DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species II- Claims 11-20 in the reply filed on April 13, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-10 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westervelt (US 1441138).
Regarding Claim 11, Westervelt discloses a pressure vessel fluid coupling comprising an upper portion comprising: a first sub-portion including a first conduit receptacle and a second sub-portion including a second conduit receptacle as defined by the two semi-cylindrical sections (21) joined by threaded stems (22) passing through threaded apertures as shown in Figure 2. Westervelt also discloses a lower portion at head 16 configured to be coupled to the upper portion. A conduit passageway within a tubular shank (15) is configured to be received in the first conduit receptacle and the second conduit receptacle, wherein the conduit is configured to provide a fluid pathway to an internal volume of the pressure vessel via outlet bore 14.
Westervelt does not disclose the conduit as a separate component as disclosed by Applicant as tubular element 810. Rather, Westervelt discloses the tubular shank (15) is integral with a bored through passageway. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious the substitution of a separate conduit tube for the integral bored construction seen in Westervelt as the simple replacement of an integral construction for a separable construction that would produce no unexpected results in the function of the fluid coupling. See MPEP 2144.04 V Sections B and C. Please see the visual comparison below.
PNG
media_image1.png
973
1841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Westervelt discloses first threads (24) formed on an outer surface of the first sub-portion and second threads formed on an outer surface of the second sub-portion. When the first sub-portion and the second sub-portion are assembled together the first threads and the second threads form a single helix.
Regarding Claim 15, Westervelt discloses the first sub-portion includes a first flange portion and the second sub-portion includes a second flange portion. When the first sub-portion and the second sub-portion are joined, the first flange portion and the second flange portion form a recess analogous to Applicant element 822 where the vertical shaft member of tubular shank 15 extends.
Regarding Claim 16, Westervelt discloses the lower portion includes a protrusion (15) that rises proud of the main body of the lower portion at the location of the annular shoulder 17.
Regarding Claim 17, Westervelt discloses the protrusion is receivable in the recess such that the protrusion and the recess comprise respective first and second attachment portions configured to couple the upper portion and the lower portion together.
Regarding Claim 18, the coupling of Westervelt discloses the conduit includes a mitered bend.
Regarding Claim 19, while Westervelt discloses the conduit passageway is integral with the lower portion and is not coupled to the lower portion by a weld that forms a hermetic seal, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the integral bored construction of Westervelt would provide an equivalent, hermetic connection that would produce only expected results.
Claims 11-19 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aceves (US 2017/0146193) in view of Westervelt (US 1441138).
Regarding Claim 11, Aceves discloses a pressure vessel fluid coupling (308 and 608 – Figures 3 and) comprising an upper portion, a lower portion configured to be coupled to the upper portion, and a conduit (311, 312, 611) running through the upper and lower portions configured to provide a fluid pathway to an internal volume of the pressure vessel. Aceves does not disclose a first sub-portion including a first conduit receptacle, and a second sub-portion including a second conduit receptacle.
Westervelt discloses a similar threaded connection for pressure vessels comprising an upper portion comprising two threaded semi-cylindrical sections (21) as an upper component and a lower component/tubular shank. Aceves and Westervelt are analogous inventions in the art of adapters for pressurized tanks.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert of Aceves which uses a traditional metal-to-metal joint transition made using explosion bonding or friction stir welding (Aceves paragraph 0062) with the integral components joined by threaded connections as seen Westervelt in order to avoid the necessity of soldering and resultant weakness at junctions (Page 1 lines 13-27). Westervelt also discloses that the use of a longitudinally split threaded retaining sleeve allows rotary and sliding movement of the shank to position the elbow bend in a desired location prior to being firmly fitted in place by rotating the sleeve with a wrench to effect the threading or removal of the split sleeve (Page 1, Lines 78-89, Page 2, Lines 1-34).
Regarding Claims 12 and 15-18, these limitations are addressed above as being present or obvious variations of the construction in Westervelt.
Regarding Claim 13, Aceves discloses the upper portion is formed of a first material and the lower portion is formed of a second material different than the first material (Paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 14, Aceves discloses the first material comprises aluminum or an alloy thereof and the second material comprises steel or an alloy thereof so as to reduce stresses due to the joining of dissimilar materials with the aluminum construction of the tank (Paragraph 0064).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Aceves in view of Westervelt as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Miller (US 919913).
Regarding Claim 20, Aceves discloses pressure vessel system comprising: a pressure vessel (200) comprising a neck with neck threads formed on an inner surface thereof with an internal compartment (202). Westervelt discloses the single helix is threadedly engaged with the neck threads of the pressure vessel. Modified Aceves does not disclose a radial seal received in a gland formed in the lower portion and configured to contain a fluid within the internal compartment where the radial seal prevents the leakage of a fluid from the internal compartment.
Miller discloses a similar pipe connection having a split, threaded retaining connection to a tube where a seal (m) is provided (Page 2 Lines 40-50 and Figure 11). Modified Aceves and Miller are analogous inventions in the art of threaded conduit connections.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure vessel system of Modified Aceves with the radial seal of Miller in order to provide a union which allows for expansion and contraction of the piping line (Page 2 Lines 51-55). Furthermore, the use of radial seals and glands are well known in the art of fluidic connections and used to prevent leaks between mating threaded components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights