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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 May 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Feaver et al. (US 2023/0137513 hereinafter "Feaver").
In regards to claim 1, Feaver discloses a gimbal joint for high-pressure fluid ducts,
comprising
a first clevis (110) configured to be sealedly coupled to a first duct (102), said first clevis
having first connecting through holes (216),
a second clevis (120) configured to be sealedly coupled to a second duct (104), said
second clevis having first connecting through holes (226)
a bellows (210) placed between the first clevis and the second clevis, said bellows
configured to form a fluid-tight passage between both ducts,
a central gimbal ring (130), configured to be placed between the first clevis and the
second clevis, having second connecting through holes (232), and
pins (240) connecting the first connecting through holes of the clevises with the second
connecting through holes of the central gimbal ring, configured to provide a relative rotation
between the clevises and the central gimbal ring when the gimbal joint in use,
wherein the central gimbal ring is hollow (see central bore).
In regards to claims 2 and 3, it is noted that these claims are product-by-process claims.
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 "made by means of additive manufacturing"
adds no further structure to the claims, the claims have been met.
In regards to claim 4, Feaver further discloses the bellows has flat ends (shown in fig.
6B), and said gimbal joint comprises:
a reinforcement collar (262, 264) placed on each flat end of the bellows, and
a pair of liners (202, 204) internally concentric to the bellows, each flat end of the
bellows being sandwiched between an end of the liner and the reinforcement collar, and the ends
of the liners being joined to the clevises (shown in fig. 6B).
In regards to claim 5, Feaver further discloses the ends of the liners are joined to the
clevises by means of laser welding (see paragraph [0089] which discloses welding) It is noted
that "laser welding" is a product-by-process limitation. 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.
In regards to claim 6, Feaver further discloses the bellows includes first and second flat ends (see at “262, 264”), the gimbal joint further comprising first and second reinforcement collars (262, 264) placed on each flat end of the bellows (see fig. 6B), the first and second reinforcement collars being joined to the clevises (shown in fig. 6B).
In regards to claim 7, Feaver further discloses the first and second reinforcement collars are joined to the clevises by means of laser welding (see welds 304, 306 which will also join collars to clevises based on location). It is noted that "laser welding" is a product-by-process limitation. 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.
In regards to claim 8, Feaver further discloses the central gimbal ring is concentric
external to the clevises when the gimbal joint in use (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 11, Feaver further discloses the clevises comprise a material
reduction area (see thinner area at "214" in fig. 6B) configured to reduce weight, and the external
surface of the clevises is corrugated to absorb loads.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feaver as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2022/0099225 hereinafter
"Thompson").
In regards to claim 9, Feaver discloses the gimbal joint of claim 1. Feaver does not
disclose the clevises are concentric external to the central gimbal ring when the gimbal joint in
use, but rather shows the opposite.
However, Thompson shows a gimbal joint wherein the clevises (100, 150) are concentric
external to the central gimbal ring (200) when the gimbal joint in use, achieving no new or
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 gimbal joint of Feaver with the
clevises being concentric external instead of internal to the central gimbal ring as taught by
Thompson, 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).
In regards to claim 10, Feaver discloses the gimbal joint of claim 1 but does not disclose
the central gimbal ring comprises a plurality of drainage orifices configured to allow dust to
escape from the inside of said central gimbal ring during the manufacturing process of the
gimbal ring and to drain fluids when the gimbal joint in use.
However, Thompson teaches a similar gimbal joint, with a central gimbal ring (200) that
comprises a plurality of drainage orifices (220) configured to allow dust to escape from the
inside of said central gimbal ring during the manufacturing process of the gimbal ring and to
drain fluids when the gimbal joint in use.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide the central gimbal ring of Feaver with drainage orifices, in order to enable the
components to withstand significant shear forces while also minimizing their mass, and to
increase the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the gimbal ring, as taught by Thompson at paragraph
[0034].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the central gimbal ring of Feaver is not hollow. The examiner disagrees. Fig 5 of Feaver shows that the ring (130) has a central bore and is thus hollow. It is further noted that all rings are inherently “hollow”. Further, fig. 6 of the instant invention shows that the central ring is hollow only by having a central bore in the same way as Feaver. Therefore, the limitation has been met.
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 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
06/29/2026
Prosecution Insights