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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 20-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Claims 21-24 include at least a gas escape void and/or third cavity, however, these features are to the embodiment shown in Figs. 3A-3B and as described in applicant’s specification and not to the elected embodiment shown in Figs. 2A-2B.
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’’), wherein the fitting comprises a shoulder on an inside of the fitting (Fig. 10B, pipe stop 212 defines a shoulder on an inside of the fitting 200’’), and wherein the portion from the end of the tube that is inserted into the fitting is controlled by the shoulder during assembly (Fig. 10B, the portion from the end of the tube 6 is inserted into the fitting is controlled by 212 during assembly similar to applicant’s invention);
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 the single fill void on the fitting and wherein the single fill void is either on an exterior side of the fitting or on an end of the fitting (Sees claim 1 and 7 above for the same reasons, the single fill void is on an exterior side of the fitting similar to applicant’s invention in order to fill injection molded plastic through the single fill void).
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 wherein the fitting comprises a shoulder on an inside of the fitting, and wherein the portion from the end of the tube that is inserted into the fitting is controlled by the shoulder during assembly;
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 the single fill void on the fitting and wherein the single fill void 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 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Weissmann and Kim do not disclose claim 1, in particular, the recitations “wherein the fitting comprises a shoulder on an inside of the fitting, and wherein the portion from the end of the tube that is inserted into the fitting is controlled by the shoulder during assembly…wherein the second cavity is filled with second mechanism via a single fill void that provides access to the second cavity from an exterior of the fitting”, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Weissmann discloses those particular features. See the updated rejection above. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Weissman disclose two separate openings, holes 60 and 62, that both require access to the second cavity from the exterior of the fitting and the claim requires “a single fill void” which means only one void, not two, and the existence of a second opening providing access to the cavity – regardless of its designated function – precludes Weissman from disclosing a “single fill void”, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because claim 1 recites “a single fill void” which “fill” determines the type of void/port/opening/hole for filling the second mechanism. Weissman discloses only void 60 is for filling and 62 is for viewing and does not disclose 62 providing access in such a manner to be used for filling because 62 is smaller than 60 which 62 would not allow access like 60. Also, claim 1 does not preclude other fill voids because claim 1 recites “wherein the second cavity is filled with the second mechanism via a single fill void that provides access to the second cavity” which only requires having at least one fill void. If applicant intended to only have a single fill void, then it must be properly claimed. For example, including language similar to “wherein the single fill void is the only void on the exterior of the fitting”. Claim 1 also does not require the entire second cavity is filled with the second mechanism via the single fill void. Even if claim 1 precludes any additional void beyond the claimed single fill void as applicant argued, the new claims 21-24 that includes a gas escape void opposite the single fill void contradicts applicant’s arguments. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and contradictory.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the Examiner’s interpretation conflates structural singularity with the functional primacy and a fitting with two holes does not become a fitting with a “single fill void” merely because one of the holes is primarily used for viewing, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because two holes where one is only used for filling can be reasonably interpreted as a “single fill void” and the other hole is only used for viewing. Also, the term “inlet” does not mean access and the inlet of 62 of Weissman is an inlet for viewing only and not for “filling”. Applicant’s arguments appear to define “a single fill void” as having only a single hole/opening on the fitting, however, claim 1 nor applicant’s specification specially defines “a single fill void” as having only a single hole/opening on the fitting. The recitation “is filled with the second mechanism via a single fill void” is equivalent to filling via one fill void or via a fill void. There is no language in claim 1 that defines “a single fill void” as being the only hole/opening. By including “fill”, which modifies the type of void, does not preclude the fitting of having other voids/holes/openings that are not for filling. Applicant’s arguments appear to interpret “single” as excluding any other holes/openings regardless of the type of holes/openings, however, such interpretation would be unreasonable and appear to be applicant’s own special definition. If applicant intended “a single fill void” to also include that the fitting has only one opening/hole/void regardless of the type via the single fill void then it must be properly claimed. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that if Weissman truly disclosed a “single fill void” as required by the claims, the Examiner would have no need to identify these alternative references as examples of fittings with only a single hole, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Weissman does disclose only one single void for filling which meets the limitation of “a single fill void” and the additional references that have only a single hole is to disclose that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have either construction of with or without a viewing hole. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that applicant’s embodiment shown in Figs. 3A-3B can include a gas escape void 330 would still allow claim 1 to have “a single fill void”, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because applicant’s arguments above against the view hole 62 of Weissman contradicts applicant’s arguments about claiming a gas escape void. Applicant’s arguments previously suggest that “a single fill void” means the fitting cannot have any other type of holes/openings which appears to contradict applicant’s arguments of including a gas escape void. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, contradictory, and unclear.
In response to applicant’s argument that Weissman does not disclose a shoulder on an inside of the fitting, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because in Fig. 10B, there is a shoulder 212 on an inside of the fitting. Also, see the updated rejection above. Therefore, applicant failed to reasonably consider Weissman that clearly shows a shoulder at 212. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and failed to reasonably consider Weissman.
In regard to claim 11 and all dependent claims, applicant relied upon the same argument for claim 1. Therefore, arguments to claim 11 and dependent claims are unpersuasive for the same reasons above for claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights