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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I drawn to Figures 1-5 and claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 4/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/20/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, wherein the second part of the locking arrangement is a plurality of spaced apart, longitudinally extending plates and the first part of the locking arrangement is a plurality of spaced apart slots must be shown or the features canceled from claim 3. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, wherein the clamp includes a pressure alert must be shown or the features canceled from claim 9. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Paragraph 25 (also see paragraphs 26, 28, 30 and 31) – drawing elements 10, 25, 27, 45, 47, 63, VU, VL.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the following reference characters have been used to designate two different elements (see paragraph 25):
“45” has been used to designate both a portion captured by clamp 60 and a lower end.
“47” has been used to designate both a lower end and a face surface.
“49” has been used to designate both a face surface (or second face surface) and a guide surface.
“51” has been used to designate both guide surface (or second or upper guide surface) and a periphery.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 25 (also see paragraphs 26, 28, 30 and 31) – the following reference signs are mentioned in the description but not shown in the drawings: drawing elements 10, 25, 27, 45, 47, 63, VU, VL.
Paragraph 25 - the following reference characters have been used to designate two different elements:
“45” has been used to designate both a portion captured by clamp 60 and a lower end.
“47” has been used to designate both a lower end and a face surface.
“49” has been used to designate both a face surface (or second face surface) and a guide surface.
“51” has been used to designate both guide surface (or second or upper guide surface) and a periphery.
Paragraph 33, line 3 – replace “53” after “mating surface” with --55--.
Correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 – add --a-- between “at least” and “portion”.
Correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 – add --wherein-- before “the inclined guide surface”.
Correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 19 – add --and-- after “the secondary seal;”.
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, 2, 4-6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen U.S. Patent Application No. 9,464,417.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figures 2 and 4, Chen discloses a connector adapted for connection to a slide gate valve, the connector comprising:
a first half (at 40, 50, 60, 70) including, at an upper end, a generally horizontal first face surface having at least one secondary seal groove, a first guide surface extending in a generally vertical direction and having a primary seal groove, and a first periphery including a first part of a locking arrangement (as shown below);
a second half (at 10, 20, 30) including a housing (at 13) and, at a lower end, a generally horizontal second face surface, a second guide surface shaped complementary to the first guide surface, and a second periphery including a second part of the locking arrangement (as shown below); and
wherein when the first and second parts of the locking arrangement are engaged with one another, rotation of the second part of the connector relative to the first part is prevented (as shown in Fig 1 below where the engagement between the first and second parts prevents rotation of the second part relative to the first part).
Note: the slide gate valve is a not a part of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
256
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Chen discloses wherein the first part of the locking arrangement is a plurality of spaced apart, longitudinally extending plates and the second part of the locking arrangement is a plurality of spaced apart slots (as shown in Fig 1 above).
With regard to claim 4, Chen discloses further comprising a primary seal and a secondary seal located in a corresponding one of the primary seal groove and at least one secondary seal groove (as shown in Fig 1 above).
With regard to claim 5, Chen discloses wherein the primary seal groove and at least one secondary seal groove reside in different vertical planes (as shown in Fig 4).
With regard to claim 6, Chen discloses further comprising a bleed port located on the first half of the connector (as shown in Fig 4 above).
With regard to claim 10, Chen discloses wherein the first half of the connector further comprises a flange adapted for connection to the slide gate valve (as shown in Fig 1 above).
Note: the slide gate valve is a not a part of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 11, Chen discloses wherein the first half of the connector forms a weldment with the slide gate valve (where the first half of the connector is capable of being configured to form a weldment with a slide gate valve).
Note: the slide gate valve is a not a part of the claimed invention.
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) 3, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
With regard to claim 3, Chen discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the second part of the locking arrangement is a plurality of spaced apart, longitudinally extending plates and the first part of the locking arrangement is a plurality of spaced apart slots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second part of the locking arrangement be a plurality of spaced apart, longitudinally extending plates and the first part of the locking arrangement be a plurality of spaced apart slots with a reasonable expectation of success as a reversal of parts is an obvious modification which would not change the connection between the first and second halves of the connector and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known element for use on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
With regard to claim 12, Chen discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the first guide surface of the first half is an inclined guide surface at least in part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first guide surface of the first half be an inclined guide surface at least in part with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for a smoother connection and because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With regard to claim 13, Chen discloses wherein the inclined guide surface is a neck portion of the first half of the connector (as shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
230
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a pipe service system with the combination of a slide gate valve; a saddle branch fitting including a set of collars and a flange adapted for connection to a lower end of the slide gate valve; a connector comprising a first half including a generally horizontal first face surface having at least one secondary seal groove, a first guide surface extending in a generally vertical direction and having a primary seal groove, and a first periphery including a first part of a locking arrangement; a second half including a housing, a generally horizontal second face surface, a second guide surface shaped complementary to the first guide surface, and a second periphery including a second part of the locking arrangement; a primary seal residing in the primary groove and a secondary seal residing in the at least one second seal groove, the primary seal being larger in diameter than the secondary seal; and a clamp sized to surround the first and second halves of the connector and capture at least a portion of the first and second halves.
Claims 15 and 16 are allowed based on their dependency from claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 7-9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied are examples of the general mechanical state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANNIE KEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1820. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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.
/F.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights