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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drenth 5,788,401 in view of Dutilleul et al. 7,334,821 and further in view of MacArthur 2,532,632.
In regard to claim 1, Drenth discloses a threaded joint having a longitudinal axis, said joint comprising a first tubular component P and a second tubular component B, the first tubular component and the second tubular component being screwed to one another,
the first component comprising a first tube and a male element disposed at one end of said first tube, the male element comprising successively from the first tube to a male internal stop surface of said male element: a male external stop surface 12A, at least a first male threaded portion T, and the male internal stop surface 11A,
the second component comprising a second tube and a female element disposed at one end of said second tube, the female element comprising successively from the second tube to a female external stop surface of said female element: a female internal stop surface 14A, at least a first female threaded portion W, a female lip 13 and the female external stop surface 13A,
a first axial length BSL (from 14A to 13A) between the female internal stop surface and the female external stop surface being greater than a second axial length PSL (from 11A to 12A) between the male internal stop surface and the male external stop surface (see col. 9, lines 55-57, where gap 43 is always larger than gap 42),
the first axial length BSL and the second axial length PSL being such that an interstice 42 is formed between the male external stop surface and the female external stop surface (see gap 42 between 12A and 13A in fig. 7), said interstice being closable by contact between the male external stop surface and the female external stop surface when an axial compressive load is applied (see col. 4, lines 40-57).
Drenth discloses the threads T and W as being buttress threads, but not self-locking variable width threads. Dutilleul et al. teaches that providing similar types of threaded joints with either buttress (see col. 6, line 6) or wedge threads (see col. 13, line 30) is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the threads of Drenth to include wedge threads because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Drenth discloses the male and female external stop surfaces 12A, 13A, as being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the threaded joint, but does not discloses the external stop surfaces as being at a non-zero angle in relation to the longitudinal axis. MacArthur teaches that supplying a similar type of threaded joint with either perpendicular external surfaces (surfaces 22 and 17 in fig. 6) or surfaces at a non-zero angle relative to the longitudinal axis (surfaces 22d, 17d in fig. 14), where the angle is constant along an entire length of the male stop surface and the female stop surface, is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the perpendicular external surfaces of Drenth with surfaces that are at a non-zero angle relative to the longitudinal axis because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
In regard to claim 2, both Drenth and MacArthur discloses the external surfaces of the male and female shoulders as being parallel.
In regard to claims 3-5, MacArthur discloses the external surfaces as being angled, but does not disclose the exact angle value. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the shoulders with the angles recited by the Applicant because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regard to claims 7-8, Drenth in view of Dutilleul et al. and further in view of MacArthur disclose an interstice 42 as described above, but does not disclose the specific axial length of the interstice. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the axial length of the interstice that recited by the Applicant because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7-8 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that MacArthur fails to teach a non-zero angle that is constant along an entire length of the male stop surface and the female stop surface. The Examiner disagrees, as MacArthur discloses an external male stop surface 17d and an external female stop surface 22d in figs. 10-14 that are at a non-zero angle and constant along the entire length. Therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights