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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 7-9 are 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 7 recites “a wall thickness of the first and second tubes”. Claims 8 and 9 each recite “the wall thickness of the first and second tubes”. The language of the claim refers to a singular wall thickness. However, the claim also requires a thickness of two different tubes. As such, the claims are entirely unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume “a thickness” refers to a thickness of any portion of either the first or second tubes.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by by Dillon et a. (US 2018/0028778).
As to claims 1-2, Dillon discloses a method of joining thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) (para 38-43) tubes, comprising the steps of: abutting an end surface of a first TPE tube 1204 (para 38-43) against an end surface of a second TPE tube 1304 (para 42-47, fig 4a-b); providing a TPE sleeve 1505 (para 45) around the first and second tubes such that it overlaps the end surfaces (figs 4, 4a); providing a compression member (heat-shrink oversleeve, para 45) around the sleeve which is configured to apply a radial force around a circumference of the sleeve; and fusing the first and second tubes and the sleeve to one another by applying heat to the sleeve while applying a radial force to the sleeve using the compression member (para 39-52, fig 4, 4a).
As to claim 4, Dillon discloses the method wherein sleeve has an inner diameter which corresponds to the outer diameter of the first and second tubes (fig 5, para 48).
As to claim 10, the compression member is removed after fusing (para 45).
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.
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) 1-4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strong et al. (US 2007/0240817).
A method of joining thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) tubes, comprising the steps of: abutting an end surface of a first tube 50a against an end surface of a second tube 50b (fig 4-5, para 30-35); providing a sleeve 60 around the first and second tubes such that it overlaps the end surfaces (fig 5); providing a compression member 70 around the sleeve which is configured to apply a radial force around a circumference of the sleeve (gif 6, para 44-56); and fusing the first and second tubes and the sleeve to one another by applying heat (fig 7 para 50-52), to the sleeve while applying a radial force (para 51) to the sleeve using the compression member (figs 4-8, para 30-35, 44-56).
Strong discloses the material of the tubes can be selected from several compounds, including a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) (para 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select TPE as the material of the first and second tubes as said material is one of finite number of choices as taught by para 41 of Strong, and thus one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, Strong discloses that the material of the sleeve can be selected from several compounds, including a TPE (para 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select TPE as the material of the sleeve as said material is one of finite number of choices as taught by para 34 of Strong, and thus one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 2, Strong discloses the compression member is a heat shrink tube (para 52, abstract).
As to claim 3, Strong discloses the method wherein the heat shrink tube has a length which is a greater than a length of the sleeve and is arranged such that it overhangs either end of the sleeve (fig 6, para 49).
As to claim 4, Strong discloses the method wherein sleeve has an inner diameter which corresponds to the outer diameter of the first and second tubes (fig 5, para 48)
As to claims 7-9, Strong discloses the wall thickness of sleeve is less than the wall thickness of the first and second tubes, wherein the sleeve wall thickness is 50% of the of the wall thickness of the first and second tubes. See para 47-49.
As to claim 10, the compression member is removed after fusing (abstract, claim 1).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon.
As to claims 7-9, While Dillon does not expressly disclose the wall thickness of sleeve is less than the wall thickness of the first and second tubes, wherein the sleeve wall thickness is 50% of the of the wall thickness of the first and second tubes, Dillon discloses that the thickness of the tubes and sleeve can be varied depending on the design requirements (para 32, 48). Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method such that the wall thickness of the sleeve is less than the wall thickness of the first and second tubes, wherein the sleeve wall thickness is 50% of the of the wall thickness of the first and second tubes as the thicknesses are design choices obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as disclosed by Dillon above. Additionally, changes in dimensions are obvious absent criticality presented by the applicant. MPEP 2144.04
Claim(s) 3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown (US 20160114130).
As o claim 3, Dillon does not expressly disclose the method wherein the heat shrink tube has a length which is a greater than a length of the sleeve and is arranged such that it overhangs either end of the sleeve. Brown discloses a method wherein a heat shrink tube 60 has a length which is a greater than a length of the sleeve 30 and is arranged such that it overhangs either end of the sleeve (fig 6c, para 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Dillon such that the heat shrink tube has a length which is a greater than a length of the sleeve and is arranged such that it overhangs either end of the sleeve as taught by Brown above as such causes fusing of the entire sleeve to the tubes (para 15).
As to claims 5-6, Brown discloses a longitudinal pressure is applied to the first and second tubes during fusing, wherein the longitudinal pressure is applied for only part of the time that heat is applied (para 73).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746