DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leopold, Jr., et al. 3,245,701 in view of Valls 5,120,153.
In regard to claim 1, Leopold, Jr. et al. discloses an assembly of a resin pipe 18 and a metal member 12 in which one metal end portion 44 of the metal member 12 is inserted in and fixed to a base having a cylindrical shape, made of resin, and protruding on an outer circumferential surface of the resin pipe at an intermediate position of the resin pipe in the pipe’s longitudinal direction (see col. 3 where it states that the steel pipe 12 may form a lateral outlet of a T fitting), the assembly comprising
a base flow path 32 extending in a protruding direction of the base being branched
from an intermediate portion of a pipe passage of the resin pipe and the base flow path is configured to be open at the protruding end of the base (see col. 3 where it states that the steel pipe 12 may form a lateral outlet of a T fitting),
a sealant 58 externally fitted to the one metal end portion 44, interposed between a metal outer circumferential surface of the one metal end portion 44 and a resin inner circumferential surface of the base 32, and having an annular shape,
the metal outer circumferential surface of the one metal end portion 44 pressing the sealant being configured to restrict movement of the sealant toward an inner side in a radial direction and toward a trailing end side of the one end portion in an insertion direction (surface 52 restricts movement of 58),
the resin inner circumferential surface 38 of the base pressing the sealant being configured to restrict movement of the sealant toward an outer side in the radial direction and toward a leading end side of the one end portion in the insertion direction.
Leopold, Jr. discloses a sealed joint between a resin branch portion of a fitting and a metal pipe, but does not disclose providing the resin branch with a circumferential rib. Valls teaches that providing a circumferential rib 22” around the exterior of a resin pipe 23, in order to strength the wall of the resin pipe, is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the resin pipe of Leopold, Jr. et al. with a strengthening rib, as taught by Valls, in order to strengthen the wall of the resin branch and make for a more secure connection between the metal pipe and the resin fitting.
In regard to claim 6, Leopald, Jr. eta al. discloses a method of manufacturing an assembly of a resin pipe 18 and a metal member 12 in which one metal end portion of the metal member is inserted in and fixed to a base 32 having a cylindrical shape, made of resin, and protruding on an outer circumferential surface of the resin pipe at an intermediate position of the resin pipe
in the longitudinal direction (see col. 3 where it states that the steel pipe 12 may form a lateral outlet of a T fitting),
wherein a base flow path extending in a protruding direction of the base is branched from an intermediate portion of a pipe passage of the resin pipe (see col. 3 where it states that the steel pipe 12 may form a lateral outlet of a T fitting) and the base flow path 32 is open at a protruding end of the base, the method comprising:
inserting and fixing the one end portion 44 on which a sealant 58 having an annular shape is externally fitted in and to the base to interpose the sealant between an outer circumferential surface of the one end portion and an inner circumferential surface of the base, allow the outer circumferential surface of the one end portion to press the sealant to restrict movement of the sealant toward an inner side in a radial direction and toward a trailing end side of the one end portion in an insertion direction, and allow the inner circumferential surface of the base to press the sealant to restrict movement of the sealant toward outer side in the radial direction and toward a leading end side of the one end portion in the insertion direction (see fig. 3 where surfaces 52 and 38 restrict the movement of 58).
Leopold, Jr. discloses a sealed joint between a resin branch portion of a fitting and a metal pipe, but does not disclose providing the resin branch with a circumferential rib. Valls teaches that providing a circumferential rib 22” around the exterior of a resin pipe 23, in order to strength the wall of the resin pipe, is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the resin pipe of Leopold, Jr. et al. with a strengthening rib, as taught by Valls, in order to strengthen the wall of the resin branch and make for a more secure connection between the metal pipe and the resin fitting.
In regard to claim 7, wherein the one metal end portion 44 is connected and fixed to the base by screw parts 30 of the outer circumferential surface of the one end portion and a resin screw part of the inner circumferential surface of the base being screwed to each other (see fig. 1).
In regard to claim 8, wherein the sealant 58 is an O-ring.
In regard to claim 9, Leopold, Jr., et al. in view of Valls disclose the base extending from the pipe a certain height, but do not disclose the exact height of the base. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the base extend between 1 and 30 mm because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regard to claim 10, wherein the metal member 12 has a flow path extending therethrough in the longitudinal direction thereof and the flow path is open at the leading end of the one end portion in the insertion direction, and the flow path and the pipe passage communicate with each other through the base flow path (see fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leopold, Jr., et al. 3,245,701 in view of Valls 5,120,153 and further in view of Zepp et al. 8,109,540.
In regard to claims 2-3, Leopold, Jr. in view of Valls discloses one rib 22” at the end of the end portion 30 of a base, for strengthening the wall of the fitting, but does not disclose providing multiple ribs along the wall. Zepp teaches (fig. 2) that providing more than one rib (46A-D), in order to provide better strength to the fitting wall is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add multiple ribs, as taught by Zepp, in order to improve the strength of the fitting wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 6-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679