DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending.
Claims 17-20 are currently withdrawn.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fennington, JR. (US 2007/0001447), (hereinafter, Fennington).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing 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 the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
807
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
4
4
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
624
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Clm 1: Fennington discloses an instrument tee (10, see Figs. 1, 2a, and 2c-4 and the Figs. above) comprising:
a main fluid passageway (20) comprising
a first fluid port (16),
a second fluid port (18) opposite the first fluid port, and
a pressure fluid passageway port (the inner opening between 16 and 18) between the first fluid port and the second fluid port;
a pressure fluid passageway (24) comprising a proximal end (the end adjacent the inner opening between 16 and 18) fluidly connected to the pressure fluid passageway port (see Figs. 2a and 2c-4) and having
a first inner diameter (the inner diameter closest to 20, see Fig. 1; in the region below the inner tapered surface) and
a first outer diameter (the outer diameter closest to 20, see Fig. 1; in the region below the inner tapered surface), and
a distal end (the end away from the inner opening between 16 and 18) having
a second inner diameter (see the inner diameter away from 20, see Fig. 1; in the region above the inner tapered surface and including the inner tapered surface) and
a second outer diameter (the outer diameter away from 20, see Fig. 1; in the region above the inner tapered surface and including the region including inner tapered surface);
a first clamp member (38) configured to connect an instrument (such as, 28 and the structure connected to 30 and retained by the clamp, also see [0034]) to the distal end of the pressure fluid passageway; and
a gasket (26, see [0034], [0036], [0040], claims 1 and 9-11, the abstract and Figs. 12 and 13) a first surface (the surface closest to 10) of which is configured to connect (connect being defined as linked) to at least a portion of a top surface of the pressure fluid passageway (see [0045], [0040], and [0035] and Figs. 12 and 13), and a second surface (the surface opposite of 10) of which is configured to connect (connect being defined as linked) to a bottom surface of the instrument (see [0045], [0040], and [0035] and Figs. 12 and 13) when the instrument is connected to the instrument tee by the first clamp member (see [0045] and [0040] and Figs. 12 and 13); and
wherein a portion (for example: the branched radially inward portion at 1024, see above) of the pressure fluid passageway (24) extends into a flow path of the main fluid passageway (20), and the first inner diameter (such as at 1111 or 1112, see above) is not the same length as the second inner diameter (such as compared to 2221 or 2222, or 2223, see above).
Re Clm 3: Fennington discloses wherein the first inner diameter is less than the second inner diameter (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 4: Fennington discloses wherein the first fluid port comprises a first hose barb (see Fig. 1, the left 14).
Re Clm 5: Fennington discloses wherein the second fluid port comprises a second hose barb (see Fig. 1, the right 14).
Re Clm 6: Fennington discloses further comprising the instrument removably connected to the pressure fluid passageway by at least the first clamp member (see Fig. 3).
Re Clm 7: Fennington discloses wherein the instrument is a pressure gauge (such as, 28 and the structure connected to 30 and retained by the clamp, also see [0034]).
Re Clm 8: Fennington discloses wherein the first clamp member is integrally connected to an end of the pressure gauge (see Fig. 3).
Re Clm 15: Fennington discloses wherein the gasket is configured to fluidly isolate the pressure fluid passageway from the instrument (see [0036]).
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) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fennington, JR. (US 2007/0001447), (hereinafter, Fennington) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, and 15 above.
Re Clms 9 and 10: Fennington discloses an instrument (such as, 28 and the structure connected to 30 and retained by the clamp, also see [0034]) and that the first clamp member is integrally connected to an end of the instrument (see Fig. 3 and [0034]).
Fennington fails to disclose that the disclosed instrument is a centrifugal pump.
A centrifugal pump is used to move fluid in order to provide fluid flow within a fluid system. The examiner is taking Official Notice that centrifugal pump(s) are old and well-known and having a centrifugal pump(s) connected to a fitting/system is also old and well-known, for the purpose of moving fluid within a fluid system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Fennington, to have employed a centrifugal pump, with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a centrifugal pump with a fitting is old and well-known and because the instrument of Fennington could have been replaced with a centrifugal pump (similarly to applicant), for the purpose of moving fluid within a fluid fitting/system.
Re Clms 11 and 12: Fennington discloses an instrument (such as, 28 and the structure connected to 30 and retained by the clamp, also see [0034]) and that the first clamp member is integrally connected to an end of the instrument (see Fig. 3 and [0034]).
Fennington fails to disclose that the disclosed instrument is a valve.
A valve is used to control the flow of a fluid within a system, for the purpose of regulating a fluid within a fitting/system. The examiner is taking Official Notice that valve(s) are old and well-known and having a valve(s) connected to a fitting/system is also old and well-known, for the purpose of moving fluid within a fluid system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Fennington, to have employed a valve, with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a valve with a fitting is old and well-known and because the instrument of Fennington could have been replaced with a centrifugal pump (similarly to applicant), for the purpose of moving fluid within a fluid fitting/system.
Re Clms 13 and 14: Fennington discloses an instrument (such as, 28 and the structure connected to 30 and retained by the clamp, also see [0034]) and that the first clamp member is integrally connected to an end of the instrument (see Fig. 3 and [0034]).
Fennington fails to disclose that the disclosed instrument is a positive displacement pump.
A positive displacement pump is used to move fluid in order to provide fluid flow within a fluid system. The examiner is taking Official Notice that positive displacement pump(s) are old and well-known and having a positive displacement pump(s) connected to a fitting/system is also old and well-known, for the purpose of moving fluid within a fluid system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Fennington, to have employed a positive displacement pump, with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a positive displacement pump with a fitting is old and well-known and because the instrument of Fennington could have been replaced with a positive displacement pump (similarly to applicant), for the purpose of moving fluid within a fluid fitting/system.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fennington, JR. (US 2007/0001447), (hereinafter, Fennington) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, and 15 above, in view of Whitaker et al. (US 9004545), (hereinafter, Whitaker).
Re Clm 16: Fennington discloses The instrument tee of claim 1, wherein the first clamp member is (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Fennington fails to disclose a first clamp member first section having: a first semi-circular wall having a first inner surface, a first outer surface, a first wall first end point, and a first wall second end point; a first wall first engagement member attached to the first wall outer surface at the first wall first end point and comprising a first hinge section; and a first wall second engagement member attached to the first outer surface at the first wall second end point and comprising a first plurality of inwardly facing teeth; and
a first clamp member second section having: a second semi-circular wall having a second inner surface, a second outer surface, a second wall first end point, and a second wall second end point; a second wall first engagement member attached to the second outer surface at the second wall first end point and comprising a second hinge section; and a second wall second engagement member attached to the second outer surface at the second wall second end point and comprising a first plurality of outwardly facing teeth; and
wherein the first clamp member first section is configured to connect to the first clamp member second section by mating the first hinge section to the second hinge section and mating the first plurality of inwardly facing teeth to the first plurality of outwardly facing teeth.
However, Whitaker discloses a clamp for securing flanged members, similar to that of Fennington. Whitaker also teaches a first clamp member first section (112) having: a first semi-circular wall (see Fig. 1) having a first inner surface (138), a first outer surface (see Fig. 1, the outer surface), a first wall first end point, and a first wall second end point; a first wall first engagement member (144) attached (connected) to the first wall outer surface at the first wall first end point and comprising a first hinge section (at 144); and a first wall second engagement member (118) attached (connected) to the first outer surface at the first wall second end point and comprising a first plurality of inwardly facing teeth (120s); and
a first clamp member second section (114) having: a second semi-circular wall (see Fig. 1) having a second inner surface (168), a second outer surface (see Fig. 1, the outer surface), a second wall first end point, and a second wall second end point; a second wall first engagement member (142) attached (connected) to the second outer surface at the second wall first end point and comprising a second hinge section (at 142); and a second wall second engagement member (136) attached (connected) to the second outer surface at the second wall second end point and comprising a first plurality of outwardly facing teeth (the 128s); and
wherein the first clamp member first section is configured to connect to the first clamp member second section by mating the first hinge section to the second hinge section and mating the first plurality of inwardly facing teeth to the first plurality of outwardly facing teeth (see Fig. 7). Where such would securely clamp two flanged members together to form a leak free joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Fennington, to have had a first clamp member first section having: a first semi-circular wall having a first inner surface, a first outer surface, a first wall first end point, and a first wall second end point; a first wall first engagement member attached to the first wall outer surface at the first wall first end point and comprising a first hinge section; and a first wall second engagement member attached to the first outer surface at the first wall second end point and comprising a first plurality of inwardly facing teeth; and
a first clamp member second section having: a second semi-circular wall having a second inner surface, a second outer surface, a second wall first end point, and a second wall second end point; a second wall first engagement member attached to the second outer surface at the second wall first end point and comprising a second hinge section; and a second wall second engagement member attached to the second outer surface at the second wall second end point and comprising a first plurality of outwardly facing teeth; and
wherein the first clamp member first section is configured to connect to the first clamp member second section by mating the first hinge section to the second hinge section and mating the first plurality of inwardly facing teeth to the first plurality of outwardly facing teeth, as taught by Whitaker, with a reasonable expectation of success because one clamp structure is merely being replaced with another clamp structure, for the purpose of securely clamping flanged members together to form a leak free joint.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note that applicant's affidavit is not persuasive for the same or similar reasons as said arguments, see below.
Applicant argues, on page 7 line 1 through page 21 line 9, that Fennington fails to discloses wherein a portion of the pressure fluid passageway extends into a flow path of the main fluid passageway, and the first inner diameter is not the same length as the second inner diameter.
This is not persuasive.
Fennington discloses wherein a portion (for example: the branched radially inward portion at 1024, see above) of the pressure fluid passageway (24) extends into a flow path of the main fluid passageway (20), and the first inner diameter (such as at 1111 or 1112, see above) is not the same length as the second inner diameter (such as compared to 2221 or 2222, or 2223, see above).
First the examiner would like to point out that drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature(s) shown is/are unintended or unexplained in the specification…In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). In other words, drawings are good for what they show, emphasis added, MPEP 2125.
However, in this instance, Fennington discloses the branched radially inward portion at 1024, see above, is a portion of the pressure fluid passageway (24) extending into a flow path of the main fluid passageway (20), and one skilled in the art would have recognized element 1024 as being the claimed portion of the pressure fluid passageway that extends into the flow path of the main fluid passageway.
Second, applicant’s photo exhibits are of such poor quality that it is almost not possible to make out what is being discussed with regards to said photos.
Third, applicant is attempting to use a third party tee, which is physically different from the tee of Fennington, to illustrate how the tee of Fennington is missing an illustrated feature, that feature being identified as element 1024 above. All arguments using said third party tee or directed towards said third party tee or comparing said third party tee with the tee of Fennington, presented in/as applicant’s evidence, is/are moot in light of the fact that no clear evidence has been presented that the tee of Fennington has identical features as said third party tee, presented by applicant. The tee of Fennington, relied upon in making the rejections above, or an actual physical tee of Fennington, made in accordance with US 2007/0001447, is/are the only tee(s) that can prove or disprove the existence of what is illustrated as element 1024 above, and not some random third party tee presented as evidence.
Fourth, applicant appears to illustrate in their photo exhibits the existence of element 1024, which the examiner has labeled as 1024” in the reproductions of applicant’s supplied photos below. Applicant has presented a structure, that is 1024”, which clearly projects inwardly, similarly to element 1024 in the rejection above. The projection in the upper photo is the inner ring in the lower photo.
PNG
media_image4.png
400
427
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
370
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fifth, the examiner is not required to explain why one drawing/figure of Fennington has a structural feature and another drawing/figure does not illustrate said structural feature. Note that patent figures are not engineering drawings, however, they are good for what they show, and, Fennington illustrates that which is claimed, see element 1024 above and how said structural feature anticipates the claim(s).
Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant is reminded that, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant is reminded that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
All claims not specifically argued will stand or fall with the claim(s) from which it depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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 ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
09/10/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights