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.
Requirement for Information Under Rule 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of each of the following items of art referred to in the specification, that is, the “NF EN ISO 15877-5 2009-05” recited in paragraph [0095].
A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species IV in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 5, 11, 16, and 18-20 are currently withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2025 was considered by the examiner, however, for any foreign document, only that portion which has been provided in English has been considered, any portion not provided in English has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/22/2024.
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 4, 6, and 15 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites “stress” in the formula. However it is unclear what type of stress this is. Is it a hoop stress, a tensile stress, a bending stress, a compression stress, and so on. What type of stress is being claimed in the formula in claim 15?
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) 1-4, 6-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (WO 2019/158098).
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).
Re Clm 1: Yuen discloses a mechanical fitting (see Figs. 1-4 and 0003, 0009, 0046, 0047, and 0048) for connecting pipes or for attaching a pipe, wherein the pipe is at least one of a rigid (ridged enough to be inserted into fitting) or brittle pipe, the fitting comprising:
a main body (5) extending axially between a body end (see Fig. 3, the inner body) and an open end (see Fig. 3, the end that s open) defining an insertion space (see Fig. 3, the space that can be penetrated by a pipe) for a pipe (see Figs. 1-4 and 0003, 0009, 0046, 0047, and 0048);
a grip ring (20) designed to close over a pipe; and
a nut (30) movably mounted over the main body for tightening the grip ring;
wherein the grip ring has an outer ring surface (the surface such as at 21) and
an inner ring surface (such as at the inner surface of 21),
wherein the inner ring surface has an inner friction coefficient for defining an inner friction interface between the pipe and the grip ring, the outer ring surface has an outer friction coefficient for defining an outer friction interface between the grip ring and one of the main body and the nut.
Note that friction coefficient is a dimensionless value that quantifies the amount of frictional resistance between two contacting surfaces, and also note, that Yuen illustrates/indicates that there exists an inner and outer friction coefficient between the mating members, similar to that of applicant.
Yuen fails to disclose that the disclosed inner friction coefficient is 1.7 to 7.1 higher than the disclosed outer friction coefficient.
Yuen illustrates/indicates that there exists an inner and outer friction coefficient between the mating members pipe (see Figs. 1-4 and 0003, 0009, 0046, 0047, and 0048), similar to that of applicant. In this instant case, having an inner friction coefficient higher than the outer friction coefficient will prevent galling, fusing, or sticking of the nut to the grip ring and aid in the retaining of the grip ring to the pipe, for the purpose of allowing the nut to turn or more easily turn on the grip ring while the grip ring and pipe more firmly engage with each other, forming a secure and 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 Yuen, to have had the disclosed inner friction coefficient is 1.7 to 7.1 higher than the disclosed outer friction coefficient, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely altering the friction coefficient relationships with another friction coefficient relationships, for the purpose of preventing galling, fusing, or sticking of the nut to the grip ring and aiding in the retaining of the grip ring to the pipe, in order to insure that the nut turns or more easily turns on the grip ring while the grip ring and pipe more firmly engage with each other, forming a secure and leak free joint.
Note that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Clm 2: Yuen discloses wherein internal circumferential recesses extending radially inside the ring are provided at the inner ring surface (see the teeth of 70), and wherein the outer ring surface is smooth (on the outer tapered surface), to allow sliding of the nut or of the main body with respect to the friction ring.
Re Clm 3: Yuen discloses wherein the nut has a first nut portion to be mounted on the main body (as illustrated in Fig. 3) and a second nut portion extending axially between the first nut portion and a nut free end (as illustrated in Fig. 3), the second nut portion being provided to extend axially away from the open end of the main body (as illustrated in Fig. 3), wherein the grip ring is housed below the second nut portion (as illustrated in Fig. 3).
Re Clm 4: Yuen discloses wherein the grip ring has an outer conical shape (as illustrated in Fig. 3) which is provided to deform when the nut is moved over the main body for fixing the pipe, in particular one of the main body or of the second nut portion has a corresponding conical shape (as illustrated in Fig. 3).
Re Clm 6: Yuen discloses wherein the grip ring is provided with a reinforcing element such as a metallic open ring (22).
Yuen fails to disclose that the disclosed ring is metallic.
However, metal is a common material that ring structures are made of that support other structures, where such would allow a force to be applied without distortion or failure of the component made out of the metal.
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 Yuen, to have had the disclosed ring is metallic, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely replacing one material with another, for the purpose of providing a material that will not distort or fail under load.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Clm 7: Yuen discloses wherein the outer ring surface is provided with longitudinal grooves or recesses (at 27).
Re Clm 8: Yuen discloses wherein the grip ring has an outer radial projection (24) designed to abut against a flange (40) formed at the open end of the main body (as illustrated in Fig. 3).
Re Clm 9: Yuen discloses wherein a joint is provided inside a joint housing in the main body located adjacent to the flange (where 20 penetrates 5).
Re Clm 10: Yuen discloses wherein the joint has an internal triangle shape (see one of the teeth of the 20 or one of the matted threads when the threads are mated, as illustrated in Fig. 3).
Re Clm 12: Yuen discloses wherein the nut is provided over a nut receiving part of the main body (as illustrated in Fig. 3) extending between the open end and an outer radial projection on an outer body surface of the main body the outer radial projection (the outer radial projection of 5) forming a stop for the nut (as illustrated in Fig. 3).
Re Clm 13: Yuen discloses wherein the nut (40) is made of a material.
Yuen fails to disclose that the disclosed material is fibre reinforced polymer.
However, fibre reinforced polymer is a common material that structures are made of and is lightweight, strong, corrosion-resistant, and durable. Where such a material can enhance the fit form or function of the device it is made of.
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 Yuen, to have employed a fibre reinforced polymer material, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely replacing one material with another, for the purpose of providing a material that is lightweight, strong, corrosion-resistant, and durable and that can enhance the fit form or function of the device it is made of.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Clm 14: Yuen discloses wherein the main body is made of a material and the ring is made of a material.
Yuen fails to disclose that the disclosed material is a polymer.
However, a polymer is a common material that structures are made of and is lightweight, strong, corrosion-resistant, and durable. Where such a material can enhance the fit form or function of the device it is made of.
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 Yuen, to have employed a polymer material, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely replacing one material with another, for the purpose of providing a material that is lightweight, strong, corrosion-resistant, and durable and that can enhance the fit form or function of the device it is made of.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, additionally, claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following documents have structural features which are similar to the applicant’s claimed invention; FR-1134192-A, GB-1072872-A, US-20240117905-A1, and WO-02086371-A1.
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
11/13/2025
/Matthew Troutman/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679