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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 11-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the US 12,078,269 encompasses the subject matter of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 5, 6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210247007, Artsiely.
In regards to claim 1, in Figures 3C-F and paragraphs detailing said figures, Artsiely discloses a fitting assembly comprising: a pipe fitting comprising a first fitting segment (10a) and a second fitting segment (10b); and an indicator assembly configurable in a loosened configuration and a tightened configuration, the indicator assembly comprising: a fastener coupling (22) the first fitting segment to the second fitting segment; a positive installation indicator (see Figure 3C below) mounted between the first fitting segment and the second fitting segment, the positive installation indicator defining a first feature (90); and a negative installation indicator (30) mounted between the first fitting segment and the second fitting segment, the negative installation indicator comprising a second feature (the tip) engaging the first feature; wherein, in the loosened configuration, the negative installation indicator is visible, and in the tightened configuration, the positive installation indicator first feature substantially covers the second feature and the second feature is hidden.
[AltContent: textbox (Tip)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Positive installation indicator)]
PNG
media_image1.png
1076
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, in Figures 3C-F and paragraphs detailing said figures, Artsiely discloses a height of the second feature is less than a height of the first feature.
In regards to claim 6, in Figures 3C-F and paragraphs detailing said figures, Artsiely discloses a color of the second feature is different than a color of the first feature (not exactly identical).
In regards to claim 10, in Figures 3C-F and paragraphs [0105]-[0111], Artsiely discloses a method of tightening a fitting assembly, comprising: providing the fitting assembly, the fitting assembly comprising: a pipe fitting comprising a first fitting segment and a second fitting segment; and an indicator assembly configurable in a loosened configuration and a tightened configuration, the indicator assembly comprising:a fastener coupling the first fitting segment to the second fitting segment;a positive installation indicator mounted between the first fitting segment and the second fitting segment, the positive installation indicator defining a first feature; and a negative installation indicator mounted between the first fitting segment and the second fitting segment, the negative installation indicator comprising a second feature engaging the first feature; wherein, in the loosened configuration, the negative installation indicator is visible, and in the tightened configuration, the positive installation indicator substantially covers the negative installation indicator and the negative installation indicator is hidden; tightening the fitting assembly from the loosened configuration to the tightened configuration by tightening the fastener to draw the first fitting segment toward the second fitting segment until the first feature visibly covers the second feature.
In regards to claim 11, in Figures 3C-F and paragraphs [0105]-[0111], Artsiely discloses in the loosened configuration, the second feature is visible, and, in the tightened configuration, the first feature substantially covers the negative installation indicator and the negative installation indicator is hidden.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above 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
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 AARON M DUNWOODY whose telephone number is (571)272-7080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/AARON M DUNWOODY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679