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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/19/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The youtube video has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference character #54 in Figure 5 lacks a lead line. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second end that is opposite the first end and contacts the stainless steel portion between the minor diameter portion and the major diameter portion”. The disclosure and drawings do not appear to support “between the minor diameter portion and the major diameter portion”. Claims 2-8 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on, or incorporate, claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “projects outside of the vessel than the copper portion”. This is unclear since more than or less than would both fit in the claim. Based on the disclosure, it appears that Applicant intended more than. Claims 2-8 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on, or incorporate claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “with respect to a remaining of the additional pipe”. A remaining what? It is believed Applicant intended portion.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 merely restates what was already set forth in claim 1 with respect to the projection of the copper portion. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
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) 1, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2020/0198065) in view of Wakashima et al. (US 2011/0185763) and Wu et al. (CN 103983055: cited by Applicant with English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses a pressure vessel provided on a refrigerant circuit (see at least #150/#100), the pressure vessel comprising:
a vessel body (see at least #150/#100);
an inlet pipe causing a refrigerant to flow into the vessel body (see at least suction pipe #310); and
an outlet pipe causing the refrigerant to flow out of the vessel body (see at least discharge pipe #320), wherein one or both of the inlet pipe and the outlet pipe comprise:
a stainless steel portion made of stainless steel (see at least copper-alloy stainless pipe #360/#360a);
a copper portion made of a material whose main component is copper (see at least copper pipe #350/#350a); and
a brazed portion connecting the stainless steel portion and the copper portion (see at least paragraphs [0071]-[0072]),
the copper portion is connected to the vessel body (see at least #350/#350a connected to #150/#100).
Hong is silent regarding that the vessel is made of iron.
However, it was old and well-known in the art to provide a pressure vessel for a refrigerant circuit with the vessel is made of iron, as evidenced by Wakashima et al., which teaches another refrigerant circuit pressure vessel comprising: a vessel body made of iron (see at least paragraph [0053]: the heater #30 includes portions made of ferrite, which includes iron).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the pressure vessel of Hong with the vessel is made of iron, since, as evidenced by Wakashima et al., such provision is old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for reduced cost and improved corrosion resistance compared to an all copper construction, and since it has been held “The 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) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).”.
Hong does not disclose wherein the stainless steel portion comprises a minor diameter portion having a smaller outer diameter than a major diameter of the stainless steel portion,
an outer circumferential surface of the minor diameter portion is connected to an inner circumferential surface of the copper portion, and
the copper portion comprises:
a first end that projects inside the vessel more than the minor diameter portion; and a second end that is opposite the first end and contacts the stainless steel portion between the minor diameter portion and the major diameter portion.
However, joining of two pipes such that a first portion (corresponding to stainless steel portion) comprises a minor diameter portion having a smaller outer diameter portion than a major diameter portion (see at least main portion of pipe #1 having a smaller outer diameter than the top portion of pipe #1), and an outer circumferential surface of the minor diameter portion is connected to an inner circumferential surface of the second portion (corresponding to copper portion) (see at least outer surface of the main portion of pipe #1 is connected to the inner circumferential surface of pipe #4), and
the second portion (corresponding to copper portion) comprises:
a first end that projects inside the vessel more than the minor diameter portion (see at least bottom end of pipe #4); and a second end that is opposite the first end and contacts the first portion (corresponding to stainless steel portion) between the minor diameter portion and the major diameter portion (see at least top end of pipe #4, which contacts the first portion between the end of the minor diameter portion and the major diameter portion).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the vessel of Hong with wherein the stainless steel portion comprises a minor diameter portion having a smaller outer diameter than a major diameter of the stainless steel portion, an outer circumferential surface of the minor diameter portion is connected to an inner circumferential surface of the copper portion, the copper portion comprises: a first end that projects inside the vessel more than the minor diameter portion; and a second end that is opposite the first end and contacts the stainless steel portion between the minor diameter portion and the major diameter portion, since, as evidenced by Wu et al. such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of providing a stable subassembly for a mechanically rigid joint.
Regarding claim 5, Hong as modified above further discloses wherein a portion of the copper portion extends into the vessel body (see rejection of claim 1, above; see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)).
Regarding claim 6, Hong further discloses wherein a portion of the stainless steel portion overlaps with the vessel body in a pipe diameter direction (see at least Figure 2, at least a portion of #360/#360a overlaps with the projection of the vessel body in a pipe diameter direction).
Regarding claim 7, Hong as modified above further discloses wherein an end of the major diameter portion of the stainless steel portion comprises:
a plated portion made of a material whose main component is copper, or a tube made of a material whose main component is copper (see at least Hong paragraphs [0126]-[0128]).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Wu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 110500826: cited with English Translation).
Regarding claim 2, Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Wu et al. is silent regarding and an additional pipe is brazed inside the vessel body to the copper portion.
Zhou et al. teaches another refrigerant circuit pressure vessel having an inlet/outlet pipe wherein an additional pipe is brazed inside the vessel body to the copper portion (see at least “wherein the inlet end 3 is located in the reservoir shell, in the suction tube, which can be made of iron, copper or stainless steel, preferably stainless steel, the transition end 4 and the connecting end 5 located outside the reservoir shell, is a suction pipe outer pipe, which is made of iron, copper or stainless steel and so on, preferably copper.”; “the suction pipe 1 can also be split assembling structure, that is to say, the air inlet end 3, the transition end 4 and the connecting end 5 can be independent of the tube body, are connected by brazing”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the vessel of Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Wu et al. with and an additional pipe is brazed inside the vessel body to the copper portion, as taught by Zhou et al., to improve the vessel of Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Wu et al. by providing a suction inlet within the vessel body, thus allowing for improved system resonance and efficiency of the refrigerant circuit (see at least Zhou et al. “the air suction pipe with proper length, the air column can generate resonance boosting phenomenon, improve the intake of the compressor connected with the reservoir, can improve the volumetric efficiency and refrigeration capability of the compressor”).
Regarding claim 3, Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Wu et al. is silent regarding wherein the vessel body comprises a joint iron tube made of iron, and the copper portion is connected to the joint iron tube.
However, wherein the vessel body comprises a joint iron tube made of iron, and the copper portion is connected to the joint iron tube is old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Zhou et al. (see at least “wherein the inlet end 3 is located in the reservoir shell, in the suction tube, which can be made of iron, copper or stainless steel, preferably stainless steel, the transition end 4 and the connecting end 5 located outside the reservoir shell, is a suction pipe outer pipe, which is made of iron, copper or stainless steel and so on, preferably copper”: any of the tubes may be iron, steel, or copper, thus a copper portion connected to a joint iron tube is contemplated).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the vessel of Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Wu et al. with wherein the vessel body comprises a joint iron tube made of iron, and the copper portion is connected to the joint iron tube, since, as evidenced by Zhou et al., such provision is an art-recognized design option and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for reduced cost and improved corrosion resistance compared to an all copper construction, and since it has been held “The 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) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).”.
Regarding claim 4, Hong in view of Wakashima et al., Wu et al., and Zhou et al. further discloses wherein the joint iron tube comprises a projecting portion that projects inside the vessel body more than the copper portion (i.e. see at least Zhou et al. #3 projecting inside the vessel more than #4), an additional pipe is connected to the projecting portion (see at least pipe emanating from the lid of the vessel which is connected to #3 via the vessel body).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2020/0198065) in view of Wakashima et al. (US 2011/0185763) and Wu et al. (CN 103983055: cited by Applicant with English Translation).
Regarding claim 8, Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Wu et al. discloses a refrigeration apparatus (see Hong Figure 1) comprising the pressure vessel according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2020/0198065) in view of Wakashima et al. (US 2011/0185763) and Zhou et al. (CN 110500826: cited with English Translation).
Regarding claim 9, Hong discloses a pressure vessel provided on a refrigerant circuit (see at least #150/#100), the pressure vessel comprising:
a vessel body (see at least #150/#100);
an inlet pipe causing a refrigerant to flow into the vessel body (see at least suction pipe #310); and
an outlet pipe causing the refrigerant to flow out of the vessel body (see at least discharge pipe #320), wherein one or both of the inlet pipe and the outlet pipe comprise:
a stainless steel portion made of stainless steel (see at least copper-alloy stainless pipe #360/#360a);
a copper portion made of a material whose main component is copper (see at least copper pipe #350/#350a); and
a brazed portion connecting the stainless steel portion and the copper portion (see at least paragraphs [0071]-[0072]),
the copper portion is connected to the vessel body (see at least #350/#350a connected to #150/#100),
the stainless steel portion:
projects outside of the vessel body more than the copper portion at a first end of the stainless steel portion (see at least #360/#360a project further from the vessel #150/#100 at the distal end), and is connected to the copper portion at a second end of the stainless steel portion (see at least #360/#360a are connected to#350/#350a at the proximal end).
Hong is silent regarding that the vessel is made of iron.
However, it was old and well-known in the art to provide a pressure vessel for a refrigerant circuit with the vessel is made of iron, as evidenced by Wakashima et al., which teaches another refrigerant circuit pressure vessel comprising: a vessel body made of iron (see at least paragraph [0053]: the heater #30 includes portions made of ferrite, which includes iron).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the pressure vessel of Hong with the vessel is made of iron, since, as evidenced by Wakashima et al., such provision is old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for reduced cost and improved corrosion resistance compared to an all copper construction, and since it has been held “The 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) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).”.
Hong is silent regarding and an additional pipe is brazed inside the vessel body to the copper portion.
Zhou et al. teaches another refrigerant circuit pressure vessel having an inlet/outlet pipe wherein an additional pipe is brazed inside the vessel body to the copper portion (see at least “wherein the inlet end 3 is located in the reservoir shell, in the suction tube, which can be made of iron, copper or stainless steel, preferably stainless steel, the transition end 4 and the connecting end 5 located outside the reservoir shell, is a suction pipe outer pipe, which is made of iron, copper or stainless steel and so on, preferably copper.”; “the suction pipe 1 can also be split assembling structure, that is to say, the air inlet end 3, the transition end 4 and the connecting end 5 can be independent of the tube body, are connected by brazing”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the vessel of Hong with and an additional pipe is brazed inside the vessel body to the copper portion, as taught by Zhou et al., to improve the vessel of Hong by providing a suction inlet within the vessel body, thus allowing for improved system resonance and efficiency of the refrigerant circuit (see at least Zhou et al. “the air suction pipe with proper length, the air column can generate resonance boosting phenomenon, improve the intake of the compressor connected with the reservoir, can improve the volumetric efficiency and refrigeration capability of the compressor”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Zhou et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 103983055: cited by Applicant with English Translation).
Regarding claim 10, Regarding claim 10, Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Zhou et al. does not disclose wherein the stainless steel portion comprises:
a major diameter portion; and
a minor diameter portion having a smaller outer diameter than the major diameter portion, and
an outer circumferential surface of the minor diameter portion is connected to an inner circumferential surface of the copper portion.
However, joining of two pipes such that a first portion (corresponding to stainless steel portion) comprises a major diameter portion (see at least top portion of pipe #1); and a minor diameter portion having a smaller outer diameter portion than the major diameter portion (see at least main portion of pipe #1), and an outer circumferential surface of the minor diameter portion is connected to an inner circumferential surface of the second portion (corresponding to copper portion) (see at least outer surface of the main portion of pipe #1 is connected to the inner circumferential surface of pipe #4).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the vessel of Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Zhou et al. with wherein the stainless steel portion comprises: a major diameter portion; and
a minor diameter portion having a smaller outer diameter than the major diameter portion, and
an outer circumferential surface of the minor diameter portion is connected to an inner circumferential surface of the copper portion, since, as evidenced by Wu et al. such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of providing a stable subassembly for a mechanically rigid joint.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Zhou et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Stenerson (US 3,465,422).
Regarding claim 11, Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Zhou et al. does not disclose wherein
the additional pipe has an end having a major diameter portion that is increased in an outer diameter with respect to a remaining of the additional pipe and into which an end of the copper portion is inserted, and
an inner circumferential surface of the major diameter portion is connected to an outer circumferential surface of the copper portion.
However, joining of two pipes such that an additional pipe has an end having a major diameter portion that is increased in an outer diameter with respect to a remaining of the additional pipe and into which an end of a second portion (corresponding to copper portion) is inserted, and an inner circumferential surface of the major diameter portion is connected to an outer circumferential surface of the second portion (corresponding to copper portion) was old and well known in the art, as evidenced by Stenerson (see at least Figures 1-3; column 2, lines 46-64).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the joining of the additional pipe and the copper portion of Hong in view of Wakashima et al. and Zhou et al. with wherein the additional pipe has an end having a major diameter portion that is increased in an outer diameter with respect to a remaining of the additional pipe and into which an end of the copper portion is inserted, and an inner circumferential surface of the major diameter portion is connected to an outer circumferential surface of the copper portion, since, as evidenced by Stenerson such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of providing a stable subassembly for a mechanically rigid joint (see at least Stenerson column 2, lines 46-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights