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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/04/2025.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/24/2024 are accepted in view of the amended claims filed on 11/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8 and 18 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 8 recites “via a first fill hole…on an exterior side of the fitting or on an end of the fitting” which is unclear because claim 1 now recites “via single fill void…from an exterior of the fitting” and in applicant’s arguments appear to argue that there is only a single void/hole for filling the injection molded plastic. Therefore, it is unclear if the first fill hole and exterior side of claim 8 is the same or different from claim 1.
Claim 18 is unclear for the same reasons above for claim 8.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In this case, claim 8 recites “the injection molded plastic via a first fill hole…the first fill hole is either on an exterior side of the fitting or on an end of the fitting” which does not further limit the subject matter since claim 1 previously recited the injection molded plastic is filled in the second cavity via a single fill void on an exterior of the fitting. Therefore, claim 8 does not appear to further limit the subject matter and appears to broaden the subject matter by reciting “an exterior side of the fitting or on an end of the fitting”.
Claim 18 also does not further limit the subject matter similar to claim 8 above.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissmann (US 2015/0276099 A1) in view of Kim (GB 2426308 B).
In regard to claim 1, Weissmann discloses a potted cavity fitting (Figs. 10A and 10B shows a potted cavity fitting), the potted cavity fitting comprising:
a fitting (Fig. 10A, fitting 200’’) configured to receive an end of a tube (Fig. 10A, end of tube 6) and a portion from the end of the tube (Fig. 10B, a portion from the end of tube 6 is received within 200’’);
a first cavity within the fitting (Fig. 10B, first cavity at 262 within the fitting), wherein the first cavity retains a first mechanism that prevents or reduces liquid from passing through (Fig 10B, O-ring 262 defines a first mechanism which is for preventing or reducing liquid from passing through), wherein the first mechanism is an elastomeric seal (Fig. 10B, 262 is an elastomeric O-ring); and
a second cavity within the fitting (Fig. 10B, a second cavity radially below hole 60 within the fitting), wherein the second cavity retains a second mechanism that is at least one of coupled to or formed within the tube (Fig. 10B and in [0031] discloses the second cavity is for an epoxy that defines a second mechanism that is at least coupled to or formed within the tube) and wherein the second cavity is filled with the second mechanism via a single void that provides access to the second cavity from an exterior of the fitting (Fig. 10B, the second mechanism is filled via only a single void 60 that provides access to the second cavity from an exterior of the fitting and in [0031] discloses only void/hole 60 is used for filling the second cavity and void/hole 62 is smaller than 60 that is used only to view the second mechanism and being smaller than 60 inhibits any leakage of the second mechanism, therefore, only 60 would reasonably be considered a fill void).
Weissmann does not expressly disclose the elastomeric seal is an X-ring.
In the related field of pipe joints with elastomeric seals, Kim teaches an elastomeric X-ring (Fig. 1 shows a pipe joint having an X-ring at 27) has at least the advantage of increased pressed rate, increase sealability, and allows for ease of insertion (See abstract that discloses the advantages of the X-ring).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the O-ring of Weissmann for the X-ring of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of increased pressed rate, increase sealability, and allows for ease of insertion as taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider substituting an O-ring for an X-ring in order to have the known advantages of extended seal life, more sealing efficiency, resistance to extrusion and spiral failure, and more tolerance to lubrication conditions as disclosed at https://eriks.com/en/know-how-hub/blogs/when-do-you-use-an-x-ring/.
In regard to claim 2, Weissmann and Kim disclose the potted cavity fitting of claim 1, and Weissmann further discloses wherein the tube is comprised of polyethylene (In [0024] discloses tube 6 can be made of PEX which is a polyethylene).
Weissmann and Kim do not expressly disclose wherein the tube is comprised of at least one of polypropylene, polyester, polyoxymethylene, polyamide, polyarylene sulfide, polyketone, polyetherketone, polyether ether ketone, polyether ketone ketone, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyaryletherketone, polyether nitrile, fluororesin, or liquid crystal polymer.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the tube of Weissmann in view of Kim to be made of a known material such as at least one of polypropylene, polyester, polyoxymethylene, polyamide, polyarylene sulfide, polyketone, polyetherketone, polyether ether ketone, polyether ketone ketone, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyaryletherketone, polyether nitrile, fluororesin, or liquid crystal polymer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of lightweight, strong, and durability of polypropylene, mechanical strength, durability, and hydrophobic for polyester, dimensional stability, high mechanical strength, and chemical resistance for polyoxymethylene, and high temperature and chemical resistance of polyether ether ketone. See https://www.plasticmachininginc.com/the-major-benefits-of-using-peek-polymers/#:~:text=PEEK%20polymers%20offer%20exceptional%20chemical,the%20need%20for%20frequent%20replacements., https://kempner.co.uk/2019/04/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-polypropylene-blog/#:~:text=A:%20Polypropylene%20offers%20several%20advantages,%2C%20automotive%20parts%2C%20and%20more., https://www.xometry.com/resources/materials/polyester/#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20Advantages%20of,and%20has%20good%20wear%20resistance., and https://europlas.com.vn/en-US/blog-1/pom-material-the-good-the-bad-and-the-brilliant-applications#:~:text=POM%20material%20exhibits%20a%20tensile,without%20significant%20wear%20or%20failure. as examples of online sources disclosing the known advantages of some of the materials of claim 2.
In regard to claim 3, Weissmann and Kim disclose the potted cavity fitting of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the fitting is comprised of at least one of stainless steel, aluminum, or titanium (In [0024] discloses the fitting can be made of metal).
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the fitting of Weissmann in view of Kim to be made of a known material such as at least one of stainless steel, aluminum, or titanium with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of corrosion resistance, fire and heat resistance, impact resistance, and strength for stainless steel as disclosed at https://www.srsgroup.co.nz/blog/7-benefits-of-stainless-steel/, lightweight, corrosion resistance, and ductility for aluminum as disclosed at https://www.thyssenkrupp-materials.co.uk/advantages-of-aluminium.html, and high strength, corrosion resistance, lightweight, and recyclable for titanium as disclosed at https://monroeengineering.com/blog/5-key-advantages-of-titanium-in-manufacturing/.
In regard to claim 7, Weissmann and Kim disclose the potted cavity fitting of claim 1, and Weissmann further discloses wherein the second mechanism is an injection molded plastic (Fig. 10B and in [0031] discloses an epoxy is injected through at least hole 60 which epoxy is plastic and is injected in the hole which is molded into the shape within the hole, therefore, the injected epoxy can be reasonably interpreted as an injection molded plastic and is similar to the applicant’s invention of injecting a plastic through a hole to form a mold) and wherein the injection molded plastic bonds to the portion from the end of the tube inserted into the fitting (Fig. 10B, the epoxy bonds to the portion from the end of the tube inserted into 200’’ as shown around 60).
Weissmann and Kim do not expressly disclose the injection molded plastic is at least one of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, polyoxymethylene, polyamide, polyarylene sulfide, polyketone, polyetherketone, polyether ether ketone, polyether ketone ketone, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyarvletherketone, polyether nitrile, fluororesin, or liquid crystal polymer.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injection molded plastic of Weissmann in view of Kim to be made of a known and reliable injection molded plastic material such as at least polyether ether ketone, polyethylene, polyoxymethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of at least mechanical and chemical resistance, wear resistance, stiffness, impact resistance, lightness, and fire resistance as disclosed at https://www.precisionmoldedplastics.com/plastic-injection-molding-materials/ which the website also list various other materials and their benefits.
In regard to claim 8, Weissmann and Kim disclose the potted cavity fitting of claim 7, and Weissmann further discloses wherein the second cavity is filled with the injection molded plastic via a first fill hole on the fitting and wherein the first fill hole is either on an exterior side of the fitting or on an end of the fitting (See claim 1 above for the same reasons and see the section above under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 such that claim 8 does not appear to further limit the subject matter).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissmann (US 2015/0276099 A1) in view of Kim (GB 2426308 B) and Vanesky (US 5,685,577).
Weissmann and Kim disclose the potted cavity fitting of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the portion from the end of the tube is prepared for adhesion to the second mechanism and wherein the preparation for adhesion comprises at least one of application of a primer or etchant, lasered with an ultraviolet laser, or application of a plasma/corona treatment.
In the related field of potted cavity fittings, Vanesky teaches applying a primer prior to applying an adhesive (Fig. 2A, potted cavity fitting as shown and in 1:4-19 discloses a primer can be applied prior to applying an adhesive) in order to have at least the known advantage of a primer which is to increase a bond between an adhesive and a surface as disclosed at https://www.forgeway.com/learning/blog/primers-affect-on-efficiency-and-cost-in-bonding-processes#:~:text=The%20main%20benefit%20of%20using,reliability%20of%20the%20end%20product..
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portion from the end of the tube in contact with the adhesive of Weissmann and Kim to include a primer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a strong bond between a surface of the tube and the adhesive as taught by Vanesky.
Weissmann, Kim, and Vanesky do not expressly disclose an etchant.
However, primers and etchants are known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that are combined or used alone in order to improve adhesion as disclosed at https://www.gluespec.com/blog/primers-and-surface-preparation-for-proper-adhesive-wetting-bonding-q-a.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the primer of Weissmann in view of Kim and Vanesky for an etchant with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of at least a known and reliable method for enhancing adhesion. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissmann (US 2015/0276099 A1) in view of Kim (GB 2426308 B) and Arment et al. (US 2013/0167357 A1, hereinafter “Arment”).
Weissmann and Kim disclose the potted cavity fitting of claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second cavity of the fitting is coated with at least one of paint, mold release, or grease to ensure that a bond between the fitting and the injection molded plastic is weaker than a bond between the portion from the end of the tube and the injection molded plastic.
In the related field of pipe fittings, Arment teaches applying paint to the entire surface of a fitting in order to have the advantage of corrosion resistance (Fig. 1c shows a fitting and in [0049] discloses having the fitting painted for corrosion resistance).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fitting of Weissmann and Kim to include coating the entire fitting including the second cavity with at least paint with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of corrosion resistance as taught by Arment.
Weissmann, Kim, and Arment do not expressly disclose mold-release or grease.
However, paint, mold-release, and grease are known to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to create a barrier as disclosed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_agent and commercially available as disclosed at https://www.mscdirect.com/browse/tn/Lubricants-Coolants-Fluids/Lubricants-Lubrication-Equipment/Lubricants/Mold-Release-Lubricants-Cleaners?navid=2107438.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the primer of Weissmann in view of Kim and Arment for at least a mold-release with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of at least a known and reliable method for providing a mold-release barrier and is commercially available. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 11-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissmann (US 2015/0276099 A1) in view of Kim (GB 2426308 B) and Perherin et al. (US 2024/0280198 A1, hereinafter “Perherin”).
In regard to claim 11, Weissmann and Kim disclose a potted cavity fitting, the potted cavity fitting comprising:
a fitting configured to receive an end of a tube and a portion from the end of the tube;
a first cavity within the fitting, wherein the first cavity retains a first mechanism that prevents or reduces liquid from passing through, wherein the first mechanism is an elastomeric X-ring seal (See claim 1 above for the same reasons that also requires “A potted cavity…X-ring seal”); and
a second cavity within the fitting, wherein the second cavity retains a second mechanism that is at least one of coupled to or formed within the tube and wherein the second cavity is filled with the second mechanism via a single fill void that provides access to the second cavity from an exterior of the fitting (See claim 1 above for the same reasons that recite the same limitations of “a second cavity…an exterior of the fitting”).
Weissmann and Kim do not expressly disclose the potted cavity fitting is for an aircraft.
In the related field of pipe fittings, Perherin discloses at least aircrafts have at least fluid circuits that require pipe fittings (Fig. 1 and in [0001-0006] discloses aircrafts have at least fluid circuits that require pipe fittings).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fitting of Weissmann in view of Kim to be included in an aircraft with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a known and reliable fitting of Weissmann in view of Kim in an aircraft system.
It is also noted that the crux of applicant’s invention as claimed in claim 11 is the potted cavity fitting and not an aircraft. The claimed aircraft appears to be the intended use of the claimed potted cavity fitting. Since aircrafts are known to have pipe systems as suggested by Perherin, then Weissmann in view of Kim and Perherin would reasonably suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the pipe fitting of Weissmann in view of Kim in an aircraft system.
In regard to claim 12, Weissmann, Kim, and Perherin disclose the aircraft of claim 11, and Weissmann further discloses wherein the tube is comprised of at least one of polyethylene (In [0024] discloses tube 6 can be made of PEX which is a polyethylene), polypropylene, polyester, polyoxymethylene, polyamide, polyarylene sulfide, polyketone, polyetherketone, polyether ether ketone, polyether ketone, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyaryletherketone, polyether nitrile, fluororesin, or liquid crystal polymer (See claim 2 above under the section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 for the same reasons).
In regard to claim 13, Weissmann, Kim, and Perherin disclose the aircraft of claim 11, and Weissmann further discloses wherein the fitting is comprised of at least one of stainless steel, aluminum, or titanium (See claim 3 above for the same reasons).
In regard to claim 17, Weissmann, Kim, and Perherin disclose the aircraft of claim 11, and Weissmann further discloses wherein the second mechanism is at least one of an adhesive or an injection molded plastic and wherein the at least one of the adhesive or the injection molded plastic bonds to the portion from the end of the tube inserted into the fitting (See claim 7 above for the same reasons)
Weissmann, Kim, and Perherin do not expressly disclose the injection molded plastic is at least one of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, polyoxymethylene, polyamide, polyarylene sulfide, polyketone, polyetherketone, polyether ether ketone, polyether ketone ketone, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyarvletherketone, polyether nitrile, fluororesin, or liquid crystal polymer.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injection molded plastic of Weissmann in view of Kim and Perherin to be made of a known and reliable injection molded plastic material such as at least polyether ether ketone, polyethylene, polyoxymethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of at least mechanical and chemical resistance, wear resistance, stiffness, impact resistance, lightness, and fire resistance as disclosed at https://www.precisionmoldedplastics.com/plastic-injection-molding-materials/ which the website also list various other materials and their benefits.
In regard to claim 18, Weissmann, Kim, and Perherin disclose the aircraft of claim 17, wherein the second cavity is filled with the at least one of the adhesive or the injection molded plastic via a first fill hole on the fitting and wherein the first fill hole is either on an exterior side of the fitting or on an end of the fitting (See claim 8 above for the same reasons).
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissmann (US 2015/0276099 A1) in view of Kim (GB 2426308 B), Perherin (US 2024/0280198 A1), and Vanesky (US 5,685,577)
Weissmann, Kim, and Perherin disclose the aircraft of claim 11, but do not expressly disclose wherein the portion from the end of the tube is prepared for adhesion to the second mechanism and wherein the preparation for adhesion comprises an etchant, lasered with an ultraviolet laser, or application of a plasma/corona treatment.
In the related field of potted cavity fittings, Vanesky teaches applying a primer prior to applying an adhesive (Fig. 2A, potted cavity fitting as shown and in 1:4-19 discloses a primer can be applied prior to applying an adhesive) in order to have at least the known advantage of a primer which is to increase a bond between an adhesive and a surface as disclosed at https://www.forgeway.com/learning/blog/primers-affect-on-efficiency-and-cost-in-bonding-processes#:~:text=The%20main%20benefit%20of%20using,reliability%20of%20the%20end%20product..
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portion from the end of the tube in contact with the adhesive of Weissmann in view of Kim and Perherin to include a primer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a strong bond between a surface of the tube and the adhesive as taught by Vanesky.
Weissmann, Kim, Perherin, and Vanesky do not expressly disclose an etchant.
However, primers and etchants are known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that are combined or used alone in order to improve adhesion as disclosed at https://www.gluespec.com/blog/primers-and-surface-preparation-for-proper-adhesive-wetting-bonding-q-a.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the primer of Weissmann in view of Kim, Perherin, and Vanesky for an etchant with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of at least a known and reliable method for enhancing adhesion. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissmann (US 2015/0276099 A1) in view of Kim (GB 2426308 B), Perherin (US 2024/0280198 A1), and Arment (US 2013/0167357 A1).
Weissmann, Kim, and Perherin disclose the aircraft of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second cavity of the fitting is coated with at least one of paint, mold release, or grease to ensure that a bond between the fitting and the at least one of the adhesive or the injection molded plastic is weaker than a bond between the portion from the end of the tube and the at least one of the adhesive or the injection molded plastic.
In the related field of pipe fittings, Arment teaches applying paint to the entire surface of a fitting in order to have the advantage of corrosion resistance (Fig. 1c shows a fitting and in [0049] discloses having the fitting painted for corrosion resistance).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fitting of Weissmann in view of Kim and Perherin to include coating the entire fitting including the second cavity with at least paint with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of corrosion resistance as taught by Arment.
Weissmann, Kim, Perherin, and Arment do not expressly disclose mold-release or grease.
However, paint, mold-release, and grease are known to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to create a barrier as disclosed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_agent and commercially available as disclosed at https://www.mscdirect.com/browse/tn/Lubricants-Coolants-Fluids/Lubricants-Lubrication-Equipment/Lubricants/Mold-Release-Lubricants-Cleaners?navid=2107438.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the primer of Weissmann in view of Kim, Perherin, and Arment for at least a mold-release with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of at least a known and reliable method for providing a mold-release barrier and is commercially available. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Weissmann does not disclose a single fill void because there are two inlets 60 and 62 with regard to claims 1 and 11 and relied upon the same argument for the dependent claims, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because hole 62 is not an inlet but rather a viewing port that does not allow any leakage of the second mechanism. See [0031] of Weissmann that recites “the first inlet 60 is configured to receive the sealant, while the second inlet 62 is configured to view the sealant within the pipe connector 10. To enable a user to view the epoxy, but inhibit sealant from exiting the pipe connector 10, the second inlet 62 is preferably configured with a smaller opening than the inlet size of the first inlet 60. In one embodiment, the size of the second inlet 62 may be adapted for a particular sealant to advantageously apply surface tension properties, i.e., the opening is configured to be large enough to view the sealant, but configured size constrained to inhibit leakage.”. Therefore, the hole 60 can be reasonably interpreted as a single fill void for the second mechanism and the hole 62 is merely a viewing port. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments failed to reasonably consider Weissmann and the disclosure of Weissmann meets at least the limitation of “the second cavity is filled with the second mechanism via a single fill void”. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Applicant’s arguments appear to emphasize the use of only having a single fill hole without any other holes, however, such feature is well-known by the prior arts Hankins et al. (US 2017/0336008 A1), Bagnulo (US 3,916,502), Stewing (US 3,920,268), Hubner et al. (US 3,960,394), and McDowell et al. (US 3,920,787) which only have a single fill hole without any other holes on the fittings. The additional hole 62 of Weissmann appears to be an additional feature to allow a user to visually view the filling. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider either having a single fill hole without any other holes or a single fill hole with at least one viewing port as viable options for injecting a plastic into a cavity of a fitting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679