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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 29 recites that “the firs shell member further comprises a closure member extending longitudinally from the first cover for closing the tubular enclosure” however, there is no disclosure of such “closure member” in the originally filed specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “closure member extending longitudinally from the first cover” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 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 1-25 and 29 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 1 recites the limitations "the end of the pipe" in line 1 and “the threaded end of the pipe” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 29 is indefinite in that it is unclear what is meant by the “closure member” in line 2 since the specification does not disclose a “closure member” as recited in the claim. For examination purposes, the “closure member) will be interpreted as any longitudinally extending part of the cover.
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, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11-13, 16-19, 25, 26, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtois et al. (US Patent 8,375,995) in view of Drouin et al. (US Patent 8,985,156).
With regards to claim 1, Courtois et al. discloses a protector assembly D for protecting a thread formed at an end of a pipe (abstract), the protector assembly comprising at least a first shell member CP1 and a second shell member CP2, wherein the first shell member comprises a first longitudinally extending wall (fig. 2A), the second shell member comprises a second longitudinally extending wall (fig. 2A), and the shell members are configured to cooperate in an assembled configuration to form a tubular enclosure having an open end, the tubular enclosure arranged for enclosing a threaded end of the pipe (fig. 2B). Courtois et al. discloses that the protector assembly includes an inward radial projection flange intended to cover the transverse annular surface at the end of the free terminal portion P1 to ensure a continuous local seal over the entire circumference at that position (col. 12, lines 22-33). Although Courtois et al does not clearly illustrate such a sealing flange such that in an assembled configuration, the shell members form a tubular enclosure having an open end and an opposing closed end, Drouin et al. teaches providing a cover 17 to a protector assembly 1 of a tubular member 2 (abstract) such that the protector assembly forms a tubular enclosure having an open end and an opposing closed second end (col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 4 and figs. 1 and 2).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a first cover to the first shell member of Courtois et al. such that the protector assembly, in the assembled configuration, forms a tubular enclosure having an open end and an opposing closed second end (col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 4 and figs. 1 and 2)., in light of the teachings of Drouin et al., in order to provide fluid-tightness for the protector assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant should note that forming the first cover integrally with the first longitudinal wall is an obvious matter of design choice as it has been held that “the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the [prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968, 144 USPQ 374, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant should note that providing a second cover to the second shell member amounts to mere duplication of parts and as it has been held, “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant should note that it is obvious that when providing multiple covers, the covers would be located at different longitudinal positions and there would inherently be compartments formed between two of the covers.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant should note that the spacing between the covers is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 11-13, see col. 3, lines 54-56 of Drouin et al. As taught by Drouin et al. the threads of the protector assembly are designed to be complementary to the threads of the pipe.
Regarding claim 16, see figures 2A and 2B of Courtois et al. with unnumbered flange and shoulder.
Regarding claims 17-19, see figures 2A and 2B of Courtois et al.
Regarding claim 25, see figure 1 of Drouin et al.
With regards to claim 26, Courtois et al. discloses a protector assembly D for protecting a thread formed at an end of a pipe (abstract), the protector assembly comprising at least a first shell member CP1 and a second shell member CP2, wherein the first shell member comprises a first longitudinally extending wall (fig. 2A), the second shell member comprises a second longitudinally extending wall (fig. 2A), and the shell members are configured to cooperate in an assembled configuration to form a tubular enclosure having an open end, the tubular enclosure arranged for enclosing a threaded end of the pipe (fig. 2B). Courtois et al. discloses that the protector assembly includes an inward radial projection flange intended to cover the transverse annular surface at the end of the free terminal portion P1 to ensure a continuous local seal over the entire circumference at that position (col. 12, lines 22-33). Although Courtois et al does not clearly illustrate such a sealing flange such that in an assembled configuration, the shell members form a tubular enclosure having an open end and an opposing closed end, Drouin et al. teaches providing a cover 17 to a protector assembly 1 of a tubular member 2 (abstract) such that the protector assembly forms a tubular enclosure having an open end and an opposing closed second end (col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 4 and figs. 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have designed the flange of Courtois as a first cover attached to the first shell member such that, in the assembled configuration, the protector assembly forms a tubular enclosure having an open end and an opposing closed second end (col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 4 and figs. 1 and 2)., in light of the teachings of Drouin et al., in order to provide fluid-tightness for the protector assembly. Regarding the recitation of the second shell member comprising a second cover, Applicant should note that providing a second cover to the second shell member amounts to mere duplication of parts and as it has been held, “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Applicant should note that such covers would overlap since they would all be extending radially from the shell members.
Regarding claim 28, Applicant should note that it is obvious that where multiple covers are provided, the covers would be extending proximal to both the first and second shell members.
Regarding claim 29, as best understood, see tabs 18 and 19 of cover 17 of Drouin et al.
Regarding claim 30, see figure 2A and 2B of Courtois et al.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtois et al./Drouin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosen (US Patent 8,680,984).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Courtois et al/Drouin et al. discloses a protector assembly as outlined above but does not explicitly disclose that the second longitudinally extending wall comprises a first groove for receiving the first cover however, it is known to provide an internal groove in the inner wall of a protector assembly to seat a cover thereof as attested by Rosen, see cover20 of Rosen that is captured in an internal groove in figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a first groove for receiving the first cover in the second longitudinally extending wall, in light of the teachings of Rosen, in order to ensure a good seal of the cover. Applicant should note that it is obvious that a similar groove would be provided in the first longitudinally extending wall if a cover were anchored on the second shell member.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant should note that forming the second cover integrally with the second longitudinal wall is an obvious matter of design choice as it has been held that “the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the [prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968, 144 USPQ 374, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, see figure 1 of Rosen where cover 20 interferes with the groove in which the cover is inserted.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Applicant should note that it is obvious that the grooves will be arc-shaped since the shell members are arc-shaped.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtois et al./Drouin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US Patent 6968864).
Courtois et al./Drouin et al. discloses a protector assembly as shown above but does not explicitly disclose that the first shell member and the second shell member comprise complementary projections and recesses wherein in the assembled configuration, the projections engage the recesses however, Miyamoto et al. teaches such assembling of two shell members 9, see figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the shell members of Courtois et al//Drouin et al. such that they include complementary projections and recesses, in light of the teachings of Miyamoto et al., as a known alternative way of assembling shell members.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtois et al./Drouin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US Patent 6,968,864).
Courtois et al./Drouin et al. discloses a protector assembly as shown above. Although Courtois et al./Drouin et al. does not specifically disclose that each shell member comprises an external groove in an outer surface opposite the tubular enclosure however, Miyamoto et al. teaches such external grooves formed on similar shell members, see figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed external grooves on an outer surface of the shell members of Courtois et al./Drouin et al., in light of the teachings of Miyamoto et al., as is known in the art. Applicant should note that grooves are capable of receiving cable ties.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtois et al./Drouin et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Skjevik (US Patent 12,000,520).
Courtois et al./Drouin et al. discloses a protector assembly as shown above but do not disclose a wireless readable memory located between the first and the second covers in the assembled configuration however, Skjevik teaches providing such a wireless readable memory embedded in a cover 135 of a protector assembly, see co. 20, lines 19-48 and figure 13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a wireless readable memory located in the cover of Courtois et al./Drouin et al., in light of the teachings of Skjevik, in order to store information related the protector assembly. Applicant should note that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to place the wireless readable memory in a place where it will be shielded from damage whether between covers of embedded in a cover.
Claim(s) 24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtois et al./Drouin et al. as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, and further in view of Nommensen (US Patent 11,480,287).
Regarding claim 24, Courtois et al./Drouin et al. discloses a protector as shown above but does not disclose a visual indicia as claimed however, Nommensen teaches such visual indicia on such a protector assembly, see figures 1 and 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a visual indicia on the cover of Courtois et al./Drouin et al. such that the visual indicia is exposed to the environment, in light of the teachings of Nommensen, so as to display pertinent information of the protector assembly that is readily visible.
Regarding claim 27, the wireless readable memory of Nommensen is a RFID chip. Applicant should note that it is obvious that when providing multiple covers, the covers would be located at different longitudinal positions and there would inherently be compartments formed between two of the covers that could house the RFID chip.
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 ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 10:00 AM to 6:00 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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights