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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, in the reply filed on 7/17/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-13, 16-19, 21, 24-25, 28, 30-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/17/26.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 3-5, 7 of copending Application No. 18/489,305 (reference application), respectively. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160047571 A1 to Jones in view of US 5927762 A to Webb.
Regarding claim 1. Jones teaches a water piping system comprising:
a prefabricated fitting tee for use with a water heater (fig. 1, as shown by the arrow in the annotated figure below), the prefabricated fitting tee including:
a fitting tee body having a first port (annotated figure below, port A), a second port (annotated figure below, port B), and a third port (annotated figure below, port C), the first and third ports being aligned along a main axis (vertical axis) and the second port being aligned along an axis angled relative to the main axis (port B appears to be 90° offset from the vertical axis),
the fitting tee body defining an interior passageway that is in fluid communication with the first, second, and third ports (the ports are understood to be in communication),
wherein one of the first and second ports is configured for connecting to a water inlet conduit for supplying water from an external source (port A),
wherein the other one of the first and second ports is configured for connecting to a pressure relief or pressure absorption mechanism (port B, see fig. 2), and
wherein the prefabricated fitting tee does not include a check valve for preventing flow from the first port to the third port and no check valve for preventing flow from the second port to the third port (no such check valve is shown or described); and
the third port connected to the water heater (port C).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach a swivel nut rotatably mounted at the third port of the prefabricated fitting tee to provide an interconnection to the water heater,
wherein, when the swivel nut is in a first condition, the swivel nut allows the prefabricated fitting tee to be rotated relative to the water heater about the main axis to allow a rotational orientation of the second port to be established, and
wherein, when the swivel nut is in a second condition, the swivel nut clamps the prefabricated fitting tee in the established rotational orientation.
Webb teaches a swivel nut connection (see figs. 5-7, in particular figs. 6-7 which show the swivel nut N being attached and detached).
PNG
media_image2.png
703
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Jones to utilize a swivel nut connection between the indicated tee in the annotated figure above and the various connections, including the water heater, where such a swivel nut is shown in Webb. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of forming a suitable connection between the parts, as suggested by Webb in col. 7 ll. 32-35.
Therefore, modified Jones would teach a swivel nut rotatably mounted at the third port of the prefabricated fitting tee to provide an interconnection to the water heater (suitable swivel nut of Webb),
wherein, when the swivel nut is in a first condition (a loosened nut), the swivel nut allows the prefabricated fitting tee to be rotated relative to the water heater about the main axis to allow a rotational orientation of the second port to be established (it is understood that the pipe is only fixed when the nut is tightened, see col. 12 ll. 57-67; thus, a loose nut would allow the pipe to be rotated), and
wherein, when the swivel nut is in a second condition (a tightened nut), the swivel nut clamps the prefabricated fitting tee in the established rotational orientation (it is understood that the pipe is fixed when the nut is tightened, see col. 12 ll. 57-67).
Regarding claim 4. Modified Jones teaches the water piping system of claim 1, wherein the pressure relief mechanism is a thermal expansion tank (Jones fig. 2, see thermal expansion tank secured by strap 20), a thermal relief valve, or a thermal expansion ball valve.
Regarding claim 5. Modified Jones teaches the water piping system of claim 1, wherein the pressure relief mechanism is adapted to be horizontally mounted when the pressure relief mechanism is coupled to the second port and the water inlet conduit is coupled to the first port (as shown in Jones fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6. Modified Jones teaches the water piping system of claim 1, wherein the pressure relief mechanism is adapted to (the device of Jones is capable of this configuration) be vertically mounted when the pressure relieve mechanism is coupled to the first port and the water inlet conduit is coupled to the second port (if connected as claimed, the expansion tank would be vertically mounted. In other words, if the expansion tank is connected to port A in the annotated figure above, it would be mounted vertically.).
Examiner Note: The limitations to the pressure relief mechanism is adapted to be vertically mounted is being interpreted as contingent upon the pressure relief mechanism being coupled to the first port and the water inlet conduit being coupled to the second port, see MPEP 2111.04 II. which states, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur” In this case, the structure for performing the function is achieved by virtue of the pipe and expansion tank being connected to the fitting, per se, and since the pipe and expansion tank could be easily reversed, the claim is met.
Regarding claim 7. Modified Jones teaches the water piping system of claim 1, wherein the water inlet conduit forms a cold-water inlet for the water heater (it is understood that the expansion tank of Jones is along the cold water inlet of the water heater, see para. 5, “Most professional plumbers recommend that expansion tanks be installed on the cold water line …”).
Regarding claim 9. Modified Jones teaches the water piping system of claim 1, wherein the first port and the third port are aligned with one another (Annotated figure 1 of Jones above, ports A and C are in alignment).
Regarding claim 10. Modified Jones teaches the water piping system of claim 1, wherein the first and second ports include female threads (when modified by Webb, the device of Jones would comprise a tee having suitable swivel nut attachment points. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to either configure the swivel nut as part of the tee or as part of the system which attaches to the tee; either configuration is obvious. Therefore, having the swivel nut as part of the first and second ports is an obvious design choice, in which case the ports would include female threads).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140311589 A1, teaches a fitting having either male threads or a swivel nut connection.
PNG
media_image3.png
506
501
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights