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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04/24/2026 are accepted, however, are also objected to because the drawings did not correct all outstanding issues.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figs. 1 and 5 do not have proper cross-hatching. The parts at 3, 4, and P do not have cross-hatching in Fig. 1. Also, the cross-hatching in Fig. 1 seems inconsistent which is difficult to understand if it is trying to portray a change of material throughout sections of the parts or not. See the cross-hatching at 22 as compared to 26 in which the lines appear to have different slopes. Then at “3”, there is no cross-hatching at all which may imply difference in material or structure. In Fig. 5, none of the parts have cross-hatching. See Fig. 6 as an example of that appears to show a proper cross-hatch of each part.
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
Changes to the specification filed on 04/24/2026 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 13-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 14-15, and 17-18 recites “(P)” and should be deleted for the same reasons previously mentioned. It would add further ambiguity to keep “(P)” while deleting the previous reference numerals.
Claims 3, 15, and 17 recites “(M)” and should be deleted for the same reasons above for claim 1 with regard to “(P)”.
Claims 1 and 4 recites “(A)” and should be deleted for the same reasons above for claim 1.
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 13-15, and 17-18 recites “the second attachment section” and should be “the at least one second attachment section”.
Claim 15 recites “comprising a connector according to claim 1 and a pipe” and should be “comprising a connector and a pipe according to claim 1
Claims 15-16 recites “(I)…(II)” and should be deleted for the same reasons above for claim 1.
Claims 16-17 recites “(S)” and should be deleted for the same reasons above for claim 1.
Claim 17 recites “providing a connector of claim 1” and should be “providing a connector and a pipe of claim 1”.
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 1 and 3-18 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 “a second contact surface…is adapted to exert a holding force on a uniform diameter pipe…without modification of the pipe end” which is unclear because the pipe P shown in Fig. 1 where the second contact surface at 24B contacts the pipe P, the pipe P is not uniform and is modified by the inclination at 22A. Furthermore, “the pipe end” lacks proper antecedent basis. Additionally, the recitation “a uniform diameter pipe” would also be unclear with claims 14-15 and 17-18 that recite a pipe and if such recitation to a pipe is the same or different from a uniform diameter pipe in claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “a second contact surface…is adapted to exert a holding force on a of a pipe…with a pipe end of the pipe.”, since the second contact exerts a force on a diameter of the pipe P shown in Fig. 1 and the pipe end appears to go with modification of the pipe end of pipe P and to have proper antecedent basis for the pipe end.
Claim 14 recites “a pipe” which is unclear if this is the same or different from the pipe recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “[[a]] the pipe”.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 3-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 112th second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukano et al. (US 7,240,925 hereinafter “Fukano”).
In regard to claim 1, Fukano discloses a connector for connecting pipes (Fig. 2 shows a connector for at least pipe 16),
comprising a core (Fig. 2, joint body 14 defines a core) and a nut (Fig. 2, nut 20),
wherein the core is formed as a hollow body with an inner channel (Fig. 2, 14 has a hollow body with an inner channel for fluid flow) comprises a first attachment section (Fig. 2, 30 defines a first attachment section) and at least one second attachment section (Figs. 1 and 3, at least one portion near 40 defines a second attachment section),
wherein the nut comprises a nut thread (Fig. 2, threads at 44) which is adapted to interact with a core thread to move the nut along a rotation axis in a mounting direction or in an opposing securing direction (Fig. 2, 22a defines a core thread and 44 interacts with 22a to move the nut along a rotation axis in a mounting direction towards 14 and an opposing securing direction away from 14),
wherein the nut comprises a compression face (Fig. 2, 56 defines a compression face of 20) that in conjunction with the first attachment section defines an elongated void (Fig. 3, the space between 56 and 30 defines an elongated void), the compression face is adapted and arranged to press the second attachment section towards the first attachment section (Fig. 3 shows how 56 presses 40 toward 30),
wherein the compression face is arranged at a first distal end of the nut (Fig. 2, 56 is at least at a distal end within 20 and at a distal end of the nut threads),
wherein the at least one second attachment section comprises a first contact surface (Fig. 3, at 40 has at least a first contact surface perpendicular to 36a) which is adapted to receive a compressive force from the compression face (Fig. 3, shows how 40 receives a compressive force from 56 in order to bite into an outer surface of a pipe),
wherein the first contact surface has an inclined orientation in relation to the rotation axis (Fig. 3, at 40, the perpendicular surface relative to 36a is inclined as shown relative to the rotation axis when pressed inwards and in Fig. 1 prior to being pressed, it is at least inclined at 90 degrees) and at least partially faces towards the core thread (Fig. 3, the first contact surface at least partially faces the core thread),
wherein the at least one second attachment section comprises a second contact surface which is formed at least partially cylindrical around the rotation axis (Figs.1 and 3, surface at 36a defines a second contact surface of the at least one second attachment section) and is adapted to exert a holding force on a diameter of a pipe that fits into the annular void with modification of a pipe end of pipe (Figs. 2 and 3, at 36a near 40 exerts a holding force on a diameter of a pipe 16, the pipe 16 fits into the annular void with modification of a pipe end of pipe 16 such that the pipe end of 16 is expanded radially outwardly).
In regard to claim 3, Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 1,
wherein the first attachment section has an outer surface (Fig. 2, 30 has an outer surface) which outer diameter inclines along the mounting direction (Fig. 2, inclination at 32),
wherein the outer surface has a conical shape (Fig. 2, conical surface at 32).
In regard to claim 4, Fukano discloses the connector according to according to claim 3,
wherein the at least one second attachment section is arranged substantially at the same axial position along the rotation axis as the largest diameter of the outer surface (Fig. 8, the largest diameter is at a bead 68 of the outer surface which 40 is substantially at the same axial position as 68).
In regard to claim 5, Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 1,
wherein the core comprises at least one holding arm (Fig. 8, section between 40 and 38 define a holding arm for 40), which extends from the core thread parallel to and along the securing direction to the at least one second attachment section (Figs. 2 and 8, the holding arm extends from the core thread along the securing direction to 40),
wherein the at least one holding arm is formed as one piece with the core and the at least one second attachment section (Figs. 2 and 8, the at least one holding arm is formed as one piece with the core as shown).
In regard to claim 6, Fukano discloses the connector according to according to claim 5,
wherein an axial length of the at least one holding arm parallel to the rotation axis is greater than a thickness of the at least one holding arm (Figs. 2 and 8, the at least one holding arm at 36 has an axial length greater than a thickness of the at least one holding arm such that the at least one holding arm extends further than its own thickness similar to the applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 7, Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 5,
wherein at least one tooth is formed as a protrusion at the at least one holding arm (Fig. 2, 40 defines at least a tooth as a protrusion at the at least one holding arm),
wherein the tooth faces towards the first attachment section (Fig. 2, 40 faces 30).
In regard to claim 8, Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one second attachment section has an at least partial ring shape (Fig. 1, each at 36 at the tip ends include a respective second attachment section 40 which each 40 is at least partially ring shaped) or a semicircular ring shape (Fig. 1, half of the total 36 defines at least a semicircular shape).
In regard to claim 11, Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 1,
wherein the core comprises two second attachment sections, which are each held by one holding arm and are arranged on opposing sides of the first attachment section (Fig. 1, there are at least two opposite 36 having respective holding arms, therefore, the core comprises two second attachment sections arranged on opposing sides of 30).
In regard to claim 12, Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 1,
wherein the core furthermore comprises a gripping section (Fig. 1, gripping section at 28), which comprises an ergonomically shaped geometry (Fig. 1, the section at 28 have plural flat surfaces to allow ease of using a wrench. See ERGONOMICS Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster that defines ergonomic that allows efficient and safe interaction. In this case, the section 28 is ergonomically shaped to allow efficient and safe use of a wrench.),
wherein the gripping section is arranged adjacent to the core thread (Fig. 1, the section at 28 is adjacent to the core threads similar to the applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 14, Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 1,
wherein the core comprises at least one core locking protrusion which is arranged adjacent to the core thread (Fig. 1, ridge 26 defines at least one core locking protrusion arranged adjacent to the core threads at 22a),
wherein the nut comprises a nut locking protrusion which is arranged at a second distal end of the nut (Figs. 2 and 5, protrusion 60 defines a nut locking protrusion which is arranged at a second distal end of 20 as shown),
wherein the at least one core locking protrusion and the nut locking protrusion engage with each other when the nut is screwed completely on the core to secure the nut against rotation relative to the core (Figs. 2 and 6, 60 engages with 26 when 20 is completely screwed on the core 14 which secures 20 against rotation relative to the core since 20 would not at least screw any further) and
wherein the at least one core locking protrusion and the nut locking protrusion also engage with each other when the nut presses the second attachment section on a pipe to secure the nut in this respective rotational position relative to the core (Figs. 2 and 5-6, 60 and 26 engage when 20 presses against the second attachment section as shown on a pipe 16 to secure 20 in this respective rotational position relative to the core 14).
In regard to claim 15, Fukano discloses a pipe system for irrigation systems (Fig. 2 shows at least a pipe system capable of being used for irrigation systems. See note below.), comprising a connector and pipe according to claim 1 (See above claim 1 above),
wherein the connector has a disassembled state in which the nut and the core are not connected to each other (Fig. 2, 20 and 14 are separate parts and can be in a disassembled state prior to connecting 20 and 14),
wherein the connector has a mounted state in which the nut completely screwed on the core along the mounting direction (Figs. 2 and 6 shows a mounted state in which 20 is completely screwed on the core along the mounting direction) and a nut locking protrusion engages with a core locking protrusion (Figs. 1 and 2, nut locking protrusion 60 and core locking protrusion 26),
wherein the connector has a secured state in which the nut applies a force on the second attachment section (Fig. 2 shows at least a secured state in which 20 applies a force on the second attachment section at 40 and this state is at least prior to complete screwing of 20 because it is prior to 60 being deformed as shown in Fig. 6) and the pipe is secured against displacement between the first attachment section and the second attachment section (Fig. 2, in the secured state shown, 16 is at least secured against displacement between the first and second attachment sections as shown).
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. See MPEP § 2114. In this case, the recitation “for irrigation systems” is a functional recitation of intended use of the pipe system which does not structurally differentiate from the pipe system of Fukano and does not add any further structure other than the pipe system. Additionally, the pipe system of Fukano is also capable of being used for irrigation systems since it is a pipe connector for transferring fluid.
In regard to claim 16, Fukano discloses the pipe system according to claim 15,
wherein in the secured state, compared to the mounted state the nut is offset along the securing direction (Fig. 2 shows the secured state which is offset along the securing direction as compared to the mounted state which the nut 20 moves along the mounting direction).
In regard to claim 17, Fukano discloses a process for assembling a connector and a pipe (Fig. 2 shows a connector for a pipe 16), comprising:
providing a connector and a pipe of claim 1 (See claim 1 above);
screwing the nut on the core along the mounting direction (Fig. 2, 20 is screwed along the mounting direction) until a core locking protrusion formed at the core engages with a nut locking protrusion formed at the nut (Fig. 2, core locking protrusion 26 engages with a nut locking protrusion 60),
wherein the engagement between the core locking protrusion and the nut locking protrusion secures the nut and the core against relative rotational movements (Figs. 2 and 6, when 60 deforms against 26, the engagement secures 20 and 14 against relative rotational movements);
inserting the pipe between the first attachment section and the second attachment section of the core (Fig. 2, pipe 16 is inserted between 30 and 40);
applying a rotational momentum between the nut and the core to overcome the engagement of the nut locking protrusion and the core locking protrusion to move the nut along the securing direction relative to the core (Fig. 2, since 20 is threaded to 14, a rotational momentum can be applied in the securing direction to disengage 60 and 26),
wherein the nut forces the second attachment section towards the first attachment section (Fig. 2 shows 20 forces 40 towards 30), such that the pipe is secured between the first and the second attachment section (Fig. 2, pipe 16 is secured between 40 and 30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano (US 7,240,925) in view of Maple (US 4,257,629).
Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 12,
wherein said core thread, said first attachment section and said second attachment section are part of a first group (Fig. 2, the core thread, the first attachment section and the second attachment section can define a first group),
Fukano does not expressly disclose wherein the core comprises a second group of a core thread, a first attachment section and a second attachment section,
wherein said second group is arranged plane symmetrically to the first group adjacent to the gripping section.
In the related field of pipe connectors, Maple teaches a connector having identical connections at both ends of the connector and can also have one be formed with a female nut connector (Fig. 1 shows a connector having identical connection ends and Fig. 2 shows one end can be formed with a female nut connector 20) in order to have at least the advantage of reliably extending a pipe length by having identical connection ends or join free ends of a pipeline system with a female connector to connect to other standard fittings (In 3:19-37 discloses Fig. 2 is for a free end of a pipeline system to attach to standard fittings, therefore, Fig. 1 allows for extending plural lengths of pipes to define a pipeline system).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the male screw section 22b of Fukano to include a second group of a core thread, a first attachment section and a second attachment section, wherein said second group is arranged plane symmetrically to the first group adjacent to the gripping section with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of reliably connecting plural lengths of pipes to define a pipeline system and extending the pipeline system for situations that require a long length of pipe as taught by Maple.
Additionally, see MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Maple would reasonable suggest having a connector with identical ends to reliably connect pipe ends together to form a longer length of pipeline instead of a different type of connection. It would also be more efficient to use identical connection ends of the connector for connecting pipe ends instead of different connections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 18 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claims 9 and 10:
In regard to claim 9, Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 1, but does not show or suggest the at least one second attachment section comprises at least one recess at the first contact surface which extends from the first contact surface towards the second contact surface. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukano to include the at least one second attachment section comprises at least one recess at the first contact surface which extends from the first contact surface towards the second contact surface with a reasonable expectation of success because such a modification would require hindsight reasoning and reconstruction.
In regard to claim 10, Fukano discloses the connector according to claim 3, but does not show or suggest wherein the first attachment section has a sharp edge at the largest diameter of the outer surface. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukano to include the first attachment section has a sharp edge at the largest diameter of the outer surface with a reasonable expectation of success because such a modification would require hindsight reasoning and reconstruction.
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.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that in stark contrast of Fukano in view of claim 1, the pipe of the claimed invention fits into the annular void without modification of the pipe end shown in Fig. 1, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because applicant’s invention shown in Fig. 1 shows a modification of the pipe (P) as it slides over the inclined surface at 22A which is evidence that shows the end of pipe (P) being modified. While the rest of pipe (P) towards the open end of the pipe appears to go back to its original diameter of the portion of pipe (P) that does not go over 22A, however, the drawings are for illustration purposes and it is not particular clear that the portion in the annular void after sliding over 22A forms back to its original shape and size because in the real world when the open end of pipe (P) slides over 22A, it would have to undergo deformation. Applicant’s specification is silent with regard to “without modification” and applicant’s arguments appear to be drawing from speculation of the drawings absent any supportive description in applicant’s specification. Therefore, the recitation “without modification of the pipe end” is unclear and appears contradictory to applicant’s invention such that the pipe (P) of applicant’s invention is clearly modified as it slides over 22A. See the updated rejection above such that claim 1 is rejected under 112(b) and the limitation will be interpreted as a pipe end of a pipe is with modification which Fukano discloses a modified pipe end. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments and amendments to claim 1 appear to speculate from applicant’s drawings which such speculation is not proper and sufficient evidence because drawings are for illustrative purposes. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights