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 .
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).:
the clevises are concentric external to the central gimbal ring when the gimbal joint is in use (claim 9);
the material reduction area (claim 11);
pressure measuring means placed inside the additional chamber (claim 14);
pressure measuring means placed inside the external annular passage (claim 14);
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to because figs. 3, 4, 6, and 7b are cross-sectional views but lack proper cross-hatching. See 37 CFR 1.84 (h)(3).
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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 6 and 7 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 6 recites the limitation "each flat end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 a reinforcement collar (262, 264) placed on each flat end of the bellows (see fig. 6B), said reinforcement collars being joined to the clevises (shown in fig. 6B).
In regards to claim 7, Feaver further discloses the 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
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 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not show or suggest a gimbal joint comprising all limitations of claim 12. Feaver discloses most limitations of the claims as shown above but does not show or suggest an additional bellows placed between the first clevis and the second clevis, externally concentric to the central gimbal ring, having flat ends configured to be sealedly coupled to both clevises, said additional bellows forming with the bellows an additional chamber being a fluid-tight passage connected to the external annular passages of both ducts through a plurality of openings in both clevises.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 02/17/2026