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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 09/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2026 and 05/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
It is noted that in the IDS filed on 05/29/2025, the prior art Szabo George, ETC. under U.S. Patent Application Publications has not been considered because the Publication Number appears to be incorrect.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 in line 1 recites “A pipe connection structure, comprising:” and should be “A pipe connection structure[[,]] comprising:” to avoid any ambiguity of the comma and what comprises the body of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gӓhwiler (US 4,991,882).
In regard to claim 1, Gӓhwiler discloses a pipe connection structure (Fig. 2 shows a pipe connection structure) comprising:
a first pipe joint (Fig. 1, female member 2 defines a first pipe joint);
a second pipe joint having a first end (Fig. 1, the male member 3 defines a second pipe joint having a first end), wherein the first end and an end of the first pipe joint are connected through insertion (Fig. 2 shows the first end and an end of the first pipe joint 2 are connected through insertion), and an outer surface of the second pipe joint is provided with a first fitting structure (Fig. 2, outer surface of 3 has a first fitting structure as a flange 20); and
a limiting structure (Fig. 2, the part at 12 defines at least a limiting structure similar to applicant’s invention), wherein an end of the limiting structure is connected to an outer surface of the first pipe joint (Fig. 2, an end of the limiting structure is connected to an outer surface of the first pipe similar to applicant’s invention), and another end is provided with a second fitting structure (Fig. 2, second fitting structure at 14 which is provided at another end);
wherein in a direction of the insertion, the second fitting structure and the first fitting structure are fitted to block each other (Fig. 2, at 20 and 14 are fitted to block each other similar to applicant’s invention), and the second fitting structure and the first fitting structure are fitted with a clearance (Fig. 2, there is at least a gap near 26 to at least account for manufacturing tolerances in order to ensure the connection at 14. Also, see Fig. 14 for an example of having such a clearance “a” to allow for release.).
In regard to claim 2, Gӓhwiler discloses the pipe connection structure according to claim 1, wherein the first fitting structure is a first boss (Fig. 2, 20 is at least a first boss), the second fitting structure is a second boss (Fig. 2, 14 is at least second boss), and the second boss is located at a side of the first boss away from the first end (Fig. 2, 14 is located at a side of 20 away from the first end similar to applicant’s invention);
the second pipe joint has a first end surface located at the first end (Fig. 2, near 26 has a first end surface located at the first end), the limiting structure has a first surface opposite to the first end surface (Fig. 2, the limiting structure of 12 has a first surface opposite the first end surface); a distance between a side of the second boss close to the first boss and the first surface is L1, a distance between a side of the first boss close to the second boss and the first end surface is L2, and L1 > L2 (See image below, L1 is greater than L2 because of the clearance as mentioned above for claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
307
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 3, Gӓhwiler discloses the pipe connection structure according to claim 2, wherein a surface of the first boss facing away from the second pipe joint is a first conical surface (Fig. 2, first conical surface 21 similar to applicant’s invention), and a small end of the first conical surface faces the first end (Fig. 2, a small end of 21 defining a smaller diameter end of 21 faces the first end similar to applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 4, Gӓhwiler discloses the pipe connection structure according to claim 2, wherein the second boss has a first side wall facing the outer surface of the second pipe joint (Figs. 1 and 2, first side wall at 16 faces the outer surface of the second pipe joint 3), a side of the first side wall away from the first boss is provided with a second conical surface (Fig. 2, second conical surface at 15 which is at a side of the first side wall away from the first boss 20), and a small end of the second conical surface faces the first boss (Fig. 2, a small end of 15 faces 20 similar to applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 6, Gӓhwiler discloses the pipe connection structure according to claim 2, wherein the first boss is arranged along a peripheral of the second pipe joint (Fig. 2, 20 is arranged along a peripheral of 3).
In regard to claim 7, Gӓhwiler discloses the pipe connection structure according to claim 6, wherein the first boss is an annular structure protruding from the peripheral the second pipe joint (Fig. 2, 20 is an annular structure protruding from the peripheral of 3).
In regard to claim 9, Gӓhwiler discloses the pipe connection structure according to claim 1, wherein one of the first fitting structure and the second fitting structure is a groove and another is a protrusion (Fig. 2, 20 is a protrusion and near 14 is a groove similar to applicant’s invention), the protrusion is at least partially located in the groove (Fig. 2, 20 is partially located in the groove as shown), in the direction of insertion (Fig. 2), the protrusion and the groove are fitted to block each other (Fig. 2, 20 and the groove at 14 are fitted to block each other), and the protrusion and the groove are fitted with the clearance (Fig. 2, 20 and the groove near 14 are fitted with the clearance as previously described above in claim 1 such that the clearance around 26 allows 20 to move as much as the clearance within the groove near 14).
In regard to claim 10, Gӓhwiler discloses the pipe connection structure according to claim 1, wherein in the direction of insertion, the limiting structure comprises a first section, a bending portion, and
a second section connected in sequence (See image below, indicated first section, bending portion, and second section are connected in sequence similar to applicant’s invention), an end of the first section away from the bending portion is connected to the first pipe joint (See image below, an end of the first section away from the bending portion is integrally connected to the first pipe joint), and an end of the second section away from the bending portion is connected to the second fitting structure (See image below, an end of the second section away from the bending portion is connected to the second fitting structure similar to applicant’s invention);
in a radial direction of the first pipe joint, an end of the bending portion close to the first pipe joint and an end of the bending portion away from the first pipe joint are connected to the first section and the second section, respectively (See image below, the bending portion is connected to the first section and the second section in this manner similar to applicant’s invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
324
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Attilio (GB 2244774 A).
In regard to claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10, Attilio has the same features as Gӓhwiler as shown in Fig. 2 of Attilio. Therefore, Attilio discloses claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 for the same reasons above with regard to Gӓhwiler.
In regard to claim 5, Attilio discloses wherein an avoidance groove is provided in the outer surface of the second pipe joint (Fig. 2 shows an avoidance groove near 17 which is provided in the outer surface of the second pipe joint), and the avoidance groove is arranged adjacent to the first boss and located at a side of the first boss close to the second boss (Fig. 2, the avoidance groove is arranged adjacent to the first boss at 17 and located at a side of 17 close to the second boss at 24).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gӓhwiler (US 4,991,882) in view of Attilio (GB 2244774 A).
Gӓhwiler discloses the pipe connection structure according to claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein an avoidance groove is provided in the outer surface of the second pipe joint, and the avoidance groove is arranged adjacent to the first boss and located at the side of the first boss close to the second boss.
In the related field of snap-fit pipe connection structures, Attilio discloses wherein an avoidance groove is provided in an outer surface of a second pipe joint (Fig. 2 shows an avoidance groove near 17 which is provided in an outer surface of a second pipe joint), and the avoidance groove is arranged adjacent to a first boss and located at a side of the first boss close to a second boss (Fig. 2, the avoidance groove is arranged adjacent to a first boss at 17 and located at a side of 17 close to a second boss at 24) in order to have at least the advantage of a reliable snap-fit connection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipe connection structure of Gӓhwiler to include an avoidance groove is provided in the outer surface of the second pipe joint, and the avoidance groove is arranged adjacent to the first boss and located at the side of the first boss close to the second boss with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of at least a reliable snap-fit connection as taught by Attilio. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Attilio would reasonably suggest an avoidance groove adjacent the first boss provides at least a reliable snap-fit connection and a lighter weight component using less material as compared to without the avoidance groove.
Furthermore, it has been held that a change of shape is obvious absent persuasive evidence. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). In this case, the applicant's specification does not provide criticality of the claimed avoidance groove. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gӓhwiler in view of Attilio such that an avoidance groove is provided in the outer surface of the second pipe joint, and the avoidance groove is arranged adjacent to the first boss and located at the side of the first boss close to the second boss, since this would allow for at least a lighter weight component and provide material savings.
It is noted that applicant’s specification describes the avoidance groove as allowing the first boss to deflect, however, such description appears lacking in view of the drawings and the rest of the invention because the first boss is a much thicker and rigid component as compared to the limiting structure which the limiting structure is the intended component to bend and deflect.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gӓhwiler (US 4,991,882).
Gӓhwiler discloses the pipe connection structure according to claim 2, wherein L1 - L2 = ΔL (See claim 2 above, the difference of L1 and L2 can define ΔL), but does not expressly disclose a diameter of a portion of the first pipe joint engaging with the second pipe joint is D, and 10%D ≤ ΔL ≤ 20%D.
While Gӓhwiler does not expressly disclose a diameter of a portion of the first pipe joint engaging with the second pipe joint is D, and 10%D ≤ ΔL ≤ 20%D 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gӓhwiler to have a diameter of a portion of the first pipe joint engaging with the second pipe joint is D, and 10%D ≤ ΔL ≤ 20%D, as the diameter and ΔL may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation to have the advantage of at least a strongly sealed pipe connection structure. 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.
Additionally, the recitation “10%D ≤ ΔL ≤ 20%D” lacks criticality in light of applicant’s specification because the specification fails to provide sufficient facts and evidence of non-obvious performance outside the range such as 9%D or 21%D. It seems like the range is arbitrary absent facts and evidence showing nonobvious performance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attilio (GB 2244774 A).
Attilio discloses claim 8 for similar reasons above to the rejection to claim 8 in view of Gӓhwiler.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brandt et al. (US 2005/0179258 A1), Kawasaki et al. (US 6,481,759 B1), Sauer (US 4,735,440), Kawasaki et al. (US 6,199,919 B1), Poder (US 6,679,528 B1), Kawasaki et al. (US 5,882,048), Kullik (US 11,525,533 B2), Usui et al. (US 4,775,170), Kirchner et al. (US 5,586,791), Nakamura et al. (US 6,505,866), and Sarns (US 3,394,954) disclose a pipe connection structure having a first pipe joint, a second pipe joint, a first boss, a second boss, a limiting structure, a clearance, and the first boss snap-fits with the second boss similar to applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights