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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (Claims 14-23) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner applied the incorrect standard for restriction, all claims fit within the category of a product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product, and the prior art cited by the Examiner does not disclose all the common features of the claims. This is not found persuasive because the application is filed as a 371 which follows restriction practice of unity of invention under 35 U.S.C. 371 and the claimed process is not specially adapted for the manufacture of said product because the process of claim 1 can be a process of forming structural support pipes that are not for fluid transfer, a process for a liquid drain pipe, or a process for toys having hollow pipe parts. With regard to the prior art cited by the Examiner does not disclose all the common features of the claims, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the prior art does disclose all the common technical features of claims 1 and 14 as described in the restriction filed on 10/09/2025 and applicant’s arguments failed to point to directly to which parts of the prior art that do not disclose the common technical features. Additionally, the following rejection includes at least one prior art that discloses all the features of claim 14 and therefore, all the common technical features between claims 1 and 14.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 statements (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024 and 11/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “slip fit” and should include a hyphen to be “slip-fit”.
Claim 16 recites “prior to deformation.” and should be “prior to the first and second pipes radially inwardly deformed.” to be consistent with the deformation recited in claim 14 and also consistent with how claim 18 refers back to the deformation in claim 14.
Claim 17 recites “the length of overlap” and should be “the length of overlap overlapped first and second pipes” to be consistent with the language in claim 14.
Claim 17 recites “one to four inches” and should be “one inch to four inches” to avoid any ambiguity of the unit of measurement for “one”.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites “the interface” which lacks antecedent basis and unclear if claims 19 or 20 intended to initially introduce an interface. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “ an interface” as initially introduced in claim 20.
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.
Claims 14-16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster, Sr., et al. (US 3,071,993 hereinafter “Foster, Sr.”).
In regard to claim 14, Foster, Sr. discloses an exhaust system (Figs. 2 and 6 show at least a pipe system. See note below.) comprising:
a first pipe (Fig. 6, first pipe 21) having a first end (See image below, the portion of 21 that overlaps 20 defines a first end. This interpretation is similar to the applicant’s invention and as described in applicant’s invention that the first and second ends are portions that extend from the open end of the first and second pipes.); and
a second pipe (Fig. 6, second pipe 20) having a second end (See image below, the end portion of 20 that fits into 21 defines a second end) positioned within the first end to provide a length of overlapped first and second pipes (See image below, indicated length is a length of overlapped 20 and 21) including a first zone and a second zone (See image below, indicated first and second zones can be reasonably divided as shown), 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 (Fig. 6 and see image below, both the first and second ends are at least radially inwardly deformed by the deformation at 34 which are along the length of the overlapped 20 and 21), 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, an outer diameter of 20 is greater than an inner diameter of 21 because of an inward deformation of 21 at the indicated inner diameter of 21).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
510
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” 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 system".
In regard to claim 15, Foster, Sr. discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, wherein an outer diameter of the first pipe and an outer diameter of the second pipe are equal except at the first and second ends (Fig. 6 and see image above for claim 14, an outer diameter of 20 and an outer diameter of 21 are equal outside of the first and second ends).
In regard to claim 16, Foster, Sr. discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, wherein the second pipe is in a slip-fit interconnection with the first end of the first pipe prior to the first and second pipes radially inwardly deformed (Fig. 5 shows the slip-fit interconnection between 20 and 21 prior to deformation shown in Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 18, Foster, Sr. discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, wherein the length of overlapped first and second pipes is greater than a length of the first and second pipes radially inwardly deformed (Fig. 6 and see image above for claim 14, the length defines an axial length which is clearly greater than a length of the radially inwardly deformation at 34).
In regard to claim 19, Foster, Sr. discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, 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. 6, at least one indentation at 34 defines a dimple which is radially inwardly extending from an outer surface of 21 to mechanically lock 21 to 20).
In regard to claim 20, Foster, Sr. discloses the exhaust system of claim 19, 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. 6, area and interface that circumscribes 34 sealingly engages 21 with 20).
In regard to claim 21, Foster, Sr. discloses the exhaust system of claim 19, wherein the dimple is positioned with the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has not been radially inwardly deformed (Fig. 6 and see image above for claim 14, at least one dimple at 34 is positioned within the length that has not been radially inwardly deformed such as the indicated area at the indicated outer diameter of 20 which has not been deformed).
In regard to claim 22, Foster, Sr. discloses the exhaust system of claim 19, wherein the dimple is positioned with the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has been radially inwardly deformed (Fig. 6 and see image above for claim 14, there are at least two dimples 34 within the indicated length, therefore, one of the 34 is positioned within the length that has been radially inwardly deformed by the other 34).
In regard to claim 23, Foster, Sr. discloses the exhaust system of claim 19, wherein the dimple overlaps the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has not been radially inwardly deformed (See claim 21 above for the same reasons) and the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has been radially inwardly deformed (See claim 22 above for the same reasons. Since the length includes at least two dimples 34 and sections that are not deformed by 34, then one of the 34 is considered to be within the length that has been deformed and has not been deformed).
Claims 14, 16, and 18-23 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 14, Unewisse discloses an exhaust system (Fig. 8 shows a pipe system. See note below.) comprising:
a first pipe (Fig. 8, first pipe 12) having a first end (See image below, indicated first end); and
a second pipe (Fig. 8, second pipe 10) having a second end (See image below, indicated second end) positioned within the first end to provide a length of overlapped first and second pipes (See image below, indicated length defines overlapped portion of 10 and 12) 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 (See image below, the first and second ends are radially inwardly deformed at the second zone as shown) along the length of overlapped first and second pipes to define a pipe joint (See image below, the deformation is along the indicated length), 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, 10 has an outer diameter greater than an inner diameter of the first pipe in the second zone as shown).
PNG
media_image2.png
498
896
media_image2.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” 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 system".
In regard to claim 16, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, wherein the second pipe is in a slip-fit interconnection with the first end of the first pipe prior to the first and second pipes radially inwardly deformed (Fig. 5 shows a slip-fit interconnection between 10 and 12 prior to the radially inwardly deformed position shown in Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 18, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, wherein the length of overlapped first and second pipes is greater than a length of the first and second pipes radially inwardly deformed (See image above for claim 14, the indicated length is clearly greater than a length of the first and second pipes radially inwardly deformed).
In regard to claim 19, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, 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, crimp at 68 defines a dimple radially inwardly extending from an outer surface of 12 to mechanically lock 12 and 10).
In regard to claim 20, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 19, 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 14, 10 and 12 are sealingly engaged with one another at an interface at the radially inwardly deformed portion from 18 to 68 which circumscribes 68).
In regard to claim 21, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 19, 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 14, dimple 68 is positioned within the length and within the length includes the first zone which has not been radially inwardly deformed).
In regard to claim 22, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 19, wherein the dimple is positioned with the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has been radially inwardly deformed (See image above for claim 14, dimple 68 is positioned within the length and within the length includes the second zone which has been radially inwardly deformed at least at 18).
In regard to claim 23, Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 19, wherein the dimple overlaps the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has not been radially inwardly deformed (See claim 21 above for the same reasons) and the length of overlapped first and second pipes that has been radially inwardly deformed (See claim 22 above for the same reasons and since the indicated length includes both a section having deformation and a section without deformation, the dimple 68 is reasonably considered to overlap the length that has and has not been radially inwardly deformed).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster, Sr. (US 3,071,993).
Foster, Sr. discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, but does not expressly disclose wherein the length of overlapped first and second pipes ranges from one inch to four inches.
While Foster, Sr. does not expressly disclose the length of overlapped first and second pipes ranges from one inch to four inches; the length may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
It would 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. to have the length of overlapped first and second pipes ranges from one inch to four inches, as the length may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation to have the advantage of a stronger pipe joint with a longer overlap or a shorter overlap for ease of assembly that does not require as much as a longer overlap. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable.
Additionally, the claimed range of one inch to four inches lack criticality in light of applicant’s specification which in paragraph [0079] describes “may range from 1-4 inches” without any details of any non-obvious or unexpected results that the range provides and/or any performance difference outside of the range such as 0.75 inches or 5 inches. Therefore, the claimed range is arbitrary and lacks criticality and a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider 1-4 inches when considering pipe joint overlap.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unewisse (US 5,007,667) in view of Foster, Sr. (US 3,071,993).
Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, wherein an outer diameter of the first pipe and an outer diameter of the second pipe are approximately equal except at the first and second ends (See image above for claim 14, outside of the ends, 10 and 12 appear to have approximately equal outer diameters, however, do not explicitly show or disclose the outer diameters are equal).
Unewisse does not expressly disclose an outer diameter of the first pipe and an outer diameter of the second pipe are equal except at the first and second ends.
In the related field of radially inwardly deformed pipe joints, Foster, Sr. discloses wherein an outer diameter of the first pipe and an outer diameter of the second pipe are equal except at the first and second ends (Fig. 3 shows two pipes 20 and 21 to have the same outer diameter and maintains the same outer diameter except for an overlapped section defining first and second ends of 20 and 21 shown in Fig. 6) which at least provides the advantage of ease of manufacturing and assembly because a user would not have to manufacture different diameter pipes and search for different diameter pipes when assembling.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified an outer diameter of the first pipe and an outer diameter of the second pipe except at the first and second ends of Unewisse to be equal with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of ease of manufacturing and ease of assembly as taught by Foster, Sr.
See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Foster, Sr. would reasonably suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that having the same diameter pipes to form a pipe joint would be easier to manufacture and assemble as compared to having different diameter pipes.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unewisse (US 5,007,667).
Unewisse discloses the exhaust system of claim 14, but does not expressly disclose wherein the length of overlapped first and second pipes ranges from one inch to four inches.
While Unewisse does not expressly disclose the length of overlapped first and second pipes ranges from one inch to four inches; the length may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Unewisse to have the length of overlapped first and second pipes ranges from one inch to four inches, as the length may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation to have the advantage of a stronger pipe joint with a longer overlap or a shorter overlap for ease of assembly that does not require as much as a longer overlap. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable.
Additionally, the claimed range of one inch to four inches lack criticality in light of applicant’s specification which in paragraph [0079] describes “may range from 1-4 inches” without any details of any non-obvious or unexpected results that the range provides and/or any performance difference outside of the range such as 0.75 inches or 5 inches. Therefore, the claimed range is arbitrary and lacks criticality and a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider 1-4 inches when considering pipe joint overlap.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reverman (US 3,068,563), Salazar (US 2014/0252762 A1), Fukaya (US 5,890,287), Gotoh et al. (US 5,484,174), Arment et al. (US 9,145,992 B2), and Eugene (CH 648643 A5) disclose overlapped pipe joints having radially inwardly deformation and the pipe joints can define at least two different zones which is similar to applicant’s invention and features of the claims.
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