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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Guest in view of Parker does not disclose the claim 1 limitation “a sealing element positioned within the triangular sealing groove that is crushed to conform to the shape of the triangular sealing groove”. Examiner disagrees.
Firstly, it is important to note the wording of the rejection:
“Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guest to change the shape of the groove and gasket, as taught by Parker, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. 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).”
To clarify, the 103 combination of Guest and Parker results in incorporating the teachings of the groove and gasket configuration in Parker into Guest, including substituting the gasket (22) in Parker for the compression olive (45) in Guest. Referring to Figure 9 and the description thereof in Parker, Parker’s circular O-ring is compressed so as to conform to the triangular recess, resulting in greater sealing contact and improved sealing. While Guest’s compressive olive can arguably be used for locking, it is also used for sealing, as evidenced by NPL document “Olive_Definition” (attached). Modifying Guest by Parker as indicated by the 103 rejections would provide improved sealing in Guest, as Parker’s sealing configuration establishes more points of contact and contact area for the gasket against the tube, and additionally provides a backup seal, in the event Guest’s axially innermost seal fails. Parker’s sealing configuration in Guest also better accommodates applications where sealing is of utmost priority, and “locking” is not. Furthermore, as Parker’s gasket is crushed and elastically deformed, it not only provides improved sealing, but also assists in securing the tube as well.
Accordingly, Guest in view of Parker indeed discloses the claim 1 limitation “a sealing element positioned within the triangular sealing groove that is crushed to conform to the shape of the triangular sealing groove”, and the 103 rejections have been maintained.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/23/26. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest (EP 0195140) in view of Parker (US 2,394,097).
As to claim 1, Guest discloses a fluid system comprising: a fluid manifold (10); a rear end (42) cap fixed to the fluid manifold, the rear end cap having an internal first cone-shaped recess (44); a fluid tube (12) having an end positioned in the fluid manifold and that extends from the fluid manifold through the rear end cap (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the fluid manifold sources a fluid at the end of the fluid tube to flow through the fluid tube; a sealing insert (40) that extends around a portion of the fluid tube, the sealing insert having a first end positioned in the fluid manifold and a second end positioned in the rear end cap (Fig. 2), wherein the second end of the sealing insert has a second coned-shaped recess (43) that is positioned as an opposing cone-shaped recess relative to the first coned- shaped recess of the rear end cap; and a sealing element (45) positioned within the triangular sealing groove that is crushed to conform to the shape of the triangular sealing groove (pg. 5, l. 27 - pg. 6, l. 2).
Guest fails to teach that the opposing first and second cone-shaped recesses form a triangular sealing groove in which a long side of the triangular sealing groove is an outer surface of the fluid tube.
However, Parker teaches a similar pipe coupling wherein the opposing first and second cone-shaped recesses (20, 21) form a triangular sealing groove in which a long side of the triangular sealing groove is opposite from the first and second cone-shaped recesses (Fig. 9). Parker’s sealing gasket (22) in initially circular, but after tightening of the coupling and compression of the gasket, takes the triangular form of the recess, as shown in Fig. 9.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guest to change the shape of the groove and gasket, as taught by Parker, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. 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).
Modifying Guest by Parker would also provide improved sealing in Guest, as Parker’s sealing configuration establishes more points of contact and contact area for the gasket against the tube, and additionally provides a backup seal, in the event Guest’s axially innermost seal fails. Parker’s sealing configuration in Guest also better accommodates applications where sealing is of utmost priority, and “locking” is not. Furthermore, as Parker’s gasket is crushed and elastically deformed, it not only provides improved sealing, but also assists in securing the tube as well.
As to claim 2, Guest/Parker discloses the fluid system of claim 1, wherein the first coned-shaped recess and the second cone-shaped recess are of equal length and meet at a right angle, such that the triangular sealing groove is an isosceles right triangle having a hypotenuse corresponding to the outer surface of the fluid tube and legs corresponding to the first and second cone-shaped recesses. Refer to Fig. 9 in Parker.
As to claim 3, Guest/Parker discloses the fluid system of claim 1, wherein the first coned-shaped recess and the second cone-shaped recess meet at an angle from 90° to 120°. Refer to Fig. 9 in Parker.
As to claim 4, Guest/Parker discloses the fluid system of claim 1, wherein the sealing element is an O-ring seal. Refer to Fig. 9 in Parker.
As to claim 5, Guest/Parker discloses the fluid system of claim 1, wherein the sealing insert has an insert body positioned between the first and the second ends, and the insert body has external threads (41, Guest) that mate with internal threads of the rear end cap to fix the sealing insert within the rear end cap (see Fig. 2 in Guest).
As to claim 6, Guest/Parker discloses the fluid system of claim 5, wherein the first end of the sealing insert (leftmost end of insert) has a diameter (inner) that is smaller than a diameter (outer) of the second end and insert body of the sealing insert, whereby the insert body is positioned against an internal face of the fluid manifold (Fig. 2, Guest).
As to claim 8, Guest discloses a sealing fluid connection comprising: a fluid manifold (10); a rear end cap (42) fixed to the fluid manifold, the rear end cap having an internal first cone-shaped recess (44); and a sealing insert (40) having a first end positioned in the fluid manifold and a second end positioned in the rear end cap (Fig. 2), wherein the second end of the sealing insert has a second coned-shaped recess (43) that is positioned as an opposing cone-shaped recess relative to the first coned-shaped recess of the rear end cap.
Guest fails to teach that the opposing first and second cone-shaped recesses form a triangular sealing groove in which a long side of the triangular sealing groove is opposite from the first and second cone-shaped recesses.
However, Parker teaches a similar pipe coupling wherein the opposing first and second cone-shaped recesses (20, 21) form a triangular sealing groove in which a long side of the triangular sealing groove is opposite from the first and second cone-shaped recesses (Fig. 9). Parker’s sealing gasket (22) in initially circular, but after tightening of the coupling and compression of the gasket, takes the triangular form of the recess, as shown in Fig. 9.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guest to change the shape of the groove and gasket, as taught by Parker, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. 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).
Modifying Guest by Parker would also provide improved sealing in Guest, as Parker’s sealing configuration establishes more points of contact and contact area for the gasket against the tube, and additionally provides a backup seal, in the event Guest’s axially innermost seal fails. Parker’s sealing configuration in Guest also better accommodates applications where sealing is of utmost priority, and “locking” is not. Furthermore, as Parker’s gasket is crushed and elastically deformed, it not only provides improved sealing, but also assists in securing the tube as well.
As to claim 9, Guest/Parker discloses the sealing fluid connection of claim 8, wherein the first coned- shaped recess and the second cone-shaped recess are of equal length and meet at a right angle, such that the triangular sealing groove is an isosceles right triangle having a hypotenuse opposite from the first and second cone-shaped recesses and legs corresponding to the first and second cone-shaped recesses. Refer to Fig. 9 in Parker.
As to claim 10, Guest/Parker discloses the sealing fluid connection of claim 8, wherein the first coned- shaped recess and the second cone-shaped recess meet at an angle from 90° to 120°. Refer to Fig. 9 in Parker.
As to claim 11, Guest/Parker discloses the sealing fluid connection of claim 8, wherein the sealing insert has an insert body positioned between the first and the second ends, and the insert body has external threads (41, Guest) that mate with internal threads of the rear end cap to fix the sealing insert within the rear end cap (Fig. 2, Guest).
As to claim 12, Guest/Parker discloses the sealing fluid connection of claim 11, wherein the first end (leftmost end of the insert) of the sealing insert has a diameter (inner) that is smaller than a diameter (outer) of the second end and insert body of the sealing insert, whereby the insert body is positioned against an internal face of the fluid manifold (Fig. 2, Guest).
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest in view of Parker, and further in view of Norman et al (US 10,094,494).
As to claim 7, Guest/Parker discloses the fluid system of claim 1, except that the fluid manifold is press fit over the first end of the sealing insert. Guest’s manifold is press fit over the tube (see Fig. 2), and is threaded to the end of the sealing insert (Fig. 2).
However, Norman et al teaches a press fit can be used in place of a threaded connection between pipe coupling components (see col. 1, ll. 64-67).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guest/Parker such that the fluid manifold is press fit over the first end of the sealing insert, as taught by Norman et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide quicker assembly and disassembly of the insert and manifold, and to provide an alternative, viable means by which to connect the insert and manifold.
As to claim 13, Guest/Parker discloses the fluid system of claim 8, except that the fluid manifold is press fit over the first end of the sealing insert. Guest’s manifold is press fit over the tube (see Fig. 2), and is threaded to the end of the sealing insert (Fig. 2).
However, Norman et al teaches a press fit can be used in place of a threaded connection between pipe coupling components (see col. 1, ll. 64-67).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guest/Parker such that the fluid manifold is press fit over the first end of the sealing insert, as taught by Norman et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide quicker assembly and disassembly of the insert and manifold, and to provide an alternative, viable means by which to connect the insert and manifold.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-930pm, mid-day flex 2-4pm. 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