DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1, 10-17, 24-28 and 43 are rejected, claims 3-9, 18-23, and 29-42 are withdrawn, and claim 2 is cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 14 that Kim does not cure the deficiencies of Barron, the examiner respectfully disagrees as Kim explicitly discloses the benefits of a plurality of outer slits/notches at a predetermined depth to provide the benefit of allowing the grip ring to conform to the shape of the tube (see paragraphs 0084-0085). In addition, there is nothing structural that would prevent the slits of Kim to meet the functional limitation where the slits “permit radial contraction of the grip ring during tightening while maintaining sufficient back thickness to retain the grip ring within the end ring”.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 11, and 25-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 14, In claims 25-26, lines 1-2, the limitation “the gripper comprises a grip ring” should be “the gripper is comprised of a grip ring” or “the gripper is formed as a grip ring”.
In claim 11, line 1, “wherein the gripper is a grip ring” should be removed as this was previously presented in claim 1.
In claims 25-26, lines 1-2, the limitation “the gripper comprises a grip ring” should be “the gripper is comprised of a grip ring” or “the gripper is formed as a grip ring”.
In claim 25, line 2, the limitation “the grip ring defines a plurality of relief notches” should be “the grip ring defines the plurality of relief notches” as the relief notches were previously presented in claim 24.
In claim 27, lines 1-2, the limitation “the grip ring defines a plurality of relief notches” should be “the grip ring defines the plurality of relief notches” as the relief notches were previously presented in claim 24.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 10-17 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.
In regards to claim 1, the limitation “while maintaining sufficient back thickness” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “while maintaining sufficient back thickness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim is not defined due to varying degree of the magnitude of the sufficient back thickness (ex. what is and is not considered “sufficient” regarding maintaining back thickness).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 10-12, 14-16, 24-28, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barron et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,004,511) and in view of Kim (KR-20190053647).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood, Barron discloses:
A gland (ex., see fig. 1; see fig. 3 hereinafter unless otherwise noted) for attaching a piping element (12) to a mechanical joint, the gland comprising:
an end ring (22),
the end ring defining a main cavity (see near 24) sized to accept the piping element;
a gripper (26), the gripper defining a main cavity sized to accept the piping element (see fig. 3);
the gripper adjacent to the end ring (see fig. 3),
the gripper is arranged abutting the end ring (see fig. 3),
the gripper comprising a plurality of gripping teeth (40, 42, 44, 46, fig. 7) arranged to contact the piping element;
a gasket (38) arranged around the piping element and configured to receive compressive forces in response to motion of the end ring; and,
at least one fastener (30, 52, fig. 2) connecting the end ring to the mechanical joint in tightening arrangement,
wherein the gasket is in contact with the mechanical joint and with the piping element in arrangement to provide a fluid seal between the mechanical joint and the piping element (see fig. 5),
but does not disclose:
wherein the grip ring defines a plurality of circumferentially spaced relief notches which permits radial contraction of the grip ring during tightening while maintaining sufficient back thickness to retain the grip ring within the end ring.
In regards to the relief notches, Kim discloses a similar device (see fig. 11) comprising a similar grip ring (44, fig. 8) comprising a plurality of slits (44, fig. 8; for naming purposes, the slits are being interpreted as notches of the claim) such that:
“[0084] Referring to Fig. 10, the grip ring 4-2 differs from the grip ring of the first embodiment (see reference numeral 4 in Fig. 2) only in that it further includes an incision structure for guiding contraction. That is, the grip ring 4-2 has at least one slit 44 formed in at least one of an inner circumference and an outer circumference at a predetermined depth and has a cut-out structure.
[0085] It is preferable that the slit 44 is formed on both the inner periphery and the outer periphery of the grip ring 4-2 in terms of improving the shrinkage inducing effect of the grip ring 4-2. Then, the grip ring 4-2 is contracted to conform to the shape of the insertion tube 10 while the inner circumferential slit 44 is wrinkled and the outer circumferential slit 44 is opened.” (see paragraphs 0084-0085 in the translated document provided herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the grip ring of Barron with the provision of a plurality of circumferentially spaced outer slits at a predetermined depth to provide the benefit of allowing the grip ring to conform to the shape of the tube, as taught by Kim (see paragraphs 0084-0085).
In regards to permitting radial contraction and maintaining back thickness, it is inherent that the grip ring of Barron in view of Kim would meet the functional limitation of the claim as Barron explicitly discloses a grip ring (see fig. 6) with a gap (25, fig. 6) which closes with radial contraction (see fig. 7; ex., compare fig. 4 with fig. 5, which shows the grip ring radially contracting) while Kim also explicitly discloses a grip ring (see fig. 10) with notches (44) and a gap (43) which would also close due to radial contraction while both Kim and Barron show the back thickness is maintained.
In regards to claim 10, Barron further discloses:
The gland of claim 1 further comprising a washer (36) arranged between and abutting the gasket and the gripper.
In regards to claim 11, Barron further discloses:
The gland of claim 10, wherein the grip ring comprises a compression surface (48),
wherein the end ring comprises a compression surface (24), and
wherein the compression surface of the grip ring is in contact with the compression surface of the end ring (see fig. 3).
In regards to claim 12, Barron further discloses:
The gland of claim 11, wherein at least one compression surface defines a frustoconical shape (see fig. 3).
In regards to claim 14, Barron further discloses:
The gland of claim 11, wherein the grip ring comprises a first body end and a second body end (see fig. 7, where the grip ring comprises a first and second body end defining gap 25),
wherein the grip ring defines a gap (25, fig. 7) between the first body end and the second body end,
wherein the gap can be shortened in response to motion of the end ring toward the grip ring (compare fig. 6 with fig. 8, which shows the gap closing).
In regards to claim 15, Barron in view of Kim further discloses:
The gland of claim 14, wherein the plurality of relief notches are configured to allow flexion of the grip ring.
In regards to claim 16, Barron in view of Kim further discloses:
The gland of claim 15, wherein the body thickness of the grip ring is measured radially from a radially inward end of the grip ring to a radially outward end of the grip ring (ex., see fig. 7 of Barron, which discloses a radial thickness).
In regards to claim 24, Barron discloses:
A method of connecting a gland (ex., see fig. 1) to a mechanical joint to secure a piping element within the mechanical joint, the method comprising:
obtaining a gland assembly (see fig. 5 hereinafter),
the gland assembly comprising:
an end ring (22);
at least one fastener (30, 52, fig. 1);
a gasket (38); and
a gripper (26) comprising at least one gripping tooth (40, 42, 44, 46, fig. 7);
arranging the end ring, the gripper, and the gasket surrounding the piping element (see fig. 5),
the end ring contacting the gripper (see near 48 in fig. 5),
the gripper contacting at least one of the end ring and the gasket (see near 49 and 51 in fig. 5);
arranging the piping element within an opening of the mechanical joint (see near 20);
arranging the at least one fastener in coupling engagement with the end ring and the mechanical joint (see fig. 5); and
tightening the at least one fastener such that the at least one gripping tooth contacts the piping element (compare fig. 4 with fig. 5, where the grip ring contacts the pipe),
wherein the grip ring remains retained within the end ring while contracting into gripping engagement with the piping element (ex., see fig. 5 compared to fig. 4),
but does not disclose:
wherein the gripper comprising a plurality of circumferentially spaced relief notches, and
wherein each relief notch has a depth greater than about fifty percent (50%) of a body thickness of the grip ring.
In regards to the relief notches, Kim discloses a similar device (see fig. 11) comprising a similar grip ring (44, fig. 8) comprising a plurality of slits (44, fig. 8; for naming purposes, the slits are being interpreted as notches of the claim) such that:
“[0084] Referring to Fig. 10, the grip ring 4-2 differs from the grip ring of the first embodiment (see reference numeral 4 in Fig. 2) only in that it further includes an incision structure for guiding contraction. That is, the grip ring 4-2 has at least one slit 44 formed in at least one of an inner circumference and an outer circumference at a predetermined depth and has a cut-out structure.
[0085] It is preferable that the slit 44 is formed on both the inner periphery and the outer periphery of the grip ring 4-2 in terms of improving the shrinkage inducing effect of the grip ring 4-2. Then, the grip ring 4-2 is contracted to conform to the shape of the insertion tube 10 while the inner circumferential slit 44 is wrinkled and the outer circumferential slit 44 is opened.” (see paragraphs 0084-0085 in the translated document provided herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the grip ring of Barron with the provision of a plurality of circumferentially spaced outer slits at a predetermined depth to provide the benefit of allowing the grip ring to conform to the shape of the tube, as taught by Kim (see paragraphs 0084-0085).
In regards to the depth, while Barron in view of Kim does not disclose “the relief notch depth is at least 50% of the body thickness”, the “depth” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Kim explicitly discloses that the depth of the relief notches is a known and predetermined parameter (see paragraph 0084 of Kim).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the relief notch depth of Barron in view of Kim to have a “the relief notch depth is at least 50% of the body thickness”, as the “depth” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Kim explicitly discloses that this is a known and predetermined parameter (see paragraph 0084 of Kim). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 25, Barron in view of Kim further discloses:
The method of claim 24, wherein the gripper “is comprised of a” grip ring (ex., see fig. 5 of Barron),
wherein the grip ring defines “the” plurality of relief notches (ex., see fig. 8 of Kim), and
wherein the step of tightening the at least one fastener such that the at least one gripping tooth contacts the piping element further comprises flexing the grip ring along at least one of the relief notches (ex., compare fig. 4 and fig. 5 of Barron where the functional limitation would be met).
In regards to claim 26, Barron further discloses:
The method of claim 24, wherein the gripper “is comprised of” a grip ring,
wherein the grip ring comprises a first body end and a second body end, wherein the grip ring defines a gap between the first body end and the second body end (see gap 25 which defines the body ends), and
wherein the step of tightening the at least one fastener such that the at least one gripping tooth contacts the piping element further comprises shortening the gap (ex., compare fig. 6 with fig. 8).
In regards to claim 27, Barron in view of Kim further discloses:
The method of claim 26, wherein the grip ring defines “the” plurality of relief notches, and
wherein the step of tightening the at least one fastener such that the at least one gripping tooth contacts the piping element further comprises flexing the grip ring along at least one of the relief notches (ex., compare fig. 6 with fig. 8 of Barron where providing a plurality of outer relief notches on Barron would meet the functional limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 28, Barron further discloses:
The method of claim 27, wherein the gland assembly further comprises a washer (36, fig. 5),
further comprising the step of arranging the washer around the piping element between the grip ring and the gasket.
In regards to claim 43, Barron discloses:
A gland (see fig. 5 hereinafter) comprising:
an end ring (22);
a gripper (26) contacting the end ring,
the gripper “is comprised of” a grip ring,
a gasket (38) contacting the gripper,
the gasket configured to contact the piping element to provide a fluid seal,
but does not disclose:
the grip ring defining a plurality of circumferentially spaced relief notches, and
wherein each relief notch of the gripper has a relief notch depth of at least about 60 percent (60%) of a body thickness of the grip ring.
In regards to the relief notches, Kim discloses a similar device (see fig. 11) comprising a similar grip ring (44, fig. 8) comprising a plurality of slits (44, fig. 8; for naming purposes, the slits are being interpreted as notches of the claim) such that:
“[0084] Referring to Fig. 10, the grip ring 4-2 differs from the grip ring of the first embodiment (see reference numeral 4 in Fig. 2) only in that it further includes an incision structure for guiding contraction. That is, the grip ring 4-2 has at least one slit 44 formed in at least one of an inner circumference and an outer circumference at a predetermined depth and has a cut-out structure.
[0085] It is preferable that the slit 44 is formed on both the inner periphery and the outer periphery of the grip ring 4-2 in terms of improving the shrinkage inducing effect of the grip ring 4-2. Then, the grip ring 4-2 is contracted to conform to the shape of the insertion tube 10 while the inner circumferential slit 44 is wrinkled and the outer circumferential slit 44 is opened.” (see paragraphs 0084-0085 in the translated document provided herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the grip ring of Barron with the provision of a plurality of circumferentially spaced outer slits at a predetermined depth to provide the benefit of allowing the grip ring to conform to the shape of the tube, as taught by Kim (see paragraphs 0084-0085).
In regards to the depth, while Barron in view of Kim does not disclose “the relief notch depth is at least 60% of the body thickness”, the “depth” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Kim explicitly discloses that the depth of the relief notches is a known and predetermined parameter (see paragraph 0084 of Kim).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the relief notch depth of Barron in view of Kim to have a “the relief notch depth is at least 60% of the body thickness”, as the “depth” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Kim explicitly discloses that this is a known and predetermined parameter (see paragraph 0084 of Kim). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barron in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Furcoiu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,566,732).
In regards to claim 13, Baron discloses:
The gland of claim 11,
but does not disclose:
wherein the gasket is rubber.
In regards to the material of the gasket, Furcoiu discloses a similar device (see fig. 13) comprising:
a gasket (600, fig. 13) made of an elastomer, rubber, or polymer (10:64-66),
wherein the gasket does not need to comprise a pipe collar (640, fig. 10), ring collar (650, fig. 10), or stop lips (618, 628, 638, fig. 10) such that it is not critical for the gasket to stretch over a grip ring (710, fig. 10), end ring (820, fig. 10) or pipe (70, fig. 14; ex., the gasket of Furcoiu would also be similarly shaped to the gasket of Baron).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a rubber material as the material for the gasket of Barron because Furcoiu discloses that it is known to use a rubber material for a similar gasket (10:64-66) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barron in view of Kim as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Dent et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,335,946).
In regards to claim 17, Barron in view of Kim discloses:
The gland of claim 16,
but does not disclose:
wherein the grip ring is formed of ductile iron.
In regards to the material of the grip ring, Dent discloses that a similar device (see fig. 1) comprising a grip ring (24, fig. 2) such that grip rings are known to be made of ductile iron (7:49-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a ductile iron as the material for the grip ring of Barron in view of Kim because Dent discloses that it is known to use a ductile iron material for similar grip rings (7:49-52) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
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 ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights