DETAILED ACTION
The present application has been made of the record and currently claims 1-20 are pending.
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
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species as shown in fig. 1-4, 7, 8, and 10-13 (ex., the alternative sealing configuration of the O-ring in groove), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of Species I was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/28/2026.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are being considered while claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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:
“a plurality of branch couplings disposed one-to-one” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“an inner diameter of the tubular section is larger at an opening side of the passage formed in the tubular section than at both axial direction end portion sides of the tubular section” of claims 7 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“a ring-shaped communication groove is formed at an inner peripheral face of the tubular section, and an opening of the passage is formed at a bottom face of the communication groove” of claims 8 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 13, the limitation “ring-shaped ribs” should be “a ring-shaped rib” as there is only one rib on each end of the tubular section.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
In regards to claim 3, the limitation “the cross hole and the passage of the branch section communication with each other … the seal member seals between the main pipe and the tubular section … there is no limit to a range of movement of the tubular section” is unclear to the examiner as to how there is no limit to the range of movement of the tubular section with regards to the main pipe while maintaining a seal and fluid communication (ex., if the cross-hole of the main pipe is not within the tubular section, the main pipe would leak).
To proceed with prosecution, the limitation “there is no limit to a range of movement of the tubular section” will not be considered because there would be a limit to the range of movement of the tubular section of the present invention otherwise the cross-hole of the main pipe would no longer within the tubular section, thus, the functional limitations of claim 3 would not be met.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 2 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.
In this case, the entirety of claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 as claim 1 already requires ribs and seals and there is no limitation further defining the ribs and seals in claim 2 than already disclosed in claim 1.
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 § 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(s) 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chol et al. (KR-20170012533) in view of Giraud (FR-1319822).
In regards to claim 1, Chol discloses:
A pipe branch structure (see fig. 18 hereinafter unless otherwise noted) comprising:
a main pipe; and
a plurality of branch couplings disposed one-to-one (see lines 118-120 of the translated document provided herein where a plurality of branch coupling are provided but not shown), at a plurality of branch positions set between two axial direction ends of the main pipe (it is inherent that pipes have ends to them),
a cross-hole (61) being formed at each of the branch positions of the main pipe (for illustrative purposes, please see fig. 3 where each branch coupling comprises a cross-hole of transfer pipe 55),
each branch coupling including a tubular section (161) attached to an outer periphery of the main pipe (see near 177 where the tubular section is directly attached to the outer periphery of the pipe),
each tubular section having two axial direction end portions (190, 191), a branch section (192) formed with a passage (174) in communication with an inside of the tubular section and configured to connect to a branch pipe (193), and
a seal member (see near 182 on each side) configured to seal between the main pipe and the tubular section,
the tubular section being attached to the outer periphery of the main pipe in a state in which the cross hole and the passage in the branch section are in communication with each other (ex., see fig. 18),
the seal member has a circular-tube shape (ex., see seals near 182 on each side which are rings) and is respectively disposed at both of the axial direction end portions of the tubular section (see both sides of 182),
but does not disclose:
“a ring-shaped rib” protruding from an outer periphery of the tubular section are respectively formed at both axial direction end portions of the tubular section,
a portion of each of the seal members is in close contact with an outer periphery of each of both of the axial direction end portions of the tubular section,
a remaining portion of each of the seal members being attached to the outer periphery of the main pipe, and
a ring-shaped recess is formed at an inner peripheral face corresponding to the portion of each of the seal members, the annular ribs being respectively fitted into the ring- shaped recesses.
In regards to the circular seal members and ribs, Giraud discloses a similar device used in wastewater drainage pipes or pipes intended for the transportation of fluid of all kinds (see page 3 of the translated document provided herein; ex., see paragraph 0001 and 0002 of Chol which discloses the use for waste water drainage and other fluids), comprising:
“a ring-shaped rib” (10; see fig. 4 hereinafter) protruding from an outer periphery of a tubular section (9) formed at an axial direction end portion (see near 9) of the tubular section,
a portion (4) of each of the seal members is in close contact with an outer periphery of the axial direction end portion of the tubular section (see fig. 4),
a remaining portion (8) of each of the seal members being attached to the outer periphery of the main pipe, and
a ring-shaped recess (5) is formed at an inner peripheral face corresponding to the portion of each of the seal members,
the annular ribs being respectively fitted into the ring- shaped recesses (see fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute sealing system at each axial end of Chol with the sealing system of Giraud such that each axial end comprises a radially outward rib and the seal of Giraud to meet the limitation of the claim because both Chol and Giraud discloses devices used in waste water drainage or pipes with fluids of all kinds (see page 3 of Giraud; see paragraph 0001 and 0002 of Chol), Chol discloses a device which differs from the claimed device by a simple substitution of one sealing system comprising a female threaded end comprising a threaded nut and sealing elements with the known sealing system comprising a female end comprising a rib and seal, Giraud discloses a similar device comprising the known sealing system used to at least provide the benefit of increasing sealing while allowing compensation of any warping and easy replacement of pipes (see page 3 of Giraud), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the one known sealing system used in waste water drainage for the seal system used in waste water draining because simply substituting one sealing system for another known sealing system would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to claim 2, Chol in view of Giraud further discloses:
The pipe branch structure of claim 1, wherein:
ring-shaped ribs are respectively formed at both axial direction end portions of the tubular section and project out from an outer periphery of the tubular section (ex., see rejection of claim 1 above),
circular tube-shaped seal members are arranged at both axial direction end portions of the tubular section (ex., see rejection of claim 1 above),
each of the seal members has one portion in close contact with an outer periphery of the corresponding axial direction end portion of the tubular section and a remaining portion attached to the outer periphery of the main pipe (ex., see rejection of claim 1 above), and
each of the seal members is formed with a ring-shaped recess shaped corresponding to the ring-shaped rib at an inner peripheral fact corresponding to the one portion, and the ring- shaped rib is fitted into this recessed portion (ex., see rejection of claim 1 above).
In regards to claim 3, as best understood, Chol in view of Giraud further discloses:
The pipe branch structure of claim 1, wherein:
the tubular section attached to the outer periphery of the main pipe can be moved in an axial direction of the main pipe in a state in which the cross hole and the passage of the branch section communicate with each other (ex., see fig. 18 of Chol) and the seal member seals between the main pipe and the tubular section (ex., see fig. 18 of Chol, where there is nothing structural preventing the device of Chol in view of Giraud from meeting this functional limitation).
In regards to claim 7, Chol further discloses:
The pipe branch structure of claim 1, wherein an inner diameter of the tubular section is larger at an opening side of the passage formed in the tubular section than at both axial direction end portion sides of the tubular section (see annotated fig. 18 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, Chol further discloses:
The pipe branch structure of claim 7, wherein a ring-shaped communication groove (see annotated fig. 18 above hereinafter) is formed at an inner peripheral face of the tubular section, and
an opening of the passage (see annotated fig. 18) is formed at a bottom face of the communication groove.
Claim(s) 4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chol in view of Giraud and in further view of Gim (KR- 20170037212).
In regards to claim 4, Chol in view of Giraud discloses:
The pipe branch structure of claim 1, wherein the cross-hole is a single cross-hole,
but does not disclose:
wherein a plurality of cross holes are formed spaced apart around a circumferential direction of the main pipe at one of the plurality of branch positions of the main pipe.
In regards to the plurality of cross-hole, Gim discloses a similar branch coupling (see annotated figure 4 below) wherein a plurality of cross holes are formed spaced apart around a circumferential direction of the main pipe at one of the plurality of branch positions of the main pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the cross-hole of Chol in view of Giraud to comprise a plurality of cross holes formed spaced apart around a circumferential direction of the main pipe at one of the plurality of branch positions of the main pipe because Gim discloses that it is known to provide a plurality of cross-hole spaced apart around the circumferential direction and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, modifying the cross-hole of Chol in view of Giraud to be comprised of a plurality of cross-holes spaced apart in the circumferential direction which is a known configuration as disclosed by Gim would not produce a new and unexpected result.
PNG
media_image2.png
814
1159
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11, Chol further discloses:
The pipe branch structure of claim 4, wherein an inner diameter of the tubular section is larger at an opening side of the passage formed in the tubular section than at both axial direction end portion sides of the tubular section (see annotated fig. 18 above).
In regards to claim 12, Chol further discloses:
The pipe branch structure of claim 11, wherein a ring-shaped communication groove (see annotated fig. 18) is formed at an inner peripheral face of the tubular section, and
an opening of the passage (see annotated fig. 18) is formed at a bottom face of the communication groove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wavin (FR-1472802) discloses a similar device comprising seals at both ends of the t-shaped coupling.
Guitoneau (FR-2528534) discloses a similar end piece used to provide support and protection (see fig. 2).
Hepworth (GB-1152740) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
Heo (KR-101188872) discloses a similar sealing device to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights