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
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-13, and 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/06/2026. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8, 11-13, 17-21, and 30-34 remain pending and claims 30-34 are treated on their merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein a proximal end of said leading tube connected to a port of a plumbing connection box and” (lines 1-2 of the claim) should be “wherein a proximal end of said leading tube is connected to a port of a plumbing connection box; and”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braathen et al. (WO 2016/204628) in view of Aizawa (US Patent 6,199,396).
Regarding Claim 30, when making and using the device of Braathen, Braathen necessarily discloses a method for repairing a leaking water conducting tube 12 (Braathen discloses the pipe 12 may leak on page 6, lines 9-10 and further discloses removing or “dismantling” the pipe 12 from the device on page 6, lines 25-27) passing through a leading tube 13 (as shown in Figure 3) comprising: disconnecting the leaking water conducting tube 12 (dismantling the pipe 12; page 6, lines 25-27); drawing the leaking water conducting tube 12 out of the leading tube 13 (pipe 12 is pulled through the conical hole 10; page 6, lines 25-27); passing a new water conducting tube through the leading tube 13 (this is seen to be performed during normal use of the device of Braathen; i.e. Braathen discloses connecting and disconnecting the water conducting tube 12 and it is seen that during further use of the system a new tube is required and will be conducted through outer tube 13); connecting the new water conducting tube (in the same manner in which the first water conducting tube was connected); and turning on water supply to the new water conducting tube (this is seen to be necessarily performed during use of the new water conducting tube of Braathen).
Braathen does not specifically disclose turning off water supply to the leaking water conducting tube.
Aizawa teaches a method of replacing piping 50 and further teaches turning off a fluid supply to the piping 50 before disconnecting the piping (the fluid supply is shut off via closing the valves 18, 19, and 20A-20D before disconnecting the piping 50 as described in col. 6, lines 23-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Braathen such that it includes the step of turning off water supply to the leaking water conducting tube as taught by Aizawa for the purpose of preventing additional leakage of the water while a user disassembles the water conducting tube.
Additionally, in the event that Braathen is not seen as necessarily disclosing passing a new water conducting tube through the leading tube, adding a new water conducting tube through the leading tube is seen to require a mere duplication of parts (i.e. adding a duplicate water conducting tube) and it has been generally held that a mere duplication of parts is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Braathen to include passing a new water conducting tube through the leading tube for the purpose of allowing a user to utilize the water conducting box after the leaking tube has been removed.
Regarding Claim 31, Braathen in view of Aizawa further discloses wherein a proximal end of said leading tube 13 (upper end of 13 as shown in Figure 3) connected to a port (at 10 as shown in Figure 3) of a plumbing connection box 1 and said disconnecting includes disconnecting a distal end of said leaking water conducting tube 12 (distal end coupled to the source of water is disconnected in the manner taught by Aizawa as described above) from an end unit (i.e. any supply is readable as an end unit) and disconnecting a proximal end of said leaking water conducting tube 12 (the end within the box 1) from a junction inside a connection box (as disclosed by Braathen by unscrewing a nut; page 6, lines 25-27).
Regarding Claim 32, Braathen is seen as further disclosing said drawing (i.e. removing the connecting tube 12 as described above) includes drawing said distal end (distal end coupled to the source of water as described above) of said leaking water conducting tube 12 through said leading tube 13 and out said port into said junction box 1 (drawing or removing the connecting tube 12 is seen to include drawing the distal end into the junction box because the user is standing at the junction box following unscrewing the nut as described above; therefore, pulling the pipe as disclosed by Braathen includes pulling the pipe through the box 1).
Regarding Claim 33, Braathen is seen as further disclosing said passing (passing a new water connecting tube as described above) includes passing a distal end of said new water conducting tube 12 through said junction box 1 through said port (port defined within 10) and said-through said leading tube 13 (it is noted that either end of the new tube 12 is readable on the recited distal end and at least one end passes through the recited elements).
Regarding Claim 34, in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 33, Braathen does not specifically disclose said connecting includes connecting said distal end of said new water conducting tube 12 to said end unit and connecting a proximal end of said new water conducting tube 12 to a junction inside said plumbing connection box 1.
However, the selection of the direction along which the water connecting tube is installed is seen to have been an obvious matter of design choice. Furthermore, it is noted that the first water connecting tube is removed by a user standing at the connection box 1 (as described above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Braathen such that passing a new water conducting tube through the leading tube includes passing the distal end through the box to the end unit for the purpose of allowing a user to install the new tube while standing at the junction box.
Therefore, Braathen in view of Aizawa further discloses connecting said distal end of the new water connecting tube to said end unit (i.e. a supply unit in the manner taught by Aizawa as described above) and connecting a proximal end of said new water conducting tube to a junction inside said plumbing connection box 1 (to allow for use of the new water connecting tube in the same manner in which the first water connecting tube was used).
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Minnick (US Patent 6,435,206) teaches a plumbing installation method and Yeong-chun (US Patent Application 2009/0229672) teaches a plumbing supply box with inner tubes provided within outer leading tubes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights