharp corner that may damage the spigot and allow for a greater tilt flexibility of the spigot. Also, see https://beveltools.com/blog/when_chamfer_and_when_bevel/ such that it is known to eliminate sharp corners for at least safer handling. Additionally, the tapering portion of Engel is used in a similar manner as applicant’s invention such that it also allows for greater tilt as compared to a sharp corner that would reduce the allowed tilting.
In regard to claim 8, Baker and Seung disclose the method for joining pipes according to claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein the gland is coupled to the socket by inserting the fixing bolts into the insertion holes of the gland and tightening the fixing bolts and nuts in a state in which the spigot is diagonally deflected relative to the socket.
In the related field of glands for spigot and socket joints, Engel teaches a gland in the fully assembled state that allows the spigot to be diagonally deflected relative to the socket (Fig. 3, spigot 11 is diagonally deflected at an angle relative to the socket 10 allowed by the gland at 18) in order to have the advantage of flexibility and ease of assembly when connecting a spigot to a socket without the socket and the spigot to be exactly axially aligned (In 2:36-46 discloses the gland allows eccentric alignment between the spigot and the socket without needing the spigot and the socket to be exactly aligned).
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 connection of the gland, spigot, and socket of Baker in view of Seung to include the gland is coupled to the socket by inserting the fixing bolts into the insertion holes of the gland and tightening the fixing bolts and nuts in a state in which the spigot is diagonally deflected relative to the socket with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of flexibility and ease of assembly when connecting a spigot to a socket without the socket and the spigot to be exactly axially aligned as taught by Engel.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wehrle (US 940,098), Boughton (US 2,679,410), Ryan (US 689,624), English (US 4,411,312), and Smith et al. (US 3,469,852) disclose a gland having a plurality of insertion holes that are spaced apart at equal intervals similar to applicant’s invention.
Wilson et al. (US 2,105,022) and Yano et al. (US 5,129,681), disclose an obstacle such as a wall underground for a pipe joint having a gland, spigot, and socket similar to applicant’s invention.
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