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 § 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, 5, 6 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudar (WO 2013/171681) in view of Krauleidis (DE 10016312).
Regarding claim 1, Sudar discloses a pipe connector Fig. 1 for tightly connecting a first pipe end 8a to a second pipe end 8b, with a sleeve-like base body 3, which has a first receptacle for inserting a first pipe end and a second receptacle for inserting a second pipe end, with first retaining elements 6a in the area of the first receptacle, which are designed to fixate a first pipe end inserted into the first receptacle in the first receptacle after the pipe connector has been pressed, and with second retaining elements 7a in the area of the second receptacle, which are designed to fixate a second pipe end inserted into the second receptacle in the second receptacle after the pipe connector has been pressed, wherein one or more bridge retaining elements 5 are provided, wherein a bridge retaining element extends in each case from the area of the first receptacle to the area of the second receptacle and forms at least one of the first retaining elements and at least one of the second retaining elements. However, Sudar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pipe connector has a preferably sleeve-like housing which at least partially surrounds the base body having a first and second housing. Krauleidis, a pipe connector 1 Fig. 1, discloses a sleeve-like housing 12, 13 which at least partially surrounds the base body 11 the housing having a first housing 12 opening for inserting a first pipe end into the first receptacle and a second housing 13 opening for inserting a second pipe end into the second receptacle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Sudar with a sleeve housing as taught by Krauleidis in order to provide a radial pressing force.
Sudar also fails to explicitly disclose a functional limitation where the pipe connector is tightened by pressing. Nevertheless, [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Sudar also fails to explicitly disclose the selected material of the base body being plastic. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since 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 used as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Regarding limitations to a plurality of bridge elements, this is considered a design choice since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses wherein the housing (12, 13 of Krauleidis) is a sleeve-like housing.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses wherein the housing has a plurality of housing parts (12, 13 of Krauleidis) which have sliding surfaces corresponding to respective pressing surfaces of the base body 11, so that an axial pressing force exerted on the housing parts by means of a pressing tool causes a radial pressing force on the base body.
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more bridge retaining elements have a higher tensile strength and/or higher yield strength than the base body. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tensile strength of the retaining elements to any number of ranges disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses wherein the one or more bridge retaining elements 5 are formed in one piece.
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cutting surface of the cutting edges pointing towards the axial center of the pipe connector preferably has a steeper angle to the axial axis than the cutting surface pointing away from the axial center of the pipe connector. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the cutting edges to any number of ranges (i.e. steeper angle) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, the combination discloses wherein the pipe connector 1 has a sleeve-shaped sealing element 2 which extends between the first retaining elements 6a and the second retaining elements 7a from the area of the first receptacle to the area of the second receptacle and is arranged further inwards in the radial direction of the base body 3 than the one or more bridge retaining elements 5.
Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses wherein at least one of the first pipe end 8a and the second pipe end 8b is made of a flexible material.
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses wherein the flexible material is plastic (plastic pipes).
Regarding claim 15, the combination discloses a method for tightly connecting a first pipe end 8a to a second pipe end 8b, in which a first pipe end is inserted into the first receptacle of a pipe connector 1, the method comprising inserting a second pipe end is inserted into the second receptacle of the pipe connector, and inserting the pipe connector is pressed in such a way that the first pipe end is fixated in the first receptacle by the first retaining elements 6a and the second pipe end is fixated in the second receptacle by the second retaining elements 7a.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudar in view of Krauleidis and further in view of Porowski (US 4575129).
Regarding claim 2, Sudar and Krauleidis disclose the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the base body is formed from a plurality of base body segments. Porowski, a pipe connector Fig. 1, discloses the use of a base body 38 formed from a plurality of base body segments 40 and 42. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base body of Sudar with a plurality of segments as taught by Porowski in order to easily assemble and disassemble without complete disassembly.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses wherein one or more of the base body segments (40, 42 of Porowski) have alignment means 46 for aligning adjacent base body segments with respect to one another.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses wherein one or more of the base body segments (40, 42 of Porowski) have one or more receptacles (receptacle having 7) for a respective bridge retaining element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are allowed.
Claims 7 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In view of the Applicants arguments and a review of the prior art by the Examiner; the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all of the claimed subject matter of claims 7, 8, 16 and 17 including where the housing parts among each other and/or the housing parts and the base body have latching means corresponding to one another in order to latch the housing parts in the non-pressed and/or pressed state. There is no motivation to modify the prior art references, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, in the manner required by the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Krauleidis reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Sudar with respect to the subject matter of amended claim 1, stating there is no support for the proposed combination and modification of Sudar and Krauleidis.
However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no support for the proposed combination and modification of Sudar and Krauleidis, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F. 2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Sudar discloses a pipe connector for tightly connecting a first pipe end to a second pipe end by pressing, with a sleeve-like base body. Krauleidis teaches that it is well known to provide an alternate way of providing pressing forces with two housing parts 12, 13 having respective inclined, frustoconical sliding surfaces, which correspond to respective inclined, frustoconical pressing surfaces on the outside of a base body 11 that are moved towards each other providing a visual cue of attachment. During this movement, the inclined sliding surfaces of the housing parts 12, 13 slide over the corresponding pressing surfaces of the base body, whereby the axial pressing forces are redirected into radial pressing forces on the base body. It is this modification that is being applied to Sudar, since Sudar already discloses all the other features required by the claims.
Applicant further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not exchange the expressly described sheet metal jacket clamp (3) of Sudar with a base body made of plastic. This is not persuasive since the Sudar reference would not be destroyed if a modification was employed and only suggest a metal material since it allows a simple and inexpensive production, moreover, as stated above 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 used as a matter of obvious design choice.
Further structure should be claimed to further define the pipe connector.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights