DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
Claims 15-20 are currently withdrawn.
Drawings
Applicant’s amendments to the claim have made moot the previous drawing objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-14 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebello et al. (US 2018/0112495), (hereinafter, Rebello) in view of FR 2269020, (hereinafter, FR-020).
Re Clm 1: Rebello discloses a tracer piping system (see Figs. 5-7) for heating or cooling, the system comprising:
a plurality of tracers (90 and 91, 92 and 93, and 94 and 95), wherein the plurality of tracers are configured to be operatively coupled with
one or more components (86, 87, and 88) to provide the heating or the cooling of the one or more components using a fluid [0039];
one or more bridge pipes (84, 85, 97, 98, 99, and 100), wherein a bridge pipe is configured to be operatively coupled to two tracers (see Fig. 7);
wherein a tracer is connected to the bridge pipe through a connector assembly (see Fig. 7, such as at 1001, 1002, 2001, and 2002),
the connector assembly for transport of the fluid therethrough (see Fig. 7).
Rebello fails to disclose that the disclosed connector assembly comprising: a male connector comprising a male portion provided at one end of the male connector, wherein the male portion comprises: a conical sealing frustum, wherein the conical sealing frustum comprises a convex face; a female connector comprising a female portion at one end of the female connector, wherein the female portion comprises: a female flange having a seat portion, wherein the seat portion has a slanted straight face; wherein the male connector is operatively coupled to the female connector such that the conical sealing frustum forms a line seal with the seat portion of the female connector, and wherein the fluid comprises steam.
However, FR-020 discloses a connection between tubular members, similar to that of Rebello. FR-020 also teaches the details to the details between the connection between tubular members. Where such would before allowing a joint connection to be assembled or disassembled when a needs arises, such as during instillation or disassembly, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would have yielded the same predictable results of forming a leak free structure that directs the fluid flowing through it.
Accordingly, FR-020 teaches (see Figs. 1-3, the right side)
a male connector (see Figs. 1-3; 1, 6, and 13’) comprising a male portion (see Figs. 1-3, the portion containing 13’) provided at one end of the male connector (see Figs. 1-3), wherein the male portion comprises: a conical sealing frustum (at 13’), wherein the conical sealing frustum comprises a convex face (at 13’);
a female connector (see Figs. 1-3; 11, 12, and 14) comprising a female portion at one end of the female connector (see Figs. 1-3, the portion containing 12, 14, and the portion of 11 that abuts 14), wherein the female portion comprises: a female flange (12) having a seat portion (the portion that abuts 13’), wherein the seat portion has a slanted straight face (see the face of 12);
wherein the male connector is operatively coupled to the female connector (see Figs. 1-3) such that the conical sealing frustum forms a line seal with the seat portion of the female connector (see Figs. 1-3), for the purpose of providing a means to allow a joint connection to be assembled or disassembled when a needs arises, such as during instillation or disassembly, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would have yielded the same predictable results of forming a leak free structure that directs the fluid flowing through it.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Rebello, to have had a male connector comprising a male portion provided at one end of the male connector, wherein the male portion comprises: a conical sealing frustum, wherein the conical sealing frustum comprises a convex face; a female connector comprising a female portion at one end of the female connector, wherein the female portion comprises: a female flange having a seat portion, wherein the seat portion has a slanted straight face; wherein the male connector is operatively coupled to the female connector such that the conical sealing frustum forms a line seal with the seat portion of the female connector, as taught by FR-020, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely providing an alternative means of connecting structures or merely illustrating the means of connecting structures, for the purpose of providing a means to allow a joint connection to be assembled or disassembled when a needs arises, such as during instillation or disassembly, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would have yielded the same predictable results of forming a leak free structure that directs the fluid flowing through it.
Rebello in paragraphs [0020, 0022, 0027, 0035-0039] discloses the use of a hot media, but is silent as to the media (fluid) comprises steam.
Steam is a fluid which can be used to transfer heat from one material and/or substance to another material and/or substance, for the purpose of using an alternative fluid or an alternative fluid that comprises steam for carrying and/or transferring thermal energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Rebello, to have had the disclosed fluid comprise steam, with a reasonable expectation of success because one fluid is merely being substituted for another fluid, for the purpose of using an alternative fluid or an alternative fluid that comprises steam for carrying and/or transferring thermal energy.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 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.
Re Clm 2: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses the limitations that wherein the one or more components include a vessel comprising a container or a process pipe (see Figs. 1-3).
Re Clm 3: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses wherein the male portion further comprises a male body (FR-020, see the body of the male member), wherein the female portion comprises female body (FR-020, see the body of the female member), and wherein the male portion and the female portion are pipes (FR-020, see the tubular portions, respectively) of nominal size.
Rebello as modified by FR-020 above fails to disclose that the disclosed size is 0.75 inches.
0.75 inch(es) is/are a standard size for pipes, for the purpose of providing a known or alternative size for a tubular member to transport a medium/fluid to flow through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, to have employed a pipe(s) of disclosed size of 0.75 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success because one pipe size is merely being replaced with another pipe size, for the purpose of providing a known or alternative size for a tubular member to transport a medium/fluid to flow through.
Note that a change is size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Re Clm 4: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses wherein the connector assembly is connector and is torqued to a minimum seating torque of about 30 to about 40 ft-lb to create the line seal.
The recitation “is torqued to a minimum seating torque of about 30 to about 40 ft-lb to create the line seal” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Rebello as modified by FR-020 fails to disclose a 0.5 inch connector.
Having a connector of a given size will allow for a desired flow through the connection, where such would have yielded the same predictable result of allowing fluid to flow through the joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Rebello as modified by FR-020, to have had a 0.5 inch connector, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely modifying the size of a known structure, for the purpose of providing a means to allow for a desired flow through the connection, where such would have yielded the same predictable result of allowing fluid to flow through the joint.
Note that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component. A change is size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Re Clm 5: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses wherein the connector assembly is connector and is torqued to a minimum seating torque of about 30 to about 60 ft-lb to create the line seal.
The recitation “is torqued to a minimum seating torque of about 30 to about 60 ft-lb to create the line seal” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Rebello as modified by FR-020 fails to disclose a 0.75 inch connector.
Having a connector of a given size will allow for a desired flow through the connection, where such would have yielded the same predictable result of allowing fluid to flow through the joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Rebello as modified by FR-020, to have had a 0.75 inch connector, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely modifying the size of a known structure, for the purpose of providing a means to allow for a desired flow through the connection, where such would have yielded the same predictable result of allowing fluid to flow through the joint.
Note that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component. A change is size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Re Clm 6: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses wherein the connector assembly is connector and is torqued to a minimum seating torque of about 60 to about 80 ft-lb to create the line seal.
The recitation “is torqued to a minimum seating torque of about 60 to about 80 ft-lb to create the line seal” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Rebello as modified by FR-020 fails to disclose a 1-inch connector.
Having a connector of a given size will allow for a desired flow through the connection, where such would have yielded the same predictable result of allowing fluid to flow through the joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Rebello as modified by FR-020, to have had a 1-inch connector, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely modifying the size of a known structure, for the purpose of providing a means to allow for a desired flow through the connection, where such would have yielded the same predictable result of allowing fluid to flow through the joint.
Note that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component. A change is size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Re Clm 7: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses wherein the line seal decreases a seating torque when compared to a surface seal by 20 to 40 percent (in a similar way as applicant’s claimed line seal).
The recitation “decreases a seating torque when compared to a surface seal by 20 to 40 percent” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re Clm 8: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses a minimum seating torque for establishing the line seal has a standard deviation of less than 20.
The recitation “a minimum seating torque has a standard deviation of less than 20” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re Clm 9: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses wherein the male connector is located on the tracer and the female connector on the bridge pipe, or wherein the male connector is located on the bridge pipe and the female connector is located on the tracer (Rebello as modified by FR-020 above would have had at least one of the structurally claimed limitations set forth above).
Re Clm 10: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses wherein the bridge pipe is a pipe or a flexible hose (see Figs. 1-3).
As for Clm 11: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, would have the plurality of tracers having a cross-sectional shape that is generally circular, oval, rectangular, curvilinear, triangular, or a combination thereof (see Figs. 1-3).
