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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, the fixing element being, at least section wise, ring-shaped with at least one cutting element and the inner section having a ring-shaped recess for accommodating the fixing element must be shown or the features canceled from claim 1 and 22. No new matter should be entered.
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Lines 8-9 - the abstract should not speak to purported merits of the invention, i.e., “The fitting solves…more reliable replacement of the functional parts.”
Line 9 – the abstract should not use legal phraseology, i.e., “The invention also relates”.
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:
Page 19, line 23 – replace “Fig. 7” with --Fig. 5--.
Correction is required.
Claim Objections
Note: It is suggested to Applicant to remove the dashes in the claims to avoid confusion in the claims.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 – replace “or” after “fitting” with --for--.
Line 3 – add --at least one-- before “pipe section”.
Correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 – add --at least one-- before “pipe section”.
Correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 – replace “its” before “circumference” with --a--.
Line 2 – replace “the” before “proximal” with --a--.
Correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 – replace “the” before “proximal” with --a--.
Correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 – replace “the” before “outside” with --an--.
Correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 – replace “the” before “circumference” with --a--.
Correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 – replace “the” before “outer” with --an--.
Correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 - add --plurality of-- between “the” and “cutting elements”.
Correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 - add --plurality of-- between “the” and “cutting elements”.
Line 3 – replace “the” before “outside” with --an--.
Line 4 – replace “the” before “inside” with --an--.
Line 5 - add --plurality of-- between “the” and “cutting elements”.
Line 6 – replace “the” before “inside” with --an--.
Correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 - add --plurality of-- between “the” and “cutting elements”.
Line 3 – replace “the” before “outer” with --an--.
Line 3 – replace “the” before “inner” with --an--.
Correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 – add --at least one-- before “pipe section”.
Line 5 – add --at least two-- before “functional units”.
Line 6 - replace “the” before “functional unit” with --a respective--.
Line 7 - replace “the” between “connected to” and “pressing section” with --a respective--.
Line 10 – add --the-- before “at least two functional units”.
Line 11 – add --the-- before “functional ring”.
Line 11 – add --the-- before “sealing ring”.
Line 11 – add --the-- before “fixing element”.
Line 12 – add --a-- before “reinforcement ring”.
Correction is required.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 – replace “the” before “shape” with --a--.
Line 2 – add --the-- before “at least two functional rings”.
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.
Claims 19-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claims 19, 22 and 34 are missing a transitional phrase such as --comprising--, therefore, the claim limitations are not clearly defined. Note: transitional phrases define the scope of a claim and also what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim (see MPEP 2111.03).
Claims 19 and 22 recite “the fixing element is at least section-wise ring-shaped with at least one cutting element and the inner section has a ring-shaped recess for accommodating the fixing element”. It is not clear what “at least section-wise ring-shaped” means. Are claims 19 and 22 reciting that the fixing element is ring-shaped only in a section view and not in other views?
Claims 20, 21, 24, 26-28 and 30-33 are rejected herein due to their dependency on claim 19.
Claim 22 recites “A functional unit for a fitting, which has a base body having at least one pipe section and with a pressing section connected to the pipe section, in particular a fitting according to claim 19…” Regarding claim 22, the words "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the words are part of the claimed invention. It is also not clear if claim 22 is positively reciting the fitting of claim 19 or a fitting in combination with the functional unit.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the outer section, around its circumference, in particular at the proximal end, has, at least in sections, an inwardly projecting locking section”. Regarding claim 23, the words "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the words are part of the claimed invention. It is also not clear what “at least in sections” means as the outer section is recited with regard to a circumference of the outer section and not a partial circumference.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the inner section is connected to the sealing element at the proximal end, at least in sections, by a form-fit and/or material-fit connection, in particular by gluing, welding or snapping”. Regarding claim 25, the words "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the words are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 recites “The functional unit according to claim 26, wherein the pressing projections are received in circumferentially arranged recesses of the outer section of the functional ring”. Claims 26 and 22, from which claim 29 depends, do not recite any pressing projections. However, claim 28 sets forth pressing projections. Does Applicant meant to recite pressing projections for claim 29 or does Applicant mean for claim 29 to be dependent from claim 28 where pressing projections have been recited?
Claim 30 recites “The functional unit according to claim 26, wherein the pressing projections of the reinforcement ring have an outer diameter that is at least as large as the outer diameter of the outer section of the functional ring”. Claims 26 and 22, from which claim 30 depends, do not recite any pressing projections. However, claim 28 sets forth pressing projections. Does Applicant meant to recite pressing projections for claim 30 or does Applicant mean for claim 30 to be dependent from claim 28 where pressing projections have been recited?
Claim 34 recites “wherein at least two functional units differ in the design of at least one of the elements functional ring, sealing element and/or fixing element and/or, if applicable, reinforcement ring”. Regarding claim 34, the words "if applicable" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the words are part of the claimed invention. It is further unclear what would set forth the circumstances that would be “applicable” with regard to a reinforcement ring being a part of the claimed invention. As best understood, Examiner is interpreting that claim 34 is not reciting a reinforcement ring.
Claim 35 recites “wherein the shape, material and/or surface design of at least two functional rings, two sealing elements and/or at least two fixing elements and/or at least two reinforcement rings differ”. It is unclear how the two fixing elements are now recited as at least two fixing elements and how many fixing elements are being recited. It is also not clear how there are at least two reinforcement rings which differ as claim 34 from which claim 35 depends does not positively set forth single or multiple reinforcement rings. As best understood, Examiner is interpreting that claim 35 is only reciting two fixing elements and is not reciting two reinforcement rings.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 recites “wherein a functional unit described below is used as the functional unit.” Claim 21 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 19 from which claim 21 depends as no further claim limitations are set forth for the functional unit recited in claim 21.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borradori U.S. Patent No. 4,095,826.
As best understood by Examiner, with regard to claim 34, and as shown in Figure 5, Borradori discloses a system for connecting pipes,
- with at least one base body (at 1) for a fitting for connecting to a pipe, wherein the base body has at least one pipe section (see below) and a pressing section (see below) connected to the pipe section and
- with at least two functional units (see below),
- wherein the functional units each comprise a functional ring (at 7, 8, 15 and 7, 8, 15 on each side), a sealing element (at 19, 19) and a fixing element (elements at 12 and Fig 3 and at 22 and Fig 4) and wherein the respective functional ring, when the functional unit is connected to the pressing section, has an outer section (see below) arranged radially outside the pressing section and an inner section (see below) arranged inside the pressing section, wherein the inner section positions the sealing element and the fixing element within the pressing section (as shown in Fig 5),
- wherein the at least two functional units differ in the design of the fixing element (as shown in Figs 3 and 4).
Note: the pipe is not a part of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
262
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As best understood by Examiner, with regard to claim 35, Borradori discloses
wherein the surface design of the two fixing elements differ (where in the inner surface design of the two fixing elements can differ as shown in Figs 3 and 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon 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