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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-5 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/18/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 05/18/26 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunsman (US 2002/0000719 A1).
As to claim 1, Kunsman discloses a pipe fitting, comprising: a body (12); a first connector (41) on a first side of the body; and a second connector (13) on a second side of the body, the first connector, the body, and the second connector forming an internal passageway along an axis from a first port of the first connector to a second port of the second connector (see figures), the first port shaped to have a concave curvature relative to a plane perpendicular to the axis and extending through the internal passageway. Refer to paragraphs [0024] - [0029] and Figs. 1-4.
As to claim 2, Kunsman discloses the pipe fitting of claim 1, comprising: the first port has a first point on the axis and a second point radially outward from the axis, the second point further from the plane than the first point such that the first port has reduced interference with fluid flow from a component coupled with the first connector relative to the second point. Refer to Figs. 1 and 4.
As to claim 7, Kunsman discloses the pipe fitting of claim 1, comprising: a portion of the internal passageway between the first port and the second port has a lesser diameter than each of the first port and the second port. Refer to Figs. 1 and 4.
As to claim 8, Kunsman discloses the pipe fitting of claim 1, comprising: a gasket receiver (43) formed by the first connector and the body outward from the first port (Figs. 1 and 4).
As to claim 9, Kunsman discloses the pipe fitting of claim 1, comprising: a gasket receiver (43) formed by the pipe first connector and the body outward from the first port inlet, the gasket receiver having an outer wall varying in height about a radial path around the axis (Figs. 1 and 4).
As to claim 10, Kunsman discloses the pipe fitting of claim 1, comprising: a gasket receiver (43) formed by the pipe first connector and the body outward from the first port inlet, the gasket receiver having an outer wall varying in height about a radial path around the axis, a ratio of a first value of the height to a second value of the height is greater than or equal to 1.05 and less than or equal to 1.5 (Figs. 1 and 4).
As to claim 11, Kunsman discloses the pipe fitting of claim 1, comprising: a gasket receiver (43) formed by the pipe first connector and the body outward from the first port inlet, the gasket receiver having a radius greater than a height of the gasket receiver (Figs. 1 and 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunsman in view of Kreimerman et al (WO 2015/071907).
As to claim 3, Kunsman discloses the pipe fitting of claim 1, except that: the body extends outward from the axis to a first strap receiver on a first side of the internal passageway and a second strap receiver on a second side of the internal passageway, the first strap receiver and the second strap receiver extend through the plane.
However, Kreimerman et al teaches a similar pipe fitting (1), wherein the body (10) extends outward from the axis to a first strap receiver (15) on a first side of the internal passageway (24) and a second strap receiver (16) on a second side of the internal passageway, the first strap receiver and the second strap receiver extend through the plane. The strap receivers permit quick assembly of a U-bolt fastener (30) to secure a pipe to the fitting.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fastening arrangement of Kunsman to include a strap receiver on each side of the fitting in place of the bolt holes, as taught by Kreimerman et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to eliminate the need for a lower fitting half, thereby reducing the number of parts and making assembly of the fitting to the pipe quicker and easier.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunsman.
As to claim 6, Kunsman discloses the pipe fitting of claim 1, except that: a projection of the first port onto the plane is elliptical.
However, an elliptical shape would have provided a larger flow path and improved fluid flow than a circular shape.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have modified Kunsman such that a projection of the first port onto the plane is elliptical, for the purpose of improving fluid flow from the pipe through the fitting, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. 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).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunsman in view of KR 10-2177888.
As to claim 12, Kunsman discloses the pipe fitting of claim 1, comprising: a gasket receiver formed by the pipe first connector, yet fails to teach that the gasket receiver having an outer wall and a plurality of tabs inward from the outer wall.
However, KR 10-2177888 teaches a similar saddle pipe fitting (100) which includes a gasket receiver having an outer wall with a plurality of tabs (111) extending inward from the outer wall. This configuration reduces assembly time, material costs and increases flow from the branch pipe through the fitting (see Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kunsman such that the gasket receiver having an outer wall and a plurality of tabs inward from the outer wall, as taught by KR ‘888, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce assembly time, material costs and increase flow from the branch pipe through the fitting.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunsman in view of Kreimerman et al (WO 2015/071907).
As to claim 13, Kunsman discloses a pipe strap fitting, comprising: a body (12); a connector (13) extending from the body along an axis to an outlet, the body defining a plane perpendicular to the axis; and a pipe connector (41) extending on an opposite side of the body from the connector along the axis to an inlet, the connector, the pipe connector, and the body forming an internal passageway along the axis between the inlet and the outlet (see figures), the pipe connector comprising an inner wall (defined by lip 42) forming the inlet and an outer wall (62), the inner wall and the outer wall forming a gasket receiver (43) between the inner wall and the outer wall, an edge of the outer wall further from the plane than an edge of the inner wall, the inner wall and the outer wall having concave curvatures relative to the plane (see Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Kunsman fails to teach the one connector is a sprinkler connector and the body having at least one strap receiver formed along the plane outward from the axis.
However, Kreimerman et al teaches a similar pipe fitting (1), the fitting including a connector (22) that can be attached to a sprinkler (see page 3, first paragraph), wherein the body (10) extends outward from the axis to a first strap receiver (15) on a first side of the internal passageway (24) and a second strap receiver (16) on a second side of the internal passageway, the first strap receiver and the second strap receiver extend through the plane. The strap receivers permit quick assembly of a U-bolt fastener (30) to secure a pipe to the fitting.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fastening arrangement of Kunsman to include a sprinkler connector, and a strap receiver on each side of the fitting in place of the bolt holes, as taught by Kreimerman et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to permit attachment to a sprinkler, and to eliminate the need for a lower fitting half thereby reducing the number of parts and making assembly of the fitting to the pipe quicker and easier.
As to claim 14, Kunsman in view of Kreimerman et al discloses the pipe strap fitting of claim 13, comprising: the inlet has a first point on the axis and a second point radially outward from the axis, the second point further from the plane than the first point. Refer to Figs. 1 and 4.
As to claim 15, Kunsman in view of Kreimerman et al discloses the pipe strap fitting of claim 13, comprising: the body extends outward from the axis to a first strap receiver (15) on a first side of the internal passageway and a second strap receiver (16) on a second side of the internal passageway, the first strap receiver and the second strap receiver extend through the plane.
As to claim 16, Kunsman in view of Kreimerman et al discloses the pipe strap fitting of claim 13, except that: a projection of the first port onto the plane is elliptical.
However, an elliptical shape would have provided a larger flow path and improved fluid flow than a circular shape.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have modified Kunsman/Kreimerman et al such that a projection of the first port onto the plane is elliptical, for the purpose of improving fluid flow from the pipe through the fitting, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. 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).
As to claim 17, Kunsman in view of Kreimerman et al discloses the pipe strap fitting of claim 13, comprising: a gasket receiver (43) formed by the pipe connector and the body outward from the inlet, the gasket receiver having an outer wall varying in height about a radial path around the axis, the gasket receiver having a radius greater than a height of the gasket receiver (Figs. 1 and 4).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunsman in view of Kreimerman et al (WO 2015/071907), and further in view of KR 10-2177888.
As to claim 18, Kunsman in view of Kreimerman et al discloses the pipe strap fitting of claim 13, except that: the inner wall comprises a plurality of tabs.
However, KR 10-2177888 teaches a similar saddle pipe fitting (100) which includes a gasket receiver having an outer wall with a plurality of tabs (111) extending inward from the outer wall. This configuration reduces assembly time, material costs and increases flow from the branch pipe through the fitting (see Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kunsman/Kreimerman et al such that the gasket receiver having an outer wall and a plurality of tabs inward from the outer wall, as taught by KR ‘888, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce assembly time, material costs and increase flow from the branch pipe through the fitting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanson Arne, Lee, and Blakeley each discloses a similar pipe saddle fitting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights