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Claims 24-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unewisse et al. (US 5,007,667 hereinafter “Unewisse”).
In regard to claim 31, Unewisse discloses an exhaust system comprising:
a first pipe (Fig. 8, first pipe 12) having a first end (See image below, indicated first end of 12); and
a second pipe (Fig. 8, second pipe 10) having a second end positioned within the first end (See image below, second end of 10 is within the first end of 12) to provide a length of overlapped first and second pipes (See image below, overlap of the first and second ends define at least one axial length) including a first zone and a second zone (See image below, indicated first and second zones), wherein both of the first end and the second end are radially inwardly deformed into pressed engagement with one another at the second zone along the length of overlapped first and second pipes to define a pipe joint (See image below, both first and second ends are radially inwardly deformed into pressed engagement at the second zone along the length of overlapped 10 and 12 to define a pipe joint as shown), wherein at the first zone of the length of overlapped first and second pipes, the second pipe includes an outer diameter greater than an inner diameter of the first pipe within the second zone (See image below, at the first zone, the second pipe has an outer diameter greater than an inner diameter of the first pipe within the second zone), the exhaust system further comprising a dimple radially inwardly extending from an outer surface of the first pipe to mechanically lock the first pipe to the second pipe (Fig. 8, at least one crimp at 68 which defines at least a dimple that radially inwardly extend from an outer surface of the first pipe 10 to mechanically lock 10 to 12), wherein the dimple circumferentially extends less than 90 degrees (Fig. 8, 68 extends less than 90 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that 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). See MPEP § 2114. The recitation “exhaust system” is a nominal recitation of the intended manner of operation of the system, and does not add any further structure than the “system". Therefore, little patentable weight is given to "exhaust".
In regard to claim 32, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 31, wherein the first and second pipes are sealingly engaged with one another at an interface between the first and second pipes along an area that circumscribes the dimple (Fig. 8 and see image above for claim 31, 10 and 12 are sealingly engaged with one another at an interface between 10 and 12 along an area that circumscribes the dimple 68 similar to applicant’s invention such that there is not gap between 10 and 12 near 68).
In regard to claim 33, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 31, wherein the dimple is positioned with the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has not been radially inwardly deformed (See image above for claim 31, the radially inward deformation shown is at least partly due to the at least one dimple 68 and prior to the radial deformation as shown in Fig. 5, the dimple is positioned with the length of overlapped 10 and 12 that has not been radially inwardly deformed).
In regard to claim 34, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 31, wherein the dimple is positioned with the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has been radially inwardly deformed (Fig. 8, 68 is positioned with the length of overlapped 10 and 12 that has been radially inwardly deformed at least at 42 and by the dimple 68 itself).
In regard to claim 35, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 31, wherein the dimple overlaps the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has not been radially inwardly deformed (See claim 33 above for the same reasons) and the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has been radially inwardly deformed (See claim 34 above for the same reasons).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claim 14:
Foster, Sr. and Unewisse, respectively, disclose all the features of claim 14 as described in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 01/07/2026, however, both do not show or suggest features of amended claim 14 filed on 05/04/2026 that includes the second zone axially extending from a distal end of the first pipe to a position axially offset from a distal end of the second pipe, wherein both the first end and the second end are radially inwardly deformed into pressed engagement with one another along their entire circumference for the axial extent of the second zone. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Foster, Sr. and Unewisse, alone or in combination, to include the second zone axially extending from a distal end of the first pipe to a position axially offset from a distal end of the second pipe, wherein both the first end and the second end are radially inwardly deformed into pressed engagement with one another along their entire circumference for the axial extent of the second zone with a reasonable expectation of success because such a modification would require hindsight reasoning and reconstruction.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that new claims 24-35 are novel and non-obvious in view of the art of record, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because claims 24-30 are directed to the non-elected invention because of at least the recitation of a “third zone” and Unewisse discloses all the features of claims 31-35. See the updated rejection above. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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