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 with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 02/09/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“Species A-D each include a pressing structure configured to apply a radially inward force to an outer peripheral surface of a pipe tip to align a center of the pipe with a center of a port during insertion. The differences identified by the Examiner relate solely to the structural implementation of the pressing structure (e.g., elastic member on the pipe, elastic member in the port, movable wall surfaces, or equivalent mechanisms), rather than to distinct or mutually exclusive inventions
Each of Species A-D performs the same alignment function, operates under the same operating principle (i.e., radial elastic deformation to generate centering force), and addresses the same technical problem of suppressing misalignment between a pipe flow path and a port flow path. The embodiments simply differ in where and how elastic deformation is realized, representing a design variation as opposed to a patentably distinct species.
Consistent with the specification, the pressing structures of Species A-D are expressly described as alternative configurations for implementing the same centering concept within a single inventive framework (see, e.g., the discussion of the first through fourth embodiments and their shared functional objective).
The specification does not describe these embodiments as solving different problems or producing different technical effects, but rather as related approaches for achieving pipe-to-port center alignment.
Further, the Examiner has not identified any mutually exclusive limitations that would preclude examination of the non-elected species in view of prior art applied to the elected species. To the contrary, prior art directed to elastic centering mechanisms for pipe connections would reasonably be expected to be applicable across Species A-D, given their shared alignment function and common structural context.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that Species A-D represent variations of a single inventive concept, such that restriction among these species is not required. Conversely, examination of the elected Species A would inherently advance examination of the remaining species.”
In response:
As to “Species A-D each include a pressing structure configured to apply a radially inward force to an outer peripheral surface of a pipe tip to align a center of the pipe with a center of a port during insertion. The differences identified by the Examiner relate solely to the structural implementation of the pressing structure (e.g., elastic member on the pipe, elastic member in the port, movable wall surfaces, or equivalent mechanisms), rather than to distinct or mutually exclusive inventions”, “structural implementation of the pressing structure” can certainly be a basis for independent or distinct inventions. In fact, in most cases, structural differences between species are a primary basis for restriction.
As to “Each of Species A-D performs the same alignment function, operates under the same operating principle (i.e., radial elastic deformation to generate centering force), and addresses the same technical problem of suppressing misalignment between a pipe flow path and a port flow path. The embodiments simply differ in where and how elastic deformation is realized, representing a design variation as opposed to a patentably distinct species.
Consistent with the specification, the pressing structures of Species A-D are expressly described as alternative configurations for implementing the same centering concept within a single inventive framework (see, e.g., the discussion of the first through fourth embodiments and their shared functional objective).
“Further, the Examiner has not identified any mutually exclusive limitations that would preclude examination of the non-elected species in view of prior art applied to the elected species. To the contrary, prior art directed to elastic centering mechanisms for pipe connections would reasonably be expected to be applicable across Species A-D, given their shared alignment function and common structural context.”
Is Applicant asserting that each of the species identified are obvious design variants; that one species is an obvious matter of design choice compared to another? If prior art reading on a claim to Species A would necessarily be obvious for a claim to Species B? Because this is certainly in contradistinction to the specification. If mere design variants, why dedicate pages of drawing sheets and pages of specification outlining the different embodiments? Why have claims drawn to the different embodiments? As an example, in Species A, the elastic member is on nut (110), yet in Species B, the elastic member is located within the block, and can have springs which bias the elastic member. Finding a reference which reads on Species A would certainly not, or at the least, be very unlikely not to read on Species B. And the opposite applies. Finding a reference which reads on Species B would certainly not, or at the least, be very unlikely not to read on Species A. Claims 5-7 evidence this patentably distinct difference.
Taking Applicant’s line of reasoning, a motorcycle, a bicycle and a unicycle are all modes of transportation, and all require a frame and wheels. As they share a common function and have common structural content, does this mean they are all obvious design variants? Certainly, the answer is no. And a patent to a unicycle would not read on a patent to a motorcycle.
Claims 5-9, 11 and 13 are 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. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/09/26.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grosspietsch et al (US 6,454,314).
As to claim 1, Grosspietsch et al discloses a pipe connecting structure in which a fluid connection of a pipe (2) to a port (G) is established by insertion of a tip portion of the pipe to a predetermined position in the port (Fig. 2), the pipe connecting structure comprising: a pressing structure (11) that is in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the tip portion of the pipe inserted to the predetermined position of the port and generates pressing force toward a center of the port on the outer peripheral surface of the tip portion of the pipe, wherein the pipe connecting structure is configured so that a center of the tip portion of the pipe and a center of the port substantially coincide with each other by pressing force generated by the pressing structure when the tip portion of the pipe is inserted to the predetermined position of the port. Refer to Fig. 2 and 3: 7 - 4: 4.
As to claim 2, Grosspietsch et al discloses the pipe connecting structure according to claim 1, wherein the pressing structure includes an elastic member (11), the elastic member is provided at the tip portion of the pipe, has an outer diameter larger than an inner diameter of the port, and is configured to elastically deform in a radial direction of the pipe following an inner peripheral surface of the port when the tip portion of the pipe is inserted into the port. Refer to Fig. 2 and 3: 7 - 4: 4.
As to claim 3, Grosspietsch et al discloses the pipe connecting structure according to claim 2, wherein a groove is provided in a circumferential direction on the outer peripheral surface of the tip portion of the pipe (Fig. 2), and the elastic member is attached to the tip portion of the pipe by being fitted into the groove (Fig. 2).
As to claim 4, Grosspietsch et al discloses the pipe connecting structure according to claim 3, wherein a material of the elastic member is resin (elastomer).
Claim(s) 1, 10, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moeller et al (US 11,782,032).
As to claim 1, Moeller et al discloses a pipe connecting structure in which a fluid connection of a pipe (114/120) to a port (200) is established by insertion of a tip portion of the pipe to a predetermined position in the port (Fig. 8), the pipe connecting structure comprising: a pressing structure (112) that is in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the tip portion of the pipe inserted to the predetermined position of the port (Fig. 6)and generates pressing force toward a center of the port on the outer peripheral surface of the tip portion of the pipe, wherein the pipe connecting structure is configured so that a center of the tip portion of the pipe and a center of the port substantially coincide with each other by pressing force generated by the pressing structure when the tip portion of the pipe is inserted to the predetermined position of the port (Fig. 8). Refer to 8: 25 - 12: 38.
As to claim 10, Moeller et al discloses the pipe connecting structure according to claim 1, wherein a tip surface of the pipe is a flat surface (Fig. 6), and the pipe connecting structure further includes a seal member (110) having an annular shape made from an elastic material (8: 65 - 9: 4) in contact with the tip surface of the pipe in a state where the tip portion of the pipe is inserted to the predetermined position of the port (Fig. 8).
As to claim 12, Moeller et al discloses a pipe connecting structure in which a fluid connection of a pipe to a port is established by insertion of a tip portion of the pipe to a predetermined position in the port (Fig. 8), and an innermost surface of the port (as at 213) and a tip surface of the pipe are flat surfaces (Fig. 8), the pipe connecting structure comprising a seal member (110) having an annular shape made from an elastic material (8: 65 - 9: 4) held on the innermost surface of the port, wherein the seal member is configured to be sandwiched between the innermost surface of the port and the tip surface of the pipe when the tip portion of the pipe is inserted to the predetermined position of the port, so that a fluid connection is liquid- tightly established between internal flow paths of the pipe and the port. Refer to 8: 25 - 12: 38.
As to claim 14, Moeller et al discloses the pipe connecting structure according to claim 12, wherein an elastic modulus of the seal member is smaller than an elastic modulus of the innermost surface of the port and the tip surface of the pipe. Refer to 8: 25 - 12: 38.
As to claim 15, Moeller et al discloses the pipe connecting structure according to claim 14, wherein the innermost surface of the port and the tip surface of the pipe are made from metal or ceramic, and the seal member is made from resin. Refer to 8: 25 - 12: 38.
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.
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(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller et al in view of Grosspietsch et al.
As to claim 2, Moeller et al discloses the pipe connecting structure according to claim 1, except that the pressing structure includes an elastic member, the elastic member is provided at the tip portion of the pipe, has an outer diameter larger than an inner diameter of the port, and is configured to elastically deform in a radial direction of the pipe following an inner peripheral surface of the port when the tip portion of the pipe is inserted into the port.
However, Grosspietsch et al teaches an assembly connecting the tip end of a pipe (2) to a port (G), the tip of the pipe including an elastic seal (11) that is seated in grooves on the tip of the pipe.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Moeller et al such that the pressing structure includes an elastic member, the elastic member is provided at the tip portion of the pipe, has an outer diameter larger than an inner diameter of the port, and is configured to elastically deform in a radial direction of the pipe following an inner peripheral surface of the port when the tip portion of the pipe is inserted into the port, as taught by Grosspietsch et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an improved and more secure seal between the pipe and the port.
As to claim 3, Moeller et al/Grosspietsch et al discloses the pipe connecting structure according to claim 2, wherein a groove is provided in a circumferential direction on the outer peripheral surface of the tip portion of the pipe, and the elastic member is attached to the tip portion of the pipe by being fitted into the groove (Grosspietsch et al: Fig. 2).
As to claim 4, Moeller et al/Grosspietsch et al discloses the pipe connecting structure according to claim 3, wherein a material of the elastic member is resin (Grosspietsch et al: elastomer).
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
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 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of Someya and Hochgraeber discloses a pipe connection to a port for use in chromatography, structurally similar to Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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 M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679