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 .
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 2 and 8 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.
Claims 2 and 8, it is unclear how the threads extend perpendicular to the central axis.
Should “perpendicular” be “parallel? Clarification is needed.
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) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujimaki et al. 4,296,954.
In regard to claim 17, Fujimaki et al. discloses (fig. 8) a method of joining a piping assembly, the method comprising:
inserting a piping end 41 of a piping component within an interior channel of a fitting
body 1; engaging the fitting body by rotating the piping component relative to the fitting body
comprising a seal stop surface (side of 13) and a flange inner surface 13 extending from an inner end of the seal stop surface;
engaging the fitting body 1 by rotating the piping component relative to the fitting body to advance the piping end of the piping component through the interior channel; and
creating a fluid-tight seal between the fitting body 1 and the piping component 141 by compressing a seal 3 between a seal stop surface 13 of the fitting body and the piping end;
wherein:
the fitting body 1 defines a seal groove 12 extending from an internal threading of the fitting body 1 to the seal stop surface 13 and the seal 3 is received within the seal groove (see fig. 8) and positioned radially outward of the flange 13 inner surface, and
compressing the seal 3 between the seal stop surface and the piping end of the piping component comprises expanding the seal radially within the seal groove (see fig. 8).
In regard to claim 18, wherein the seal 3 defines a seal wall; and compressing the seal between the seal stop surface and the piping end of the piping component 41 comprises engaging the seal wall at an angle (the angle between the seal end and the pipe end is 0 degrees, or a zero degree angle) with the piping end of the piping component 41.
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, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimaki et al. 4,296,954 in view of Knox 2,907,589.
In regard to claims 1 and 19, Fujimaki et al. discloses (see fig. 3) a tight-seal piping assembly, comprising:
a fitting body 1 extending from a first fitting end to a second fitting end and comprising:
an outer surface extending from the first fitting end to the second fitting end;
an inner surface opposite the outer surface and defining a central axis and an interior channel, the inner surface comprising a first threading (11), a second threading (11), and an inner flange 13 defining a seal stop surface (sides of 13) and a flange inner surface, and a seal groove 12 extending from the seal stop surface to an end of the first threading (11); and
a seal 3 received within the seal groove 12 of the interior channel and abutting the seal stop surface; and
a piping component 41 comprising a piping end defining a pipe engagement surface, a threaded outer surface 43,
wherein the seal 3 is positioned radially outward of the flange 13 inner surface and axially between the seal stop surface and the pipe engagement surface (see fig. 8).
Fujimaki et al. discloses a piping assembly as described above, but does not disclose the piping component as having a shoulder. Knox teaches that providing piping components in similar types of coupling assemblies either with (see 16 in fig. 12) or without shoulders (see pipe 50 in fig. 14) is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the piping component of Fujimaki et al. to include a shoulder because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
In regard to claim 2, wherein the first threading 11 and the second threading 11 on the inner surface are each spaced axially and extend in a straight direction perpendicular to the central axis (see fig. 1).
In regard to claim 3, wherein the threaded outer surface of the piping component 14’ comprises straight threads (see thread profile 43 in fig. 8).
In regard to claim 5, wherein the piping component 41 is a first piping component, and further comprising a second piping component (a similar pipe 41 would fit in both sides of 1) comprising a second piping end defining a pipe engagement surface, a threaded outer surface, and a piping shoulder on the outer surface (see shoulder 16 taught by Knox in fig. 12 of Knox).
In regard to claim 7, wherein the outer surface of the piping component defines external threading (15 of Knox) proximate to the piping shoulder (16 of Knox), and the fitting body (22 of Knox) touches the piping shoulder of the piping component (see fig. 12 of Knox).
In regard to claims 8, wherein the external threading (43 in fig. 8 of Fujimaki) defines straight threading extending in a direction perpendicular to the central axis of the fitting body (see thread profile in figs. 2 and 7).
In regard to claim 10, Fujimaki et al. discloses (figs. 3 and 8) a tight-seal piping assembly comprising:
a fitting 45 defining a fitting channel and a fitting inner surface comprising a
first internal threading 23, a second internal threading 23, a first seal stop surface 32, and a second seal stop surface 32, and a flange inner surface extending from an inner end of the first seal stop surface to an inner end of the second seal stop surface, the fitting comprising:
a first seal groove 24 defining a first cylindrical groove surface extending from the first
seal stop surface 32 to the first internal threading 23, the first cylindrical groove surface
defining the first seal groove within the fitting channel;
a second seal groove 24 defining a second cylindrical groove surface extending from
the second seal stop surface 32 to the second internal threading 23, the second cylindrical
groove surface defining the second seal groove 24 within the fitting channel;
a first seal 33 received within the first seal groove of the fitting channel radially outward of the inner flange and compressed against the first seal stop surface; and
a second seal 33 received within the second seal groove of the fitting channel and compressed against the second seal stop surface;
a first piping component 10 defining a first piping end 25; and
a second piping component defining a second piping end 25,
wherein the first seal is positioned axially between the first seal stop surface and the first piping end of the first piping component.
Fujimaki et al. discloses a piping assembly as described above, but does not disclose the first and second piping components as having shoulders abutting the fitting. Knox teaches that providing piping components in similar types of coupling assemblies either with shoulders 16 abut the fitting 45 (see 16 in fig. 12 of Knox) or without shoulders (see pipe 50 in fig. 14 of Knox) is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the piping component of Fujimaki et al. to include shoulders abutting the fitting because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
In regard to claim 11, wherein an axis is defined through the fitting channel, the fitting 1 defines an inner flange 13extending radially inward toward the axis from the fitting inner surface, the inner flange defines the first seal stop surface and the second seal stop surface (opposite end sides of 13), each oriented about perpendicular to the axis.
In regard to claim 12, wherein the first seal 3 defines a first seal wall and the second seal 3 defines a second seal wall opposite the first seal wall;
the first seal wall abuts the first seal stop surface 13, and the first piping end of the first piping component 41 engages the first seal wall (see fig. 8); and
the second seal wall abuts the second seal stop surface and the second piping end of the second piping component engages the second seal wall (a pipe 41 is would be inserted into both ends of 1).
In regard to claim 15, wherein the fitting, the first piping component, and the second piping component comprise straight threading (see thread profile 43 in fig. 8).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimaki et al. 4,296,954 in view of Knox 2,907,589 and further in view of Fitts 66,820.
In regard to claim 14, Fujimaki et al. in view of Knox discloses a piping assembly with a
fitting joining two pipe ends as described above, but does not disclose if the pipes are elbow shaped. Fitts teaches that using a similar type of fitting C to join two elbow shaped pipe ends t is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the pipes of Fujimaki et al. in view of Knox to be elbow shaped, as taught by Fitts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 9 and 16 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.
Claim 21 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679