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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The “Related Applications” section should include the patent number of the related application.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haines 10,746,332.
In regard to claim 1, Haines discloses (fig. 8) a conduit coupling device comprising:
a coupler 212, comprising:
a first end and an opposing second end;
the second end defined by an arcuate cutout; and
a cap comprising:
an arcuate shape 232 configured to be approximately coextensive with the arcuate cutout so that a periphery of the cap aligns with a periphery of the arcuate cutout when the cap and the coupler operatively associate; and
a glue ridge (ridge on 232 received in the groove on 212) provided along a periphery of the arcuate shape, wherein the glue ridge is dimensioned to slidably be received in the glue channel when the arcuate shape occupies the arcuate cutout.
In regard to claim 2, further comprising an adhesive channel provided along a periphery of the arcuate cutout (the groove shown on 202 by the hidden lines in fig. 8).
In regard to claim 3, further comprising an adhesive ridge (ridge at the left end of 232 in fig. 8 that is inserted into the groove represented by the hidden lines of 202 in fig. 8) provided along the periphery of the arcuate shape, wherein the adhesive ridge is dimensioned to slidably be received in the adhesive channel when the arcuate shape and the arcuate cutout operatively associate.
In regard to claim 7, further comprising a butt rib disposed along an inner circumferenc of the coupler between the first and second ends (the step from 212 to ball portion of 202, as best seen in fig. 8).
In regard to claim 11, a method of coupling a first and second conduit, the method comprising:
providing the conduit coupling device 212 of claim 3;
adhering the first end to the first conduit; adhering the second end to the second conduit; and sliding the glue ridge into the glue channel (see col. 6, lines 56- col. 7, line 12).
In regard to claim 12, further comprising placing an adhesive in the glue channel prior to sliding the glue ridge therein (see col. 6, lines 56- col. 7, line 12).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warren 2019/0331267.
In regard to claim 1, Haines discloses a conduit coupling device comprising:
a coupler 103, comprising:
a first end and an opposing second end;
the second end defined by an arcuate cutout 110a; and
a cap 106 comprising:
an arcuate shape 113a configured to be approximately coextensive with the arcuate cutout so that a periphery of the cap aligns with a periphery of the arcuate cutout when the cap and the coupler operatively associate; and
In regard to claim 2, further comprising an adhesive channel (space between surfaces 110b and 110c) provided along the periphery of the arcuate cutout
In regard to claim 3, an adhesive ridge 111 provided along a periphery of the arcuate shape, wherein the adhesive ridge 111 is dimensioned to slidably be received in the adhesive channel (space between surfaces 110b and 110c) when the arcuate shape occupies the arcuate cutout.
In regard to claim 7, further comprising a butt rib 110a disposed along an inner circumference of the coupler between the first and second ends.
In regard to claim 11, a method of coupling a first and second conduit, the method comprising:
providing the conduit coupling device of claim 3;
adhering the first end to the first conduit; adhering the second end to the second conduit; and sliding the glue ridge into the glue channel (see paragraph 32).
In regard to claim 12, further comprising placing an adhesive in the glue channel prior to sliding the glue ridge therein (see paragraph 32).
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 (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 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haines 10,746,332.
In regard to claim 4, Haines discloses coupler with a glue channel as described above, but
does not disclose the channel as being tapered. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the glue channel of Haines with a taper because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren 2019/0331267 in view of van der Beld.
In regard to claims 8-9, Warren discloses a coupler with two ends for securely connecting
two pipe ends together, but does not disclose the first and second ends of the coupler as being tapered. Van der Beld teaches that supplying a similar type of connector 3 with tapered interiors 6,6’, in order to improve the connection qualities of the coupler, is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coupler interiors of Warren to include tapers, as taught by van der Beld.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,570. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming similar subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679