DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (CN 116,857,472A hereinafter “Shi”).
In regards to claim 1, Shi discloses a pipe connector comprising:
a first pipe section (101);
a second pipe section (other 101);
a first sleeve section (104) comprising a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end, the first sleeve section being attached to the first pipe section at the first longitudinal end; and
a second sleeve section (104) comprising a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end, the second sleeve section being attached to the second pipe section at the first longitudinal end;
wherein, to form a sleeve, the second longitudinal end of the first sleeve section is positioned to abut the second longitudinal end of the second sleeve section and the first and second sleeve sections are welded together to form a welded joint between the first sleeve section and the second sleeve section (see page 5 of the machine translation which discloses “the joint of the end surfaces of the adjacent pressing rings 104 is provided with a hot melting layer 107, for forming sealing between the two pressing rings 104, The medium in the tube body 101 is prevented from leaking between the two pressure rings 104” );
wherein the sleeve has an internal second diameter that is larger than an outer diameter of the first pipe section (shown in fig. 5) ; and
wherein the sleeve has an internal volume defined, at least in part, by the internal diameter thereof, the first pipe section extending internal to the first sleeve section at least partially to occupy a portion of the internal volume of the sleeve (shown in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 2, Shi further discloses the first sleeve sections and the second sleeve section are configured for being welded together by orbital inert gas welding (fig. 4 shows this capability).
In regards to claim 4, Shi further discloses the sleeve is configured for being filled with inert gas during welding when the first and second sleeves are being welded to each other (fig. 4 shows this capability).
In regards to claim 5, Shi further discloses the first sleeve section tapers concentrically towards the first pipe section at the first longitudinal end of the first sleeve section, such that, at the first longitudinal end thereof, the first sleeve section has a same diameter as the first pipe section (see that the inner diameter of the sleeve is the same as the outer diameter of the pipe in fig. 5); and
the second sleeve section end tapers concentrically towards the second pipe section at the first longitudinal end of the second sleeve section, such that, at the first longitudinal end thereof, the second sleeve section has a same diameter as the second pipe section (see that the inner diameter of the sleeve is the same as the outer diameter of the pipe in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 6, Shi further discloses the first pipe section extends, in an axial direction, beyond the first longitudinal end of the first sleeve section, such that at least a portion of the first pipe section is external to the first sleeve section (shown in fig. 5); and
the second pipe section extends, in the axial direction, beyond the first longitudinal end of the second sleeve section, such that at least a portion of the second pipe section is external to the second sleeve section (shown in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 7, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth. Therefore, since Shi discloses the final connector of claim 1, what happens during the welding process is not relied upon for patentability.
In regards to claim 9, Shi further discloses the sleeve is configured to provide heat protection for cables or lines routed through the first and second pipe sections or during the welding of the first and second sleeve sections that forms the welded junction (fig. 5 shows this capability).
In regards to claim 11, Shi discloses a method for connecting pipe ends in a pipe system using the pipe connector according to claim 1 (see above), the method comprising:
connecting the first pipe section to the first longitudinal end of the first sleeve section (shown in fig. 4);
connecting the second pipe section to the second longitudinal end of the first sleeve section (shown in fig. 4); and
welding the first sleeve section and the second sleeve section together to form a welded joint between the first and second sleeve sections, thereby forming the sleeve (see rejection above).
In regards to claim 19, Shi further discloses the first pipe section extends beyond the plane defined by the welded joint, the first pipe section extending over an entire length of the first sleeve section and at least a portion of an entire length of the second sleeve section (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 20, Shi further discloses the sleeve is configured to provide heat protection for cables or lines routed through the first and second pipe sections during the welding of the first and second sleeve sections that forms the welding junction (fig. 4 shows this capability).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips et al. (US 2025/0368348 hereinafter “Phillips”).
In regards to claims 8, 10, and 21, Shi discloses the pipe connector of claim 1 and further discloses an axial end of the sleeve is configured for being connected to a liquid hydrogen tank (fig. 4 shows this capability).
Shi does not expressly disclose the pipe system is connected to and leads to the tank.
However, Phillips teaches that it is known to use sleeved pipe joints to connect to liquid hydrogen tanks (see at least paragraph [0167]), achieving no unexpected results.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have
found it no more obvious than simple substitution to connect the pipe connector of Shi to a liquid hydrogen tank as taught by Phillips, producing no unexpected results. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. See MPEP §2143 (I)(B).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bowers (US 2012/0298628).
In regards to claims 13 and 14, Shi discloses the method of claim 11 but does not expressly disclose an orbital inert welding process where the sleeve is filled with an inert shielding gas before welding.
However, Bowers teaches that it is known in the art to use an orbital inert welding
process where the sleeve is filled with an inert shielding gas before welding to connect two pipe sections (see paragraphs [0005] and [0014] - [0016]), achieving no unexpected results.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have
found it no more obvious than simple substitution to provide the method of Shi with orbital inert gas welding in place of butt welding as taught by Bowers, producing no unexpected results. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. See MPEP §2143 (I)(B).
Claims 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Davies (US 2009/0089183).
In regards to claim 12, Shi discloses the method of claim 11 but does not disclose before the first sleeve section and the second sleeve section are welded together, introducing cables or lines into the one or more pipe sections of the pipe system and, thus also, through the first and second sleeve sections.
However, Davies shows a method of before a first sleeve section (4) and a second sleeve section (5) are welded together, introducing cables or lines into one or more pipe sections (2, 3) of the pipe system and, thus also, through the first and second sleeve sections (see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pipe connector of Shi with cables or lines running through the pipe sections in order to allow the connector to be used in an electrical system.
In regards to claim 15, Shi further discloses using the sleeve to protect the cables or lines in the one or more pipe sections from heat during the welding that forms the welded joint (fig. 4 shows that the sleeve would protect the lines).
In regards to claim 16, Shi further discloses the first pipe section extends, in an axial direction, beyond the first longitudinal end of the first sleeve section, such that at least a portion of the first pipe section is external to the first sleeve section (shown in fig. 5); and
the second pipe section extends, in the axial direction, beyond the first longitudinal end of the second sleeve section, such that at least a portion of the second pipe section is external to the second sleeve section (shown in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 17, Shi further discloses during the welding together of the first and second sleeve sections, the first pipe section extends within the sleeve at least to a plane defined by the welded joint, the welded joint being at the second longitudinal end of the first sleeve section (shown in fig. 4).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Davies as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bowers (US 2012/0298628).
Shi in view of Davies discloses the method of claim 17 but does not expressly disclose an orbital inert welding process where the sleeve is filled with an inert shielding gas before welding.
However, Bowers teaches that it is known in the art to use an orbital inert welding
process where the sleeve is filled with an inert shielding gas before welding to connect two pipe sections (see paragraphs [0005] and [0014] - [0016]), achieving no unexpected results.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have
found it no more obvious than simple substitution to provide the method of Shi in view of Davies with orbital inert gas welding in place of butt welding as taught by Bowers, producing no unexpected results. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. See MPEP §2143 (I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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 D. 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.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
05/22/2026
Prosecution Insights