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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-15, filed 06/22/26, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1-3 and 6-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the 103 rejections of claims 1-3 and 6-9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4-5 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/22/26. These drawings are acceptable, however, note the following objections.
The drawings are objected to because some of the numerals in FIGs. 3 and 4 are too small to readily discern. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104879597 A (hereinafter “CN ‘597”) in view of CN 207213423 (hereinafter CN ‘423).
As to claim 4 and with reference to the following annotated figure, CN ‘597 discloses an internal pressure self-sealing rotary compensator, comprising a fixed pipe (6) and a rotatable pipe (1), wherein body parts of the fixed pipe and the rotatable pipe have the same inner diameter (Fig. 1), an end portion of the fixed pipe has a conical opening forming a reducer (Fig. 1), the conical opening end thereof is connected to a sealing base, an inner cavity of the sealing base is provided with a base comprising a vertical end face perpendicular to an axis of the rotatable pipe, an annular face parallel to the axis and a conical face at an acute angle to the axis, and an inner diameter of the annular face is matched with an outer diameter of the rotatable pipe; an annular face sealing cavity is formed among the vertical end face of the base, an inner annular face connected to the vertical end face and an outer surface of the rotatable pipe, an annular face sealing piece (4) is installed in the annular face sealing cavity and is axially positioned via a gland (2), and the gland is connected to the sealing base via a fastener (3); and an end portion of the rotatable pipe is provided with a first outer conical face that is matched with the conical face to achieve conical face sealing.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CN ‘597 fails to teach the first outer conical face is connected to a second outer conical face having a taper matched with the taper of the tapered opening of the end portion of the fixed pipe.
However, CN ‘423 teaches a similar pipe coupling wherein the rotatable pipe includes a conical face which matches the conical opening of the end portion of the fixed pipe, as shown in Fig. 1.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify CN’597 to include a conical head on the rotatable pipe that matches the conical opening of the fixed pipe, as taught by CN ‘423, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to permit sealing securement of a pipe with a conical head, and to provide more surface area contact between the two pipes so as to more reliably secure the coupling.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As to claim 5, CN ‘597/CN ‘423 discloses the internal pressure self-sealing rotary compensator according to claim 4, wherein a self-sealing piece (5, ‘597) is installed in a conical face sealing structure formed between the first outer conical face and the conical face of the sealing base.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 06/22/26 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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 M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
