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 .
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 status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-13 are currently pending.
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are canceled.
Requirement for Information Under Rule 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application. In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of each of the following items of art referred to in the specification and the claim, that is, "ASME B16.5 Class 150" and “ASME B16.5 Class 300”, that were relied upon at the time of the filling of this instant application. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
Applicant in their reply filed on 04/06/2026, page 7, line 23 through page 8, line 3, indicated that tables from the above standards were supplied with their response. However, the examiner could not locate/identify said tables. Accordingly, the request for information has not been fulfilled. If the request for information is not supplied/fulfilled with the response to this instant Office action then applicant’s response to this instant Office action will be held as non-compliant and/or non-responsive.
Drawings
The drawings were supplied on 04/06/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings make moot the previous drawing objections.
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 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9-12 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “selected from a group of nominal pipe sizes associated with a piping standard”. The claim language is unclear because the claim does not specify which standard, what portion of which standard, or for what pipe size, material, and so on.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “wherein the first pipe flange and the second pipe flange are sized to correspond to one of a first pressure class of the piping standard for the pipe size of the pipe or a second pressure class of the piping standard for the pipe size”.
The claim language is unclear because the claim does not specify which standard and which class, what portion of which standard, or for what pipe size, material, and so on. The claims have been rejected as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner (EP 0974781).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
794
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Clm 1: Wagner discloses a bleed ring (see Figs. 1-4 and the Fig. above and see [0015 and 0016]) comprising:
an annular body (the body of 1) defining
a substantially cylindrical outer surface (see Fig. 2, the surface outside of 1001, and note that the structure is circular in nature),
a substantially cylindrical inner surface (see Fig. 2, the structure is circular in nature),
a first coupling surface (3) extending between the outer surface and the inner surface, and
a second coupling surface (4) substantially opposing the first coupling surface;
a plurality of scalloped cavities (of the 2001s) in the outer surface, each of the scalloped cavities being provided in the form of a substantially cylindrical bore (see above, as the 2001s each have a substantially cylindrical shape) inset into the outer surface; and one or more tap (23) extending from the outer surface to (“to” in this instance, being defined as a direction towards something) the inner surface (see Fig. 2);
wherein the inner surface has a diameter corresponding (corresponding being defined as similar to) to a pipe size selected from a group of nominal pipe sizes associated with a piping standard (any nominal pipe size similar to the inner surface);
wherein the outer surface has a diameter (for example, see Figs. 1-4) configured to fit within a first arrangement of flange bolts corresponding to a first pressure class of the piping standard for the pipe size; and
wherein the plurality of scalloped cavities (for example, see Figs. 1-4) are configured to align with a second arrangement of flange bolts corresponding to a second pressure class of the piping standard for the pipe size.
Re Clm 4: Wagner discloses a centerline of each of the scalloped cavities is substantially parallel to a centerline of the annular body (see above).
As for claim 5: the device of Wagner is made to or is capable of “wherein the first arrangement of flange bolts comprises an arrangement corresponding (corresponding being defined as similar to) to the pipe size according to ASME B16.5 Class 300 and the second arrangement of flange bolts comprises an arrangement corresponding (corresponding being defined as similar to) to the pipe size according to ASMEB 16.5 Class 150.
The recitation “wherein the first arrangement of flange bolts comprises an arrangement corresponding to the pipe size according to ASME B16.5 Class 300 and the second arrangement of flange bolts comprises an arrangement corresponding to the pipe size according to ASMEB 16.5 Class 150.” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re Clm 7: Wagner discloses wherein the one or more tap is configured for coupling with an instrument ([see 0020]) selected from the group consisting of a sensor, a gauge, a drain (electrical), a vent, a sample valve, and an anode rod.
Re Clm 9: Wagner discloses a method for coupling elements in a piping system (see Figs. 1-4 and the Fig. above and see [0015 and 0016]), the method comprising:
arranging an annular body (the body of 1) between a first pipe flange (2 or 13) and a second pipe flange (the other 2 and the other 13, respectively),
the annular body defining a substantially cylindrical inner surface (see Fig. 2, the structure is circular in nature) having a diameter corresponding (corresponding being defined as similar to) to a pipe size selected from a group of nominal pipe sizes associated with a piping standard (any nominal pipe size similar to the inner surface) and
a cylindrical outer surface (see Fig. 2, the outer surface and note that the structure is circular in nature) including
a plurality of scalloped cavities formed therein (of the 2001s),
wherein each of the scalloped cavities is provided in the form of a substantially cylindrical bore inset into the outer surface (see above, as the 2001s each have a substantially cylindrical shape),
wherein a first coupling surface (3) extending between the outer surface and the inner surface is arranged against the first pipe flange (see Figs. 1-4), and
wherein a second coupling (4) surface substantially opposing the first coupling surface is arranged against the second pipe flange (see Figs. 1-4); and
coupling the first pipe flange to the second pipe flange using a plurality of flange bolts (see Figs. 1-4)
wherein the annular body comprises one or more tap (23) extending between the outer surface and the inner surface (223 extends between the outer surface and the inner surface, see Fig. 2);
wherein the first pipe flange and the second pipe flange are sized to correspond to one of a first pressure class (any pressure class that it is similar to) of the piping standard for the pipe size of the pipe or a second pressure class (any pressure class that it is similar to) of the piping standard for the pipe size;
wherein the outer surface has a diameter configured such that, where the first pipe flange and the second pipe flange are sized to correspond to the first pressure class (see Figs. 1 and 2 and [0015], the first pressure class for the smaller bolt configuration) of the pipe size (see Figs. 1 and 2 and [0015]), and the plurality of flange bolts couple the first pipe flange to the second pipe flange in a first arrangement corresponding to the first pressure class, coupling the first pipe flange to the second pipe flange comprises fitting the outer surface within the first arrangement of the plurality of flange bolts;
and wherein the plurality of scalloped cavities (the cavities below/within 1001) are configured such that, where the first pipe flange and the second pipe flange are sized to correspond to the second pressure class (see Figs. 3 and 4 and [0015], the second pressure class for the larger bolt configuration) of the pipe size (see Figs. 3 and 4 and [0015]), and the plurality of flange bolts couple the first pipe flange to the second pipe flange in a second arrangement corresponding to the second pressure class, coupling the first pipe flange to the second pipe flange comprises aligning the plurality of scalloped cavities with the second arrangement of the plurality of flange bolts.
As for claim 10: the device of Wagner is made to or is capable of “wherein the first arrangement of flange bolts comprises an arrangement corresponding (corresponding being defined as similar to) to the pipe size according to ASME B16.5 Class 300 (any arrangement similar to the pipe size according to ASME B16.5 Class 300) and the second arrangement of flange bolts comprises an arrangement corresponding (corresponding being defined as similar to) to the pipe size according to ASMEB 16.5 Class 150 (any arrangement similar to the pipe size according to ASMEB 16.5 Class 150).
Re Clm 11: Wagner discloses wherein the method comprises coupling an instrument ([see 0020]), the electrical earthing) to the one or more tap.
Re Clm 12: Wagner discloses wherein the instrument is selected from the group consisting of a sensor, a gauge, a drain (electrical), a vent, a sample valve, and an anode rod.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (EP 0974781) as applied to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-12 above.
Re Clm 8: Wagner discloses wherein the one or more tap is at least partially threaded and is configured to correspondingly receive a threaded coupler of the instrument ([see 0020] and fig. 2).
Wagner fails to explicitly disclose threads. However, Wagner in paragraph 0020 indicates that “One of the extensions 20 has in its surface 22 a receiving bore 23 arranged essentially radially to the valve housing 1 as a fastening means for attaching an electrical earthing connection (not shown).” and in Fig. 2 appears to illustrate a threaded hole at 23.
Threads are a known means of attaching members together for the purpose of making a firm and secure connection between mating parts. The examiner is taking Official notice that a member or members can have threads so that they can be threaded together for the purpose of making a firm and secure connection between mating parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Wagner, to have employed threads, with a reasonable expectation of success because threads are a known means of attaching members together for the purpose of making a firm and secure connection between mating parts.
Re Clm 13: Wagner discloses wherein the one or more tap and the instrument comprises a coupler; and wherein coupling the instrument to the one or more tap comprises engaging the coupler of the instrument with the one or more tap ([see 0020] and fig. 2).
Wagner fails to explicitly disclose threads. However, Wagner in paragraph 0020 indicates that “One of the extensions 20 has in its surface 22 a receiving bore 23 arranged essentially radially to the valve housing 1 as a fastening means for attaching an electrical earthing connection (not shown).” and in Fig. 2 appears to illustrate a threaded hole at 23.
Threads are a known means of attaching members together for the purpose of making a firm and secure connection between mating parts. The examiner is taking Official notice that a member or members can have threads so that they can be threaded together for the purpose of making a firm and secure connection between mating parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Wagner, to have employed threads, with a reasonable expectation of success because threads are a known means of attaching members together for the purpose of making a firm and secure connection between mating parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have made moot the previous 112 rejections.
Applicant argues, on page 11 in line 1 through page 15 the last line, that Wagner does not disclose a bleed ring because the structure and function are different from applicant’s invention, one would not consider or use Wagner’s invention as a bleed ring, Wagner does not disclose “one or more tap extending from the outer surface the inner surface”, Wagner’s scalps are different than applicant’s and Wagner fails to disclose “a plurality of scalloped cavities in the outer surface, each of the scalloped cavities being provided in the form of a substantially cylindrical bore“. Wagner at 1001 does not have a substantially cylindrical outer surface.
This is not persuasive.
Wagner does disclose a bleed ring because Wagner discloses all of the claimed physical structures presented as a bleed ring, even if Wagner has alternative functions. Wagner does disclose that element 23 is one or more tap that extends in a direction from the outer surface towards the inner surface. Wagner’s scalps are the same as that which is claimed and Wagner has a plurality of scalloped cavities, at the 2001s, in the outer surface, where each of the scalloped cavities are provided in the form of a substantially cylindrical bore and this shape can handle a plurality of bolt configurations. Applicant is reminded that it is implorer to impart limitations from the specification into the claim(s). Applicant has not defined, in the claims, as to what constitutes as a cylindrical shape and how such a cylindrical shape is then substantially cylindrical, accordingly, giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation, Wagner discloses a substantially cylindrical outer surface at 1001.
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 JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
08/25/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights