DETAILED ACTION
Claims 4, 7-8, and 10 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is presented as a single sentence in non-narrative form substantially mirroring a patent claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification at least at page 2, lines 15-17 and lines 21-23references patent claims. The claims are subject to cancellation or renumbering, such that references thereto are not necessarily instructive to one having ordinary skill in the art. The examiner notes that Claims 1-3 are recited, and those claims have been canceled.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 appears to contain a typographical error at line 1, which recites “The method accourdin go claim 1” rather than “The method according to claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 7-8, and 10 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 4 recites “manufacturing the locking nut so that the hooking flange has, in an initial configuration” at line 14-15 and “the initial configuration of the locking nu is obtained by widening the hooking flange from a first inner diameter, which is smaller than the outer diameter of the two coupling flanges, to a second inner diameter, which is greater than the outer diameter of the second coupling flange” at lines 25-28.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “a locking nut”, and the claim also recites “in particular a hexagonal one” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Each of claims 7-8 and 10 depend from claim 10, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 4.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 each depend from claim 1. Claim 1 has been canceled. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will presume that each claim depends from claim 4, instead.
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 10
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent 9,791,084 to Fujii et al. (hereinafter “Fujii”) in view of United States Patent 6,296,283 to Dietzel (hereinafter “Dietzel”).
Regarding claim 4, Fujii discloses a method for the manufacture of a fitting for the connection of two tubular elements (10, 10), the fitting (see Fig. 1A) comprising an inner sleeve (2), which has a longitudinal axis (dashed centerline; see Fig. 1A), is axially delimited by two end faces (see Annotated Figure) and comprises, in turn, a first portion (left end of body), which extends starting from a first end face (end face at left side of Fig. 1A) and is designed to receive and hold a first tubular element (10), and a second portion (right end of body), which extends starting from a second end face (end face at right side of Fig. 1A) and is provided with a first outer coupling flange (24; see Fig. 3) manufactured as one single piece with the inner sleeve (2); and a locking nut (3), in particular a hexagonal one, which is designed to receive and hold a second tubular element (10; see Fig. 1B) and is provided with an inner hooking flange (6); the method comprising the steps of: obtaining, on the inner sleeve (2), a second outer coupling flange (5), which is arranged between the first coupling flange (24) and the second end face (see Fig. 1B) and is manufactured as one single piece with the inner sleeve (see Fig. 1A); manufacturing the locking nut (3) so that the hooking flange (6) has, in an initial configuration, an inner diameter (union nut moves over projection; see Col. 10, lines 5-15) that is greater than an outer diameter of the second coupling flange (5); inserting the locking nut (3) along the inner sleeve (2) starting from the second end face (right side; see Col. 8, lines 41-51) so as to place the hooking flange (6) between the two coupling flanges (24, 5); and deforming the locking nut (3) so that the hooking flange (6) has, in a final configuration, an inner diameter (see Fig. 3) that is smaller than the outer diameter of the two coupling flanges (24, 5) so as to allow the hooking flange to be axially locked between the coupling flanges (24, 5); wherein; the initial configuration (as union nut moves over projection; see Col. 10, lines 5-15) of the locking nut (3) is obtained by widening the hooking flange from a first inner diameter (see configuration in Fig. 2), which is smaller than the outer diameter of the two coupling flanges (24, 5), to a second inner diameter (see Col. 8, lines 46-51; member 6 moves over flange 6), which is greater than the outer diameter of the second coupling flange (5; see Col. 8, lines 46-51).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujii does not explicitly disclose that the locking nut (3) has a plurality of outer locking faces having a height measured parallel to the longitudinal axis, the height of the faces equal to the height of the nut. Fujii teaches that it is known in the art of tubular couplers for locking nuts to have a plurality of faces. Fujii teaches that it is known in the art to use a wrench to tighten a union nut (see Col. 1, lines 48-60), but is silent regarding the manner the tool engages the union nut.
However, it is conventional for locking nuts to have a plurality of faces. For example, Dietzel teaches such a nut for a coupling assembly process.
Dietzel teaches a coupler assembly including a sleeve (16) and a union nut (31). The union nut (31) includes a plurality of exterior faces (see Fig. 6). The height of the faces is equal to the height of the nut along the longitudinal direction of the nut (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of making a coupler assembly of Fujii to include a union nut having a conventional and well-known exterior profile including a plurality of faces, such as the union nut profile taught by Dietzel. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a union nut having multiple faces would predictably be able to be engaged using a wrench. The resulting combination would allow for engagement and rotation of the union nut using a conventional tool such as a wrench, without modification of the principles of operation of Fujii.
Thus, the combination of Fujii and Dietzel teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fujii and Dietzel teaches the limitations of claim 4, and further Fujii teaches that the inner sleeve (2) is deformed by an inner cylindrical surface (radially interior surface at left end in Fig. 1B), which is smooth and has no cavities (surface left of lead line at 26 shown without cavities and depicted as smooth).
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fujii and Dietzel as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of United States Patent 4,898,705 to Kyomen et al. (hereinafter “Kyomen”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fujii and Dietzel teaches the limitations of claim 4, and however Fujii does not explicitly teach that the hooking flange is widened by inserting a punch into the locking nut.
However, it is known in the art of forming joints to deform nuts using a punch.
For example, Kyomen teaches deforming a nut (4) having a flange (6) by using a punch (11). Kyomen teaches pressing the punch (11) into the interior diameter of the nut (4), widening the nut inner diameter (see Figs. 5, 6, 7; and Col. 5, lines 49-65). The nut (4) inner diameter expands as a result of the punch, allowing the punch to pass over coupler flange portion (5; see Figs. 6 and 7). Kyomen teaches that using its expanding punch can reduce force needed to deform the union nut (see Col. 6, lines 27-37) without producing irregular deformation (see Col. 5, lines 56-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Fujii and Dietzel to expand the union nut taught by Fujii using a conventional expansion technique, such as with the punch taught by Kyomen. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably result in a union nut which is capable of being passed over a coupler flange in a convention manner, while ensuring the that the union nut is not deformed in an irregular manner (see MPEP 2143(1)(C)) while reducing required deformation force.
Thus, the combination of Fujii, Dietzel, and Kyomen teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fujii and Dietzel as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2007/0001448 to Navarro (hereinafter “Navarro”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fujii and Dietzel teaches the limitations of claim 4, however the combination does not explicitly teach that the final configuration of the locking nut is obtained by means of a pressing device mounted on the outside of the locking nut and comprising at least two pressing elements, which are movable crosswise to a longitudinal axis of the locking nut in order to deform the hooking flange.
It is known in the art of forming coupler assemblies to provide pressing elements which deform coupler components to secure the coupler in a final configuration. For example, Navarro teaches forming a coupler assembly (20) having an inner sleeve (25) with flange portions (at 34 and 28). Navarro teaches a pressing device (coupling device E) which can be used to ensure that the coupler assembly forms a pressure tight seal (see paragraph [0049]) by pressing coupler flanges toward one another. The coupling device (E) compresses components in a direction crosswise to a longitudinal axis of the coupler assembly for securing the assembly and forming the seal (see Fig. 5C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the combination of Fujii and Dietzel to include a conventional coupler assembly for pressing the coupler assembly components toward each other, as taught by Navarro. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting method would ensure that the coupler assembly is sealed in a desirable manner, allowing fluid to pass therethrough.
Thus, the combination of Fujii, Dietzel, and Navarro teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 6,447,017 to Gilbreath et al. teaches a coupling assembly having a nut (12) with a flange (26) received between two flange portions of a sleeve member (see Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
