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 Status
Claims 1-13 are pending. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-11 and new claims 12 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant argues that Examiner admits that neither Vogl or Powell disclose or suggest a fluid flow duct or a fuel stringer duct.
Examiner disagrees.
Examiner did not “admit” that neither Vogl or Powell disclose or suggest a fluid flow duct or a fuel stringer duct, rather Examiner noted to Applicant that the fluid flow duct and the fuel stringer duct as recited in the preamble of the claim were not a part of the claimed invention of the connector.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant argues that neither Vogl or Powell disclose or suggest a fuel stringer duct connector as neither Vogl nor Powell are used in aircraft stringer ducts.
Examiner disagrees.
Both Vogl and Powell, as set forth in the rejections below, disclose all of the limitations as set forth for the fuel string duct connector as recited in the claims. Applicant should note that while anticipation requires the disclosure of each and every limitation of the claim at issue in a single prior art reference, it does not require such disclosure in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). In addition, it does not require that the prior art reference "teach" what the application at issue teaches. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Finally, Applicant is reminded that during examination claim limitations are to be given their broadest reasonable reading. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Finally, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114). As both Vogl and Powell disclose the structural limitations of the claims, Vogl and Powell disclose the claimed invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/3/26. These drawings are acceptable to Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Correction is required.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Figure 3 of Vogl U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0017643 A1.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 3, Vogl discloses a fuel string duct connector for connecting a fluid flow duct to a fuel stringer duct, the fuel string duct connector (as shown in Fig 3 below) comprising:
a body, the body comprising
a first opening on a first face,
a second opening on a second face, the second face configured for connection with the fluid flow duct,
an internal channel for fluid passage between the first opening and the second opening, and
a flange that surrounds the first opening on the first face, the flange configured for insertion into a hole formed in a wall (as shown in Fig 3) of the fuel stringer duct, wherein an outer surface of the flange is provided with a first sealing member that surrounds the flange, the first sealing member configured to form a seal between the outer surface of the flange and an internal surface of the hole formed in the wall of the fuel stringer duct (as shown in Fig 3).
Note: the fluid flow duct and the fuel stringer duct are not a part of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Vogl discloses wherein the first sealing member is spaced apart from the first face of the body (as shown in Fig 3 above).
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powell U.S. Patent No. 1,616,390.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 4, Powell discloses a fuel string duct connector for connecting a fluid flow duct to a fuel stringer duct, the fuel string duct connector (see Fig 4 below) comprising:
a body, the body comprising
a first opening on a first face,
a second opening on a second face, the second face configured for connection with the fluid flow duct,
an internal channel for fluid passage between the first opening and the second opening, and
a flange that surrounds the first opening on the first face, the flange configured for insertion into a hole formed in a wall of the fuel stringer duct (where the flange is capable of being configured to be inserted into a hole in a wall of a fuel stringer duct), wherein an outer surface of the flange is provided with a first sealing member that surrounds the flange, the first sealing member configured to form a seal between the outer surface of the flange and an internal surface of the hole formed in the wall of the fuel stringer duct (wherein the seal is capable of being configured to form a seal between internal and external surfaces).
Note: the fluid flow duct and the fuel stringer duct are not a part of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
316
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 6, Powell discloses wherein the connector comprises bridging members (see Fig 4 above) that extend from the body at opposing sides of the first opening, the bridging members configured to bridge over the fuel stringer duct at either side of the fuel stringer duct, wherein the bridging members comprise a foot (at 9, 9 – also shown in Fig 1) for securing the connector to a surface at either side of the fuel stringer duct.
With regard to claim 7, Powell discloses wherein the connector is provided with holes (at 20, 20 – see Fig 1) for fastening the connector to the fuel stringer duct.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Figure 10 of Vogl U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0017643 A1.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 10, Vogl discloses a fuel string duct connector for connecting a fluid flow duct to a fuel stringer duct, the fuel string duct connector (as shown in Fig 10 below) comprising:
a body, the body comprising
a first opening on a first face,
a second opening on a second face, the second face configured for connection with the fluid flow duct,
an internal channel for fluid passage between the first opening and the second opening, and
a flange that surrounds the first opening on the first face, the flange configured for insertion into a hole formed in a wall (as shown in Fig 10) of the fuel stringer duct, wherein an outer surface of the flange is provided with a first sealing member that surrounds the flange, the first sealing member configured to form a seal between the outer surface of the flange and an internal surface of the hole formed in the wall of the fuel stringer duct (as shown in Fig 10).
Note: the fluid flow duct and the fuel stringer duct are not a part of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image3.png
532
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Vogl discloses wherein the first sealing member is spaced apart from the first face of the body (as shown in Fig 10 above).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogl.
With regard to claim 3, Vogl discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the first sealing member is spaced apart from the first face of the body by between approximately 2 and 6 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first sealing member be spaced apart from the first face of the body by between approximately 2 and 6 millimeters with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for a more secure connection and because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 4, Vogl discloses the claimed invention but does not expressly disclose that the first sealing member is an o-ring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first sealing member be an o-ring with a reasonable expectation of success as o-rings provide good sealing protection, are readily available and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known element for use on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
With regard to claim 5, Vogl discloses wherein the outer surface of the flange is formed with a groove which extends around a circumference of the flange and the o-ring is situated within the groove (as shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
136
244
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al in view of Figure 3 of Vogl.
With regard to claim 8, Douglas et al disclose an aircraft structure (paragraph 1, lines 1-5) comprising:
a fuel stringer duct (at 2) and
a fuel string duct connector (at 6),
wherein the fuel stringer duct (at 2) comprises a wall formed with a hole through a thickness of the wall (as shown in Fig 2 where the connector 6 is connected to the hole in wall of 2 and also shown in Fig 4).
However, Douglas et al do not disclose a fuel string duct connector according to claim 1, wherein a flange of the connector is positioned within the hole, and a first sealing member forms a seal between an outer surface of the flange and an internal surface of the hole, the first sealing member being positioned between opposing surfaces of the wall. Vogl teaches a connector according to claim 1 (as rejected and shown in Fig 3 above) wherein the flange of the connector is positioned within a hole of a pipe/duct, and the first sealing member forms a seal between the outer surface of the flange and an internal surface of the hole, the first sealing member being positioned between opposing surfaces of the wall (as shown below) to provide a connection device that can be used to mount a pipe to a duct and provide good sealing of the connection site (paragraphs 1 and 4).
As both Douglas et al and Vogl have connectors which are used to connect a pipe to a duct, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the connector of Douglas et al with the connector of Vogl with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good sealing at the connection site between the pipe and the duct as taught by Vogl and also to achieve the predictable result of providing a fluid connection between the pipe and duct using a connector.
PNG
media_image5.png
384
438
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 9, Douglas et al in view of Vogl disclose wherein the internal surface of the hole is formed by an additional sealing member (as shown above) and the first sealing member is in direct contact with the additional sealing member to form the seal between the outer surface of the flange and an internal surface of the hole.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al in view of Figure 10 of Vogl.
With regard to claim 8, Douglas et al disclose an aircraft structure (paragraph 1, lines 1-5) comprising:
a fuel stringer duct (at 2) and
a fuel string duct connector (at 6),
wherein the fuel stringer duct (at 2) comprises a wall formed with a hole through a thickness of the wall (as shown in Fig 2 where the connector 6 is connected to the hole in wall of 2 and also shown in Fig 4).
However, Douglas et al do not disclose a fuel string duct connector according to claim 1, wherein a flange of the connector is positioned within the hole, and a first sealing member forms a seal between an outer surface of the flange and an internal surface of the hole, the first sealing member being positioned between opposing surfaces of the wall. Vogl teaches a connector according to claim 1 (as rejected and shown in Fig 10 above) wherein the flange of the connector is positioned within a hole of a pipe/duct, and the first sealing member forms a seal between the outer surface of the flange and an internal surface of the hole, the first sealing member being positioned between opposing surfaces of the wall (as shown below) to provide a connection device that can be used to mount a pipe to a duct and provide good sealing of the connection site (paragraphs 1 and 4).
As both Douglas et al and Vogl have connectors which are used to connect a pipe to a duct, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the connector of Douglas et al with the connector of Vogl with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good sealing at the connection site between the pipe and the duct as taught by Vogl and also to achieve the predictable result of providing a fluid connection between the pipe and duct using a connector.
PNG
media_image6.png
532
464
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, Douglas et al in view of Vogl disclose wherein the connector is provided with holes (see above) for fastening the connector to the fuel stringer duct, and
wherein the connector is fastened to a wall of the fuel stringer duct (see above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are allowed as Applicant has incorporated the previously indicated allowable subject matter.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FANNIE KEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1820. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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.
/F.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679