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 Objections
Claims 6-8 are no longer objected to.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 recites “the inner support”. This is interpreted as referring to the “expandable inner support” introduced in Claim 1.
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 1-8 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 1 recites “the walls”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the inside”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 6 recites “the force”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18580351 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference is the limitations “supporting the main pipe from its outside with retaining jaws” and “wherein the punch is guided by a guide hole in the second retaining jaw” and “thereby melt the joint seam into one wall that merges with the walls of the main pipe and the branch pipe” found in Claim 1 of the current application (18863026).
However, McDonald (CA2280650) teaches two retaining jaws (20, 22, 24) and a punch guide hole (32, 34) receiving the punch in the first part of the retaining jaws (22).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known apertured jaw die set technique of McDonald in order to provide two die (instead of just one) to clamp the tube in place (McDonald, Page 4, Lines 18-20), while allowing the cutting tool (the punch in Coulon) to enter into and advance through the jaws (McDonald Page 4, Lines 25-26).
See also JP2001162335A (Figure 1); KR20120129657A (Figure 3); US5699708A (Figure 3); US3971275A (Figure 4); US3455196A (Figure 3); US3234838A (Figure 6); or US3120143A (Figure 1).
However, Larikka teaches thereby melt the joint seam into one wall that merges with the walls of the main pipe and the branch pipe. (Figures 1B and 2B show the before and after views of the welding process where the walls of the pipe portions (1, 2) merge with one another.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known welding technique from Larikka in order to weld material of the pipe (1) into the joint and create a thicker joint. (See ¶0011 of Larikka)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larikka (US20140151440A1) in view of Larikka ‘466 (US20180154466A1), Ikeda (JP2001162335A), and Hayes (US11931790B1).
Claim 1
Larikka teaches a method for making a T-branch for a pipe (¶0001) by joining a shaped end of the a branch pipe with internal welding to edges of a hole in a main pipe (Figure 1A-2B and ¶0011 teach that the invention pertains to joining an end of a branch pipe (2) to a hole (3) in a main pipe (1) that has a shape. The joining is done by welding inside the pipe.), the method comprising: mechanically cutting the hole in the main pipe (¶0011 teaches “making a hole 3 in a pipe 1 to be branched”.) in a dry mechanical process, in which the cleanliness of the joint areas remains weldable (¶0011 teaches that there is a welding step without mentioning a cleaning step. Further, since the other prior art references used for the cutting are both dry mechanical processes, the combination of references will arrive at a clean joint area as claimed.), the shaped end of the branch pipe being placed around the hole in the main pipe (Figure 1B shows the end of the branch pipe (2) fits around the hole (3) in the main pipe (1).), and internally welding the joint seam between the pipes without a welding additive (Applicant describes “additive” in ¶0002 as “additional material being brought in from the outside”. Larikka, ¶0011 teaches the welding step is done internally. There is no mention of a welding additive brought in from the outside.) to thereby melt the joint seam into one wall that merges with the walls of the main pipe and the branch pipe. (Figures 1B and 2B show the before and after views of the welding process where the walls of the pipe portions (1, 2) merge with one another.)
Larikka does not explicitly disclose cutting arcs corresponding to the main pipe at the end of the branch pipe by removing two solid parts from the end of the branch pipe. Larikka does disclose that the branch pipe fits onto the main pipe.
However, Larikka ‘466 teaches cutting arcs corresponding to the main pipe at the end of the branch pipe (¶0003 teaches that when making T-junctions in pipes, shaping of the pieces is required to join them via welding.) by removing two solid parts from the end of the branch pipe. (¶0021-0022 teach two cutting phases that each cut off two solid parts from the end of the pipe (1).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known two step cutting technique of Larikka ‘466 to the branch pipe formation method of Larikka in order to perform cutting within a pipe in such a way that a chord of the cutting arc substantially exceeds the internal diameter of a pipe to be cut or can also exceed the external diameter of a pipe to be cut or, if desired, is substantially consistent with the external diameter of a pipe to be shaped (¶0008) or the shape cutting apparatus must have a capability of using readily replaceable tool arrangements for handling pipe blanks in a given range of sizes and lengths. In addition to this, the apparatus must have a capability of its operation in a working process to be automated in view of handling large volumes. These objectives can also be attained with the invention. (¶0010) See also MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Larikka in view of Larika ‘664 does not explicitly disclose mechanically cutting a hole in the main pipe by a dry mechanical process and removing one solid part from the hole; supporting the main pipe from the its outside with first and second retaining jaws, supporting the main pipe from the its inside around the hole to be cut with an inner support by moving the inner support into the main pipe, cutting the hole for the main pipe is with a punch, which is moved perpendicularly against the central axis of the main pipe, wherein the punch is guided by a guide hole in the second retaining jaw, moving the inner support from inside the main pipe.
However, Ikeda teaches mechanically cutting a hole in the main pipe by a dry mechanical process (Figure 1 teaches a punch (5) that removes material from the pipe (1). The reference does not mention a wet process.) and removing one solid part from the hole (The punch (5) is used to punch out a portion of the pipe to create a hole (2). See ¶0019. This portion is one solid part from the hole as claimed.); supporting the main pipe from the its outside with first and second retaining jaws (Figure 1 shows jaws (10, 20) that surround and support the pipe (1). See also ¶0013.), supporting the main pipe from the its inside around the hole to be cut with an inner support (Figure 1, Item 3, metal bush) by moving the inner support into the main pipe (¶0019 teaches the operation of the apparatus where the metal bush (3) is inserted and positioned such that the hole (30) in the bush is positioned correctly.), cutting the hole for the main pipe is with a punch (5), which is moved perpendicularly against the central axis of the main pipe (Figure 1 shows the punch moves downward, where the central axis of the pipe (1) is into the page. This is a perpendicular relationship.), wherein the punch is guided by a guide hole in the second retaining jaw (Figure 1 shows a hole (12) in the jaw (10) that guides the punch (5). See also ¶0014.), moving the inner support from inside the main pipe. (¶0021 teaches the removal of the metal bush (3) from the pipe (1).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known cutting apparatus and technique of Ikeda to the hole cutting method of Larikka in order to support the pipe during the process using the jaws (See Ikeda ¶0013) and prevent deformation during the cutting using an inner support (See Ikeda ¶0003). MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Larikka in view of Ikeda does not explicitly disclose an expandable inner support.
However, Hayes teaches an expandable inner support. (Figures 4-6 teach a support (140 and 180) that is able to “expand” by movement between the wedge part (180) and the mandrel (140) part in order to press on the interior of the pipe.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known expandable mandrel technique of Hayes with the mandrel/core of Larikka in view of Ikeda in order to allow for continuous contact between the inner mandrel and the inner surface of the tube (See Hayes Col. 1 Lines 25-30). This technique also allows for a single mandrel to suit varying pipe sizes due to the adjustability. (General engineering rationale based on the Figures of Hayes.) MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 2
Larikka in view of Larikka ‘466, Ikeda, and Hayes teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of cutting the hole in the main pipe includes: taking the main pipe in its axial direction between the first and second retaining jaws to the punching position of the main pipe (Ikeda, Figure 1 teaches the pipe (1) is placed between the jaws (10, 20).); bringing the first and second retaining jaws in contact with the main pipe to hold the main pipe in a punching position (Ikeda, ¶0013 teaches that the inner diameters of the concave portions (11, 21) of the jaws (10, 20) are sized to suit the pipe (1).); moving the inner support and a wedge belonging to the inner support into the main pipe (Ikeda, ¶0019 teaches the operation of the device where the core metal bush (3) is inserted after the sandwiching of the pipe. The inner core metal bush of Ikeda is outfitted with a wedge in the combination with Hayes.); stopping transfer motion of the inner support in a punching position where a round punch hole in the inner support is located in a trajectory of the punch at the hole to be formed in the main pipe (Ikeda ¶0019 teaches the core metal bush (3) is aligned to place the escape portion (the analogous round punch hole) outward.); continuing movement of the wedge in relation to the inner support in order to press the inner support against an inner wall of the main pipe around the punch hole (Hayes, Figures 4-6 teach continued movement of the wedge (180) in relation to the mandrel (140) is used to move the inner support (140 and 180) into contact with the inner wall of the pipe.); guiding the punch to move, guided by the guide hole, towards a central axis of the main pipe (Ikeda, Figure 1 shows the punch (5) is moved downward to create the hole in the pipe. This means that the punch starts above the pipe (1) in Figure 1, then moved down towards the central axis, and the past the central axis during the cutting step.), whereby the cutting blade of the punch pierces the wall of the main pipe and removes the one solid part from the hole created in the wall into punch hole (The punch (5) is used to punch out a portion of the pipe to create a hole (2). See ¶0019. This portion is one solid part from the hole as claimed.) moving the wedge in the direction opposite to the previous direction of movement in order to release the inner support from the pressure against the inner wall of the main pipe; (Hayes, Figures 4-6 show the wedge (180) is moved in a direction (to the right in the figures) to create the pressure on the inner surface of the pipe. Col. 6, Lines 28-35 teach the retraction of the piston (138) and displacement of the wedge to unload the force.) moving the inner support and wedge away from inside the main pipe; (Ikeda ¶0021 teaches the removal of the metal bush (3) from the pipe (1).) opening the retaining jaws and releasing the punched main pipe from the retaining jaws. (Since Ikeda teaches that loading the pipe includes sandwiching it between the two jaws (10, 20), See ¶0019, this step occurs in Ikeda after the process is finished in order to remove the finished product.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larikka (US20140151440A1) in view of Larikka ‘466 (US20180154466A1), Ikeda (JP2001162335A), and Hayes (US11931790B1), as applied in claim 2, further in view of Coulon (US3698274A).
Claim 3
Larikka in view of Larikka ‘466, Ikeda, and Hayes teaches the method according to claim 2, characterized in that the inner support is pressed against the inner wall of the pipe with the wedge (Hayes, Figures 4-6 teach the inner support (140, 180) has a wedge portion (180) that presses it against the inner surface of the pipe.), which is moved back and forth in relation to the inner support (Hayes, Figures 6 and 11 teach the wedge (180) portion of the inner support is moved back and forth (See arrows 32 in Figure 6 and 38 in Figure 11).) with an actuator (Hayes, Figure 2 discloses a piston (156) and cylinder (158) that actuates the movements of the inner support (140, 180).) that also moves the inner support into and out of a support position (In Hayes, the actuation of the wedge (180) portion of the inner support moves the inner support into and out of the support position, which is the position where the inner surface of the pipe is supported.), and that the inner support is first moved with the wedge to the support position via a wedge arm (Hayes, Figures 4-6 show the movement of the inner support (140, 180) to the support position (Figure 6) via the wedge arm (the part of the wedge (180) that connects to the actuator (156, 158).) and then to the support position by only moving the wedge via the wedge arm. (Hayes, Figures 4-6 show the inner support (140, 180) is moved to the support position (where the inner support contacts the interior of the pipe) via movement of the wedge via the wedge arm.)
Larikka in view of Larikka ‘466, Ikeda, and Hayes does not explicitly disclose a spring that applies a spring force against the support position.
However, Coulon teaches a wedge (32) as part of an inner support system (17, 18) for supporting a pipe (Figure 1) during a punching process (Figure 1) that has a spring that applies a spring force against the support position. (Col. 2, Lines 60-65 teach a spring (54) that is used to draw the expanding mandrel members (17-18) together. As shown in Figure 1, the wedge (32) is used to move the members apart. Therefore, the spring in Coulon is used to push inner support mandrel members out of the “support position” and back towards one another.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known spring loaded return technique of Coulon to the system of Larikka in view of Larikka ‘466, Ikeda, and Hayes in order to bias the mandrel back to a lower outside diameter position. (See Coulon Col. 2, Lines 63-65). MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulon (US3698274A) in view of McDonald (CA2280650A1).
Coulon teaches a device for making a branch hole in a pipe (Figure 1 teaches a device (apparatus, 10) that is used to make a hole in a tube (14) workpiece using a punch.) by the method according to features listed in claim 2 (The structure required for making the branch hole in the pipe by the method of Claim 2 is represented by the structural limitations in the remainder of Claim 4.), wherein the device comprises punch (43), which is round in cross-section (Figure 1 shows, via the shading of the illustration, that the punch is round in cross section. Additionally, Figure 2 shows a similar view of the punch.), a cutting blade at the end of the punch (Col. 3, Lines 8-10 teach the punch is used to cut through the tube wall. Therefore, the end of the punch (43) is considered to have a cutting portion, or blade as claimed.), a retaining jaw for supporting the pipe from outside of the pipe during the punch (Figure 1 teaches a lower supporting block (12) that has an arcuate support surface on which the tube is placed. See Col. 1, Lines 50-55.), the retaining jaw comprising a support trough for receiving the pipe to be punched (Figure 1 teaches a lower supporting block (12) that has an arcuate support surface on which the tube is placed. See Col. 1, Lines 50-55.), and an inner support to support the pipe from the inside during the punch (Figure 1 teaches an inner support structure (17, 18, 32, 34) where multiple parts cooperate to support the interior of the pipe (14) during the punch step.), the inner support comprising a round punch hole (Item 18 of the inner support has a bore, 41), wherein the inner support is arranged to be moved into the main pipe and out of the main pipe (Figure 1 shows the inner support structure (17, 18, 32, 34) is sized to be able to moved into and away from the pipe (14) due to the adjustability of the outer diameter of the inner support via action of the wedge. Col. 2, Lines 55-60 teach that a tube can be inserted over the mandrel members (17, 18), which means that the inner support can be moved into the interior of the pipe.), wherein the inner support comprises a longitudinally movable wedge (32), which is arranged to press the inner support against an inner surface of the pipe (See Col. 2 Lines 10-15 and Col. 3 Lines 5-10.), and that wherein the punch is arranged to be inserted into the punch hole when the inner support is in place inside the pipe in the support position (See Col. 3, Lines 3-15), the inner support being designed to have its upper surface resting against the inner surface of the main pipe around the punch hole. (See Figure 1)
Coulon does not explicitly disclose two retaining jaws and a punch guide hole receiving the punch in the first part of the retaining jaws; the guide hole having in the direction of movement of punch a central axis, which is in the pipe support position perpendicular to the central axis of the cylinder formed by the surfaces of the support troughs.
However, McDonald (CA2280650) teaches two retaining jaws (20, 22, 24) and a punch guide hole (32, 34) receiving the punch in the second retaining jaw (22); the guide hole having in the direction of movement of the punch a central axis (Page 4 Lines 25-26 teach the aperture (32) allows the punch to pass into it, which is along the direction of movement of the punch central axis.), which is in a pipe support position perpendicular to the central axis of the cylinder formed by surfaces of the support troughs. (The cylinder formed by the surfaces of the support troughs of the jaws (22, 24) in McDonald is parallel to the central axis of the tube. The movement of the punch in Coulon is shown in Figure 1 as perpendicular to the axis of the tube.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known apertured jaw die set technique of McDonald to the single jaw die structure of Coulon in order to provide two die (instead of just one) to clamp the tube in place (McDonald, Page 4, Lines 18-20), while allowing the cutting tool (the punch in Coulon) to enter into and advance through the jaws (McDonald Page 4, Lines 25-26) See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 6
Coulon in view of McDonald teaches the device according to claim 4, characterized in that the inner support is arranged to be moved into and out of the support position by one actuator F (The “support position” in Coulon is where the inner support assembly (17, 18, 32, 34) is pressed against the inner surface of the tube (14), as shown in Figure 1. The assembly is moved into this position by action of a fluid extensible device (40) that is an actuator. See Col. 2, Lines 20-21.), which is arranged to first move the inner support with the wedge into the support position via the wedge arm and spring (Col. 3, Lines 5-10 teach that the ram (31), which is connected to the actuator (40), is used to move the wedge into the solid line position. This position is shown in Figure 1 as the position of the wedge that cause the inner support to move into the support position, where it contacts the inner surface of the tube.) and then move only the wedge via the wedge arm against the force of said spring, whereby the inner support is wedged into the support position. (Figure 1 teaches a spring (54) that biases the mandrel members (17, 18) together to reduce the outside diameter of the inner support (See Col. 2, Lines 60-67). The wedge (34) is moved against the force of this spring when it is moved from the dotted line position in Figure 1 to the solid line position in Figure 1 such that it moves against the spring force when moving the inner support to the support position.)
Claim 7
Coulon in view of McDonald teaches the device according to claim 4, characterized in that the wedge has a first wedge surface which is arranged to press the inner support against the inner surface of the pipe (Coulon, Figure 1 teaches the wedge (32) has a first (top) surface that presses against the other part of the inner support (22).), and another wedge surface, which is arranged to lift the wedge from the inner surface of the pipe. (Coulon, Figure 1 shows the bottom surface of the wedge (32) is arranged to lift from the inner surface of the pipe. Alternatively, Figure 1 teaches an end surface of the wedge (32) that interacts with the arms (34). The arms hold the wedge and keep it lifted from the inner surface of the pipe.)
Claim 8
Coulon in view of McDonald teaches the device according to claim 6, characterized in that the wedge has a first wedge surface which is arranged to press the inner support against the inner surface of the pipe (Coulon, Figure 1 teaches the wedge (32) has a first (top) surface that presses against the other part of the inner support (22).), and another wedge surface, which is arranged to lift the wedge from the inner surface of the pipe. (Coulon, Figure 1 shows the bottom surface of the wedge (32) is arranged to lift from the inner surface of the pipe. Alternatively, Figure 1 teaches an end surface of the wedge (32) that interacts with the arms (34). The arms hold the wedge and keep it lifted from the inner surface of the pipe.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulon (US3698274A) in view of McDonald (CA2280650), as applied in Claim 4, further in view of Mizumura (US20100031722A1).
Claim 5
Coulon in view of McDonald teaches the device according to claim 4, characterized in that the cutting blade of the punch has an edge including first and second lowest points and wherein a distance as measured between the two lowest points of the blade correspond to a longitudinal direction of the pipe. (Coulon, Figure 1 teaches two lowest points (a point on one side of the diameter and a point on the other side of the diameter of the punch in the direction of the cross section viewed in Figure 1) are separated by a distance along the longitudinal direction of the pipe (14).).
Coulon in view of McDonald does not explicitly disclose the cutting blade of the punch has a steel edge.
However, Mizumura (US20100031722A1) teaches the cutting blade of the punch has a steel edge. (¶0055 teaches a primary punch (16) that is made from tool steel.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known steel punch technique of Mizumura the punch of Coulon in view of McDonald in order to use an extremely hard material. (Mizumura ¶0055) See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP2001162335A) in view of Hayes (US11931790B1).
Claim 4
Ikeda teaches a device for making a branch hole in a pipe by the method according to features listed in claim 2 (The structure required for making the branch hole in the pipe by the method of Claim 2 is represented by the structural limitations in the remainder of Claim 4.), wherein the device comprises punch (5), which is round in cross-section (See Figure 2), a cutting blade at the end of the punch (41), first and second retaining jaws for supporting the pipe from outside of the pipe during the punch (10, 20), the retaining jaws comprising support troughs for receiving the pipe to be punched (11, 21), a punch guide hole (12) receiving the punch (5) in the second retaining jaw (10), the guide hole having in the direction of movement of the punch a central axis (Figure 1 shows the guide hole (12) is shaped such that the punch movement axis is aligned with the hole.), which is in a pipe support position perpendicular to a central axis of the cylinder formed by the surfaces of the support troughs (Figure 1 shows the support troughs of the retaining jaws surround the tube and share a central axis. The direction of movement of the punch is perpendicular to this axis.), and an inner support (3) to support the pipe from the inside during the punch , the inner support comprising a round punch hole (30), wherein the inner support is arranged to be moved into the main pipe and out of the main pipe (¶0019 teaches the core metal bush (3), which is the analogous inner support, is moved into the pipe (1).), and that wherein the punch is arranged to be inserted into the punch hole when the inner support is in place inside the pipe in the support position (¶0016 teaches the inner support (3) has a relief portion (30) that is formed on a side surface and that the relief portion intersects the punch (5).), the inner support being designed to have its upper surface resting against an inner surface of the main pipe around the punch hole (Figure 1 shows the surface of the core bush (3) is resting against the inner surface of the pipe (1).)
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the inner support comprises a longitudinally movable wedge, which is arranged to press the inner support against the inner surface of the pipe,
However, Hayes teaches an expandable inner support (Figures 4-6 teach a support (140 and 180) that is able to “expand” by movement between the wedge part (180) and the mandrel (140) part in order to press on the interior of the pipe.) comprising a longitudinally movable wedge (180), which is arranged to press the inner support against the inner surface of the pipe. (Figure 6)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known expandable mandrel technique of Hayes with the mandrel/core of Ikeda in order to allow for continuous contact between the inner mandrel and the inner surface of the tube (See Hayes Col. 1 Lines 25-30). This technique also allows for a single mandrel to suit varying pipe sizes due to the adjustability. (General engineering rationale based on the Figures of Hayes.) See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 7
Ikeda in view of Hayes teaches the device according to claim 4, characterized in that the wedge has a first wedge surface which is arranged to press the inner support against the inner surface of the pipe (Hayes, Figure 4 teaches the wedge (180) has a first (top) surface that presses against the other part of the inner support (140).), and another wedge surface, which is arranged to lift the wedge from the inner surface of the pipe. (Hayes, Figure 4 shows the bottom surface of the wedge (180) is arranged to lift from the inner surface of the pipe. Alternatively, Hayes, Figure 4 teaches the wedge (180) has a surface that moves along a guide pin (144), which is operative to hold the wedge up from the inner surface of the pipe.)
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP2001162335A) in view of Hayes (US11931790B1), as applied in Claim 4, further in view of Coulon (US3698274A).
Claim 6
Ikeda in view of Hayes teaches the device according to claim 4, characterized in that the inner support is arranged to be moved into and out of the support position by one actuator (The “support position” in Ikeda in view of Hayes is interpreted as Figure 6 of Hayes, where the wedge (180) is forcing the rest of the inner support into contact with the inner surface of the tube. This is done via an actuator (156, 158).), which is arranged to first move the inner support with its wedge into the support position via the wedge arm (Hayes, Figures 4-6 show the movement of the inner support (140, 180) to the support position (Figure 6) via the wedge arm (the part of the wedge (180) that connects to the actuator (156, 158).)and then move only wedge via the wedge arm, whereby the inner support is wedged into the support position. (Hayes, Figures 4-6 show the inner support (140, 180) is moved to the support position (where the inner support contacts the interior of the pipe) via movement of the wedge via the wedge arm.)
Ikeda in view of Hayes does not explicitly disclose a spring and moving the wedge arm against the force of said spring.
However, Coulon (US3698274A) teaches a wedge (32) as part of an inner support system (17, 18) for supporting a pipe (Figure 1) during a punching process (Figure 1) that has a spring that applies a spring force against the support position. (Col. 2, Lines 60-65 teach a spring (54) that is used to draw the expanding mandrel members (17-18) together. As shown in Figure 1, the wedge (32) is used to move the members apart. Therefore, the spring in Coulon is used to push inner support mandrel members out of the “support position” and back towards one another.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known spring loaded return technique of Coulon to the system of Larikka in view of Larikka ‘466, Ikeda, and Hayes in order to bias the mandrel back to a lower outside diameter position. (See Coulon Col. 2, Lines 63-65). See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 8
Ikeda in view of Hayes and Coulon teaches the device according to claim 6, characterized in that the wedge has a first wedge surface, which is arranged to press the inner support against the inner surface of the pipe(Hayes, Figure 4 teaches the wedge (180) has a first (top) surface that presses against the other part of the inner support (140).), and another wedge surface, which is arranged to lift the wedge from the inner surface of the pipe. (Hayes, Figure 4 shows the bottom surface of the wedge (180) is arranged to lift from the inner surface of the pipe. Alternatively, Hayes, Figure 4 teaches the wedge (180) has a surface that moves along a guide pin (144), which is operative to hold the wedge up from the inner surface of the pipe.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Larikka does not teach “and internally welding the joint seam (21) between the pipes without a welding additive to thereby melt the joint seam (21) into one wall that merges with the walls of the main pipe (T) and the branch pipe (P).” as presently presented in Claim 1
Applicant discusses the term “additive” in published ¶0010 of their specification as “any additive brought from the outside”. Larikka is silent regarding an additive brought from the outside in the welding method. The cited patent publications discussed in ¶0002 were reviewed and no mention of the term “welding additive” was found. The references appear to use a welding electrode within the interior of the pipe to weld to joint. Applicant’s published specification ¶0036 describes the use of a welding electrode. As such, Larikka is silent on welding additives (as defined by applicant) and is either silent on the welding method, or the prior references teach the same welding tool (an electrode) as applicant is disclosing. Applicant also alleges that the step (4) found in Larikka is a welding additive. This is a part of the pipe (1) and not an “additive brought from the outside”. Additionally, Applicant’s published application ¶0036 describes melting of the material of “overlapping joint edges”, which is what is being disclosed by the prior art.
Applicant argues that the combination of Coulon and McDonald renders Coulon unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because it would frustrate the purpose of the lower supporting block 12 which “provide a rigid support for the piercing operation and at least several different inner diameter sizes of tubing”.
Coulon teaches that “…block 12 provide(s) a rigid support for the piercing operation and at least several inner diameter sizes of tubing may be placed over the mandrels…” (Col. 3, Lines 17-21). Figure 2 teaches the block (12) has a specific radius trough area that supports the pipe. This means that the block (12) is designed for a particular outer diameter of pipe. Therefore, including a top jaw alongside the block (12) as is presented in the combination with McDonald, would not impact the inner diameter tubing changes discussed by Coulon. Applicant also argues that the proposed modifications of Coulon would impede the function of the punch, block and plate assembly. No specific evidence is provided to support this assertion. McDonald teaches that a punch can be used in combination with the double retaining jaw system in Figures 3A-3B.
Applicant argues that the interpretation of Ikeda does not align with what a PHOSITA would understand when reading the reference. Applicant specifically points to Items 10, 20, 11 and 21 in the remarks.
It is respectfully asserted that the reference does use terminology in the written description that paints a confusing picture on what the structure and purpose of Items 10,11, 20 and 21 is. However, when the written description is viewed alongside the Figures, specifically Figures 1 and 2, it is clear that Items 10 and 20 represent analogous retaining jaws and Items 11 and 21 are analogous troughs. Item 10 is referred to in the provided machine translation as a “stripper”. However, ¶0013 describes this “stripper” as having a recess (11) that supports the pipe member (1). Figure 1 shows this “stripper” as a block of material with a semi-circular recess in it. Item 20 is referred to as a “die blade”. However, ¶0013 describes this “die blade” as having a recess (21) for supporting the pipe member (1). Figure 1 shows this “die blade” as a block of material that has a semi-circular recess in it that is supporting the pipe. Therefore, although the machine translated description of Ikeda presents confusing terms for Items 10 and 20, the reference does teach analogous retaining jaws.
Applicant argues that a PHOSITA would not be motivated to modify the arrangement of Ikeda in view of the teachings of Hayes. The arguments specifically concern one of the two motivations presented in the combination, “varying pipe sizes”.
Ikeda teaches an inner mandrel (3) that is a fixed diameter/size. Hayes teaches an inner support system that can change size. Having an inner mandrel system that can change size allows the system of Ikeda to be used with pipes of differing internal diameters/sizes. Hayes also teaches the system allows for continuous contact between the inner mandrel and the inner surface of the tube (See Hayes Col. 1 Lines 25-30). Applicant does not disparage this motivation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
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 Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726