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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "38" and "35" have both been used to designate a “slot”. 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. 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 § 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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the accessory" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 6 does not depend from claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZENG (CN 113864548 A).
As to claim 1, Zeng teaches a monkey bar joiner (the pipes 10, 20 of Zeng are capable of being used as “monkey bars” and thus the joiner is capable of being a monkey bar joiner) comprising: an elongate first body portion (first connecting piece 1) defining an inner surface and an opposed arcuate outer surface having an intermediate shoulder (see the embodiment of Figs 4-6. The first connecting piece 1 has an inn surface and an opposed top surface. The reinforcing flange 6 is an intermediate shoulder), at least one threaded aperture defined from said outer to inner surfaces (column 11 has screw hole 4); an elongate second body portion (second connecting piece 2) defining an inner surface and an opposed arcuate outer surface with a corresponding intermediate shoulder (second connecting piece 2 has an inner surface, an opposed arcuate lower surface, and reinforcing flange 6), the inner surface forming an abutment (limiting post 21); and at least one threaded fastener configured for operative threaded engagement within the at least one threaded aperture (locking piece 3); wherein the body portions are combinable (the first and second pieces are capable of being combined. See Fig 4 which shows the pieces separated, and Fig 6 which shows the pieces combined) so that the respective inner surfaces complementarily abut and an end of a monkey bar is receivable about the outer surfaces to lie against the shoulders (as shown in Fig 5, the pipe bodies 10, 20 are disposed on the connecting pieces 1, 2 such that the pipe bodies abut the reinforcing flange 6), the threaded fastener screwable to urge against the abutment to urge the body portions apart so that the respective arcuate outer surfaces frictionally engage an inner surface of the monkey bar to join two monkey bars in a continuous and substantially flush manner (Page 6 paragraph 5: “As shown in FIG. 6, the embodiment is further thinned, the limiting column 21 axially inwards is concavely provided with a limiting part 211, the thread locking piece 3 end extends into the limiting part 211 and interference fit with the limiting column 21; In this way, the first connecting piece 1 and the second connecting piece 2 can be tightly connected. so set can be inserted in the limiting hole 111 through the limiting column 21 limiting effect, and the limiting action of the limiting part of the thread locking piece 3 and the limiting part 211, double limiting fit, the first connecting piece 1 and the second connecting piece 2 of the embodiment is installed more quickly and accurately.”).
As to claim 3, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 1, wherein each end of the monkey bars defines an access aperture to allow access to a threaded fastener at an end of the body portion (as shown in Fig 5, the pipe bodies 10, 20 include locking holes 30).
As to claim 9, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 1, wherein an area of the arcuate outer surface is selectable according to a joining strength required from the joiner (this limitation pertains only to the method of making or method of using the device. See MPEP § 2113 and 2114. The device of Zeng is capable of being used in this way.).
As to claim 11, Zeng teaches a method of joining monkey bars (the pipes of Zeng are capable of being used as monkey bars. The method is directed to a joining method irrespective of the later use of the pipes.), said method comprising the steps of: providing a monkey bar joiner in accordance with claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, above); combining body portions of the joiner (first connecting piece 1 and second connecting piece 2 are combined as shown in Fig 6) and placing ends of two monkey bars over respective ends of said joiner to lie against the shoulders (as shown in the difference between Fig 4 and Fig 5); and screwing at least one threaded fastener (thread locking piece 3) to urge said body portions apart to frictionally engage inner surfaces of the monkey bars to join said monkey bars in a continuous and substantially flush manner (Page 6 paragraph 5: “As shown in FIG. 6, the embodiment is further thinned, the limiting column 21 axially inwards is concavely provided with a limiting part 211, the thread locking piece 3 end extends into the limiting part 211 and interference fit with the limiting column 21; In this way, the first connecting piece 1 and the second connecting piece 2 can be tightly connected. so set can be inserted in the limiting hole 111 through the limiting column 21 limiting effect, and the limiting action of the limiting part of the thread locking piece 3 and the limiting part 211, double limiting fit, the first connecting piece 1 and the second connecting piece 2 of the embodiment is installed more quickly and accurately.”).
As to claim 14, Zeng teaches a monkey bar joiner (the pipes 10, 20 of Zeng are capable of being used as “monkey bars” and thus the joiner is capable of being a monkey bar joiner) comprising: an elongate first body portion (first connecting piece 1) defining an inner surface and an opposed arcuate outer surface (see the embodiment of Figs 4-6. The first connecting piece 1 has an inner surface and an opposed top surface.) with at least two threaded apertures defined from said outer to inner surfaces (“the first connecting piece 1 is provided with at least two screw holes 4”); an elongate second body portion (second connecting piece 2) defining an inner surface and an opposed arcuate outer surface (see the embodiment of Figs 4-6. The second connecting piece 2 has an inner surface and an opposed bottom surface.), the inner surface forming an abutment (limiting part 211); and at least two threaded fasteners (thread locking piece 3) each configured for operative threaded engagement within a threaded aperture (as shown in Fig 6); wherein the body portions are combinable so that the respective inner surfaces complementarily abut and ends of respective monkey bars are receivable about the outer surfaces (as shown in figs 4 and 5), the threaded fasteners passable through complementary access apertures defined in said respective monkey bar ends (the thread locking pieces 3 are capable of passing through locking holes 30) and screwable to urge against the abutment to urge the body portions apart so that the respective arcuate outer surfaces frictionally engage inner surfaces of the monkey bars to join said monkey bars in a continuous and substantially flush manner (Page 6 paragraph 5: “As shown in FIG. 6, the embodiment is further thinned, the limiting column 21 axially inwards is concavely provided with a limiting part 211, the thread locking piece 3 end extends into the limiting part 211 and interference fit with the limiting column 21; In this way, the first connecting piece 1 and the second connecting piece 2 can be tightly connected. so set can be inserted in the limiting hole 111 through the limiting column 21 limiting effect, and the limiting action of the limiting part of the thread locking piece 3 and the limiting part 211, double limiting fit, the first connecting piece 1 and the second connecting piece 2 of the embodiment is installed more quickly and accurately.”).
As to claim 15, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 14, wherein the first body portion defines a threaded aperture on either end with the second body portion defining corresponding abutments (as shown in Fig 4, the first connecting piece 1 has connecting columns (in which the threaded hole 4 resides) on either end. The second connecting piece 2 has corresponding limiting parts 211.).
As to claim 18, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 14, wherein an area of the arcuate outer surface is selectable according to a joining strength required from the joiner (this limitation pertains only to the method of making or method of using the device. See MPEP § 2113 and 2114. The device of Zeng is capable of being used in this way.).
As to claim 20, Zeng teaches a method of joining monkey bars, said method comprising the steps of: providing a monkey bar joiner in accordance with claim 14 (see the rejection of claim 14 above); combining body portions of the joiner and placing ends of two monkey bars over respective ends of said joiner (see Figs 4 and 5); and screwing at least two threaded fasteners to urge said body portions apart to frictionally engage inner surfaces of the monkey bars to join said monkey bars in a continuous and substantially flush manner (Page 6 paragraph 5: “As shown in FIG. 6, the embodiment is further thinned, the limiting column 21 axially inwards is concavely provided with a limiting part 211, the thread locking piece 3 end extends into the limiting part 211 and interference fit with the limiting column 21; In this way, the first connecting piece 1 and the second connecting piece 2 can be tightly connected. so set can be inserted in the limiting hole 111 through the limiting column 21 limiting effect, and the limiting action of the limiting part of the thread locking piece 3 and the limiting part 211, double limiting fit, the first connecting piece 1 and the second connecting piece 2 of the embodiment is installed more quickly and accurately.”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZENG (CN 113864548 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hollaender (US 3000656 A).
As to claim 2, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 1, wherein the first body portion (first connecting piece 1) defines a threaded aperture on either end (as shown in Fig 4), with the second body portion defining corresponding abutments (Zeng teaches that for every threaded aperture, there is a corresponding abutment 211). Zeng does not teach: with a further threaded aperture defined on the intermediate shoulder. Rather, the intermediate shoulder of Zeng is narrow and does not have enough width to house a threaded aperture. However, in the field of pipe connectors, and specifically expanding pipe connectors, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for threaded apertures on an intermediate shoulder. See Hollaender which teaches an arrangement similar to that of Zeng. Hollaender teaches the intermediate shoulder (collar 4) is the place to put the threaded apertures.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Zeng to have included a threaded aperture on the intermediate shoulder. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to add yet another threaded aperture but without needing to provide for yet another hole in the joined pipes.
See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 4, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Zeng or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zeng in view of Hollaender.
As to claim 4, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 1, but does not teach the body portions are configured so that the intermediate shoulders correspond with a wall thickness of the monkey bars to facilitate flush joining of said monkey bars. Examiner notes that Zeng illustrates the reinforcing flange 6 is of approximately equal diameter as the pipes, but does not discuss this feature beyond what is shown in the drawings.
Examiner recognizes the drawings are not to be considered to be to scale, but the drawings must be considered in view of what a person having ordinary skill in the art would have gleaned from them at the time the invention was effectively made. In this way, a person having ordinary skill would have understood that the reinforcing flange 6 is of equal diameter to the pipes. In any case, Hollaender specifically addresses this feature at Col 3 lines 17-20: “The collars 4, being of radii equal to that of the outside surface of the pipe form a whole which is flush or coextensive with that surface, so that no augmentation of diameter of the pipes results.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the reinforcing flange of Zeng to have a thickness that corresponds to the pipe’s wall thickness. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve the benefits described by Hollaender, namely, avoiding a surface discontinuity.
As to claim 8, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of any of claim 1, wherein the at least one threaded fastener is shaped and dimensioned to lie flush with the joiner and/or monkey bars when the monkey bars are joined (as shown in Fig 6, the top of the head of the fastener 3 does not protrude from the surface of the joiner or the pipe. Thus the fastener is flush).
In another interpretation, the distance below the surface of the pipe which the threaded fastener sits is not particularly limited so long as the fastener does not protrude above the surface of the pipe, in order to maintain the continuity of the pipe. In this interpretation, any reasonable distance below the surface, including zero millimeters is “obvious to try” in this interpretation, and zero mm meets the requirement, thus overlapping with the claimed “flush.”
In a third interpretation, “flush” is more narrowly construed and Zeng is not obviated to meet it by itself. However, providing screw heads to be flush with the outside surface of a pipe and joiner was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Hollaender which teaches the screws 14 are flush with the outer surface of the joiner at least at Fig 2. It would have been a matter of obvious design choice to have provided for the fastener to be flush with the surface in order to provide for an unbroken surface for aesthetic reasons.).
As to claim 17, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 14, wherein the at least one threaded fastener is shaped and dimensioned to lie flush with the joiner and/or monkey bars when the monkey bars are joined (as shown in Fig 6, the top of the head of the fastener 3 does not protrude from the surface of the joiner or the pipe. Thus the fastener is flush).
In another interpretation, the distance below the surface of the pipe which the threaded fastener sits is not particularly limited so long as the fastener does not protrude above the surface of the pipe, in order to maintain the continuity of the pipe. In this interpretation, any reasonable distance below the surface, including zero millimeters is “obvious to try” in this interpretation, and zero mm meets the requirement, thus overlapping with the claimed “flush.”
In a third interpretation, “flush” is more narrowly construed and Zeng is not obviated to meet it by itself. However, providing screw heads to be flush with the outside surface of a pipe and joiner was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Hollaender which teaches the screws 14 are flush with the outer surface of the joiner at least at Fig 2. It would have been a matter of obvious design choice to have provided for the fastener to be flush with the surface in order to provide for an unbroken surface for aesthetic reasons.).
Claims 5, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Miller (US 2657944 A).
As to claim 5, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 1, but does not teach the intermediate shoulders each defines an indentation which complementarily forms a slot when the body portions are combined, said slot configured to receive and capture an accessory when the monkey bars are joined.
However, in the field of pipe connectors, and specifically expanding pipe connectors, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for opposed surfaces of a pipe connector to form a slot in which an accessory is captured. See Miller which teaches a coupling for tubular members. Miller further teaches a hook 18 is captured between opposing surfaces of the pipe connector and then held fast using a set screw 19.
See the slot into which the hook is placed in Fig 5.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the hook of Miller in the pipe connector of Zeng. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to hang the joined pipes from a hook, as from a ceiling, as described in Miller Col 3 lines 30+.
As to claim 6, Zeng in view of Miller teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 1 (Examiner will treat claim 6 as depending from claim 5), wherein the accessory comprises a mounting for a monkey bar installation (the hook is a mounting as it is capable of performing the function of mounting the pipes to another item, such as the ceiling.).
As to claim 11, Zeng teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach capturing a monkey bars accessory within a slot defined by the intermediate shoulders when combining the body portions.
However, in the field of pipe connectors, and specifically expanding pipe connectors, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for opposed surfaces of a pipe connector to form a slot in which an accessory is captured. See Miller which teaches a coupling for tubular members. Miller further teaches a hook 18 is captured between opposing surfaces of the pipe connector and then held fast using a set screw 19.
See the slot into which the hook is placed in Fig 5.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the hook of Miller in the pipe connector of Zeng. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to hang the joined pipes from a hook, as from a ceiling, as described in Miller Col 3 lines 30+.
Claims 7, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Higgs et al. (GB 2406366 A).
As to claim 7, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of any of claim 1, but does not teach the outer surfaces of the body portions are configured to align with an internal longitudinal ridge of the monkey bars to counteract rotation of said monkey bars when joined by the joiner.
However, in the field of pipe connectors, and specifically expanding pipe connectors, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for grooves in the outer surface of each body portion to account for the inner surface of the pipes to be joined. See Higgs which teaches first and second connector pieces 11, 12 (see Figs 1 and 2). Higgs further teaches each connector piece includes a groove 20 “dimensioned to be sufficiently large in cross- section to accommodate the maximum likely size of a weld seam of a circular section tube”, see Page 5 Paragraph 4.
Thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the outer surfaces of the body portions of Zeng to be configured to align with an internal longitudinal ridge of the pipe. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the connectors to fit within the pipe by accommodating the inner surface of the pipe. The limitations regarding the usefulness of the groove to counteract rotation are merely intended use of which the grooves of Higgs are capable. See MPEP § 2114.
As to claim 13, Zeng teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach aligning the outer surfaces of the body portions with an internal longitudinal ridge of the monkey bars to counteract rotation of said monkey bars when joined by the joiner.
However, in the field of pipe connectors, and specifically expanding pipe connectors, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for grooves in the outer surface of each body portion to account for the inner surface of the pipes to be joined. See Higgs which teaches first and second connector pieces 11, 12 (see Figs 1 and 2). Higgs further teaches each connector piece includes a groove 20 “dimensioned to be sufficiently large in cross- section to accommodate the maximum likely size of a weld seam of a circular section tube”, see Page 5 Paragraph 4.
Thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the outer surfaces of the body portions of Zeng to be configured to align with an internal longitudinal ridge of the pipe. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the connectors to fit within the pipe by accommodating the inner surface of the pipe. The grooves 20 perform the claimed method of counteracting rotation.
As to claim 16, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 14, but does not teach the outer surfaces of the body portions are configured to align with an internal longitudinal ridge of the monkey bars to counteract rotation of said monkey bars when joined by the joiner.
However, in the field of pipe connectors, and specifically expanding pipe connectors, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for grooves in the outer surface of each body portion to account for the inner surface of the pipes to be joined. See Higgs which teaches first and second connector pieces 11, 12 (see Figs 1 and 2). Higgs further teaches each connector piece includes a groove 20 “dimensioned to be sufficiently large in cross- section to accommodate the maximum likely size of a weld seam of a circular section tube”, see Page 5 Paragraph 4.
Thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the outer surfaces of the body portions of Zeng to be configured to align with an internal longitudinal ridge of the pipe. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the connectors to fit within the pipe by accommodating the inner surface of the pipe. The limitations regarding the usefulness of the groove to counteract rotation are merely intended use of which the grooves of Higgs are capable. See MPEP § 2114.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Lange (US 5641957 A).
As to claim 10, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 1, but does not teach the outer surface is knurled to facilitate frictional engagement with the inner surface of the monkey bars.
Rather, Zeng is silent as to the outer surface affecting the frictional engagement of the joiner to the pipe. However, in the field of pipe connectors, and specifically expanding pipe connectors, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for the joiner to have some outer surface which provides adequate frictional between the joiner and the pipes. See Lange which teaches the joiner has teeth 28 which are useful for digging into the inner surface of the pipe to retain the pipe in a stable configuration when the joiner is engaged.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for some outer surface, including a knurled outer surface, of the joiner of Zeng to increase friction between the joiner and the pipes. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve a strong and stable connection between the joiner and the pipes.
As to claim 19, Zeng teaches the monkey bar joiner of claim 14, but does not teach the outer surface is knurled to facilitate frictional engagement with the inner surface of the monkey bars.
Rather, Zeng is silent as to the outer surface affecting the frictional engagement of the joiner to the pipe. However, in the field of pipe connectors, and specifically expanding pipe connectors, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for the joiner to have some outer surface which provides adequate frictional between the joiner and the pipes. See Lange which teaches the joiner has teeth 28 which are useful for digging into the inner surface of the pipe to retain the pipe in a stable configuration when the joiner is engaged.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for some outer surface, including a knurled outer surface, of the joiner of Zeng to increase friction between the joiner and the pipes. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve a strong and stable connection between the joiner and the pipes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Many of Examiner’s references would meet the limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 14.
Hollaender (US 3000656 A) teaches a pipe joiner having an two separate connection pieces each having an intermediate shoulder and which works by expanding against the inner surface of the pipes as controlled by the turning of screws.
Miller (US 2657944 A) teaches the same except that there is a single piece which has a slot 4 which nearly bisects the joiner and which allows for relative movement between the halves.
Day (US 4249830 A), Barton (US 4090798 A), Peverada (US 10082167 B2), Lundmark (US 9968212 B1), Mahoney (US 7775916 B1), Liu (US 5083882 A), Targetti (US 4859109 A), Albaugh (US 6874971 B2), and Clark (GB 1373571) each teach an expanding pipe connector in the same manner as the others.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 16 July 2026
Prosecution Insights