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 without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 03/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/19/26.
Specification
The status of the nonprovisional parent application (whether patented or abandoned) needs to be included in the cross reference to related applications at the start of the specification. If a parent application has become a patent, the expression “now Patent No. _____” should follow the filing date of the parent application. If a parent application has become abandoned, the expression “now abandoned” should follow the filing date of the parent application.
The status of the nonprovisional application (whether patented or abandoned) needs to be included in paragraph [0076]. If a parent application has become a patent, the expression “now Patent No. _____” should follow the filing date of the application. If an application has become abandoned, the expression “now abandoned” should follow the filing date of the application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, the phrase --of the spreader mechanism-- should be inserted after “a first body end ring”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-10 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 6, it is unclear how the first gasket and second gasket relate to the gasket introduced in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rex et al (US 6,481,762)
As to claim 1, Rex et al discloses a coupling comprising: a spreader mechanism (204/208); and an expandable gasket assembly comprising: a gasket (212); and an axially movable connector (206) coupled to the gasket and the spreader mechanism.
As to claim 4, Rex et al discloses the coupling of claim 1, wherein the gasket is positioned within a bore of the spreader mechanism and wherein the gasket is configured to form a seal with a pipe length. Refer to Fig. 2.
As to claim 5, Rex et al discloses the coupling of claim 1, wherein the spreader mechanism is coupled to and positioned between a first body end ring (206) and a second body end ring (206).
As to claim 6, Rex et al discloses the coupling of claim 5, further comprising: a first gasket (212a) positioned within a body bore; and a second gasket (212b) positioned within the body bore, the second gasket positioned between the first gasket and the second body end ring (Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Rex et al discloses the coupling of claim 5, further comprising a body (202) within the spreader mechanism between the first body end ring and the second body end ring (Fig. 2), the body and the spreader mechanism configured to control telescoping of the first body end ring and the second body end ring along the body.
As to claim 8, Rex et al discloses the coupling of claim 5, wherein the first body end ring comprises a first spreader bracket and the second body end ring comprises a second spreader bracket, wherein the first spreader bracket and the second spreader bracket are threadedly engaged with the spreader mechanism (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Percebois et al (US 5,297,826)
As to claim 1, Percebois et al discloses a coupling comprising: a spreader mechanism (2/12 or 12); and an expandable gasket assembly comprising: a gasket (8); and an axially movable connector (11) coupled to the gasket and the spreader mechanism.
As to claim 4, Percebois et al discloses the coupling of claim 1, wherein the gasket is positioned within a bore of the spreader mechanism and wherein the gasket is configured to form a seal with a pipe length. Refer to Fig. 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Percebois et al in view of Krausz et al (US 7,571,940).
As to claim 2, Percebois et al discloses the coupling of claim 1, except for further comprising a gasket assembly comprising a first gasket near a first body end ring and a second gasket near a second body end ring of the spreader mechanism; wherein: in a disengaged position, the first gasket and the second gasket are positioned in an axially innermost position; and in an engaged position, the first gasket and the second gasket are positioned in an axially outermost position adjacent to the first body end ring and the second body end ring, respectively.
Percebois et al discloses a coupling for connecting one pipe end. However, Krausz et al teaches a similar, sleeved coupling for connecting two pipes, one at each end of the coupling (Figs. 1 and 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Percebois et al as a sleeved coupling for connecting one pipe at each end, as taught by Krausz et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to securely connect two pipes instead of one.
Percebois et al/Krausz et al thereby teaches a gasket assembly comprising a first gasket (8) near a first body end ring (29) and a second gasket (8) near a second body end ring of the spreader mechanism; wherein: in a disengaged position, the first gasket and the second gasket are positioned in an axially innermost position (Fig. 1); and in an engaged position, the first gasket and the second gasket are positioned in an axially outermost position (Fig. 3) adjacent to the first body end ring and the second body end ring, respectively
As to claim 5, Percebois et al/Krausz et al discloses the coupling of claim 1, wherein the spreader mechanism is coupled to and positioned between a first body end ring (29) and a second body end ring (29).
As to claim 6, Percebois et al/Krausz et al discloses the coupling of claim 5, further comprising: a first gasket (8) positioned within a body bore; and a second gasket (8) positioned within the body bore, the second gasket positioned between the first gasket and the second body end ring (Fig. 1).
As to claim 7, Percebois et al/Krausz et al discloses the coupling of claim 5, further comprising a body (2) within the spreader mechanism between the first body end ring and the second body end ring, the body and the spreader mechanism configured to control telescoping of the first body end ring and the second body end ring along the body.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679