Re Clm 12: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses wherein the conical sealing frustum with the convex face has a cross-sectional surface when taken along a longitudinal axis that is non-circular (the cross-section view would not be circular or not have circular components).
Re Clms 13 and 21-24: Rebello as modified by FR-020 above, discloses the male connector or the female connector, a least a portion of a surface of the male connector or the female connector,
Rebello as modified by FR-020 fails to disclose that the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector comprises one or more layers applied to a least a disclosed portion of a disclosed surface of the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector, wherein the one or more layers comprise a coating or a plating structured to improve one or more surface properties of the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector, the one or more layers provide corrosion resistance to the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector (claim 21), the one or more layers provide lubrication to improve alignment of the disclosed line seal or seating of disclosed threads of the disclosed male connector and the disclosed female connector (claim 22), the one or more layers fill surface abrasions on the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector to improve the disclosed line seal (claim 23), and the one or more layers provide compressibility for the disclosed line seal between the disclosed male connector and the disclosed female connector.
A layer of coating or layers of coatings are used to protect the underlying material from wear, corrosion, or chemical degradation, additionally, a layer of coating or layers of coatings can enhance or improve properties of the underlying material, aid in lubrication, or provide enhanced surface qualities.
The examiner is taking Official notice that a layer of coating/plating or layers of coatings/platings being applied to a structural member or members is old and well known, for the purpose protecting the underlying material from wear, corrosion, or chemical degradation, additionally, a layer of coating or layers of coatings can enhance or improve properties of the underlying material and the general overall structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Rebello as modified by FR-020, to have included the that the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector comprises one or more layers applied to a least a disclosed portion of a disclosed surface of the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector, wherein the one or more layers comprise a coating or a plating structured to improve one or more surface properties of the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector, the one or more layers provide corrosion resistance to the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector (claim 21), the one or more layers provide lubrication to improve alignment of the disclosed line seal or seating of disclosed threads of the disclosed male connector and the disclosed female connector (claim 22), the one or more layers fill surface abrasions on the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector to improve the disclosed line seal (claim 23), and the one or more layers provide compressibility for the disclosed line seal between the disclosed male connector and the disclosed female connector (claim 24), with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely employing a structural arrangement (that is applying a coating/plating) that is known, for the purpose protecting the underlying material from wear, corrosion, or chemical degradation, additionally, a layer of coating or layers of coatings can enhance or improve properties of the underlying material and the general overall structure.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 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.
Note that the following recitations are merely attributes or the byproducts of having a coating applied to the claimed structure(s): the one or more layers provide corrosion resistance to the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector (claim 21), the one or more layers provide lubrication to improve alignment of the disclosed line seal or seating of disclosed threads of the disclosed male connector and the disclosed female connector (claim 22), the one or more layers fill surface abrasions on the disclosed male connector or the disclosed female connector to improve the disclosed line seal (claim 23), and the one or more layers provide compressibility for the disclosed line seal between the disclosed male connector and the disclosed female connector (claim 24).
As for 14: The device of Rebello as modified by FR-020 above is made to or is capable of having the line seal decreases the seating torque by 30 to 40 percent because Rebello as modified by FR-020 contains all of the claimed subject matter, and is thus, made to or is capable of having the line seal decreases the seating torque by 30 to 40 percent as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 7 in line 11 through page 11 the last line, that Rebello as modified by FR-020 cannot be combined because the references do not specifically disclose steam, that one of skill would not combine the references, applicant’s invention has significant advantages, and improper hindsight was used in making the rejection.
This is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Rebello as modified by FR-020 cannot be combined, 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).
As for the use of steam, Rebello in paragraphs [0020, 0022, 0027, 0035-0039] discloses the use of a hot media. Steam is a hot media, and the teaching of a specific hot media, that is steam, is merely replacing a generic media/fluid for a specific media/fluid.
One skilled on the art would have combined the references and Rebello as modified by FR-020, see the rejection(s) above, as claimed, would have had the same advantages. What structurally, in the claims, sets the structural advantages apart from the rejection(s) made, because the rejection(s) made covers all of the claimed structures.
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 JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
07/27/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights