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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the auxiliary member from both ends” and should be “the auxiliary member from two ends of the auxiliary member” since “ends” of “both ends” were not previously introduced in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the upper block from both ends” and should be “the upper block from two ends of the upper block” for similar reasons above for claim 1.
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 2 and 6 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 2 recites “the second pin insertion slit have a semi-oval shape” which is unclear because semi-oval shape is defined to be half of a full oval shape. Fig. 4A of applicant’s drawings shows the second pin insertion slit 71 appears to be more accurately defined as a partial oval shape because of the opening between the transition between Z2 to Z3. If 71 were semi-oval, then the opening at the transition between Z2 and Z3 would be closed. Therefore, it is unclear if semi-oval was intended to be partially oval shape or exactly half an oval shape. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the second pin insertion slit have a partial oval shape” because the slit appears more accurately described as having a partial portion of an oval shape.
Claim 2 also recites “the second sleeve insertion hole and the second bolt insertion hole have an oval shape” which is unclear for similar reasons above such that the second sleeve insertion hole 72 as shown in Fig. 4A is not a full oval shape because of the opening between Z2 and Z3. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the second sleeve insertion hole has a partial oval shape and the second bolt insertion hole has an oval shape”.
Claim 6 recites “the third pin insertion slit have a semi-oval shape” which is unclear for the same reasons above for claim 2. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the third pin insertion slit has a partial oval shape”.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites “a second notch” without having previously recited a first notch, however, “second” will be interpreted only as a label and not implying more than one notch because such labels allow consistency with the specification and drawings.
Claim 5 recites “a third pin insertion slit, a third sleeve insertion hole, and a third bolt insertion hole” which “third” will only be interpreted as a label for similar reasons above for claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renault SAS (FR 2883063 A1) in view of Okabe et al. (US 2014/0333067 A1, hereinafter “Okabe”).
In regard to claim 5, Renault SAS discloses a joint structure (Figs. 1 and 2 shows a joint structure) comprising:
an upper block (Fig. 1, part 7 defines an upper block) arranged on a lower block having a fluid passage (Fig. 1, upper block 7 is arranged on a lower block at 4 which the lower block 4 has a fluid passage), in which a third pin insertion slit (Fig. 3, notch 9 defines a pin insertion slit), a third sleeve insertion hole (Figs. 2 and 3, upper block 7 has a center hole that defines a sleeve insertion hole), and a third bolt insertion hole are formed (Fig. 2, hole at 8 defines a bolt insertion hole for a bolt at 10), and the third sleeve insertion hole is located between the third pin insertion slit and the third bolt insertion hole (Fig. 2, the sleeve insertion hole is between the pin insertion hole and the bolt insertion hole);
a sleeve inserted into the third sleeve insertion hole of the upper block (Fig. 2, the part 1 defines a sleeve that is inserted into the third insertion hole of 7), the inside of which serves as a fluid passage communicating with the fluid passage of the lower block (Fig. 2, the part 2 is a fluid transferring sleeve that communicates with the fluid passage of the lower block 4);
a pin (Figs. 1 and 2, the part at 6 is at least a pin) having a first head (Figs. 1 and 2, pin 6 has a head) and a first shaft portion (Figs. 1 and 2, pin 6 has at least a first shaft portion that extends from the head), the first head abutting against an upper side of the upper block (Figs. 1 and 2, the head of 6 abuts against an upper side of the upper block 7), the first shaft portion being inserted into the third pin insertion slit (Fig. 2, the shaft portion of 6 is shown to be inserted into the third pin insertion slit of 7 as shown); and
a bolt having a second head, a second shaft portion, and a second male threaded portion (Fig. 2, bolt 10 has a head, a shaft portion, and a threaded portion), the second head abutting against the upper side of the upper block (Fig. 2, the head of 10 abuts against the upper side of 7 as shown), the second shaft portion being inserted into the third bolt insertion hole (Fig. 2, 10 inserts through the bolt insertion hole), and the second male threaded portion being screwed into the lower block (Fig. 2, threaded portion of 10 is screwed into 4 as shown), wherein
the third pin insertion slit opens to one side surface of the upper block in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 3, slit at 9 opens to one side surface of 7 as shown and in a longitudinal direction), and
a lower surface of the upper block is formed by a pair of inclined surfaces that gradually extends away from the upper surface of the upper block from two ends of the upper block in the longitudinal direction toward a center (Fig. 1, a lower surface of 7 has a pair of inclined surfaces that gradually extends away from the upper surface of 7 from two opposite ends toward a center similar to applicant’s invention).
Renault SAS does not expressly disclose the pin has a first male threaded portion and the first male threaded portion being screwed into the lower block because the pin 6 is integrally formed with the lower block 4.
In the related field of bolted pipe joints, Okabe discloses a joint structure having a pin and a bolt, wherein the pin has a first male threaded portion and the first male threaded portion being screwed into a lower block (Fig. 1, joint structure shown has at least two bolts 5 which one can be defined as a bolt and the other defined as a pin that also has a male threaded portion that is screwed into a lower block at 3) in order to have at least the advantage of applying equal pressure on the joint structure, ease of replacing damaged pins, and ease of manufacturing (Fig. 1, having identical pins and bolts allow for equal pressure on the joint structure, ease of replacing damaged pins since they are separable components, and at least ease of manufacturing since bolts are well known).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the integrally formed pin of Renault SAS for a separable and identical bolt with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of at least applying equal pressure on the joint structure, ease of replacing damaged pins, and ease of manufacturing as taught by Okabe. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally, damage or replacement of the integrally formed pin 6 of Renault SAS would require replacing the entire lower block 4 because it is integrally formed with 6, however, replacing the pin 6 for the same bolt at 10 would allow for ease of replacing the pin and also allow for equal pressure against the upper block 7. Furthermore, it would be easier to manufacture a flat surface of the lower block 4 without integrally forming the pin 6.
See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Okabe would at least suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that having separate identical bolts allow for equal pressure to ensure the seal of the joint structure is equally pressured to prevent leaks and allow for efficient manufacturing and cheaper damage maintenance as previously mentioned.
In regard to claim 6, Renault SAS and Okabe disclose the joint structure according to claim 5, and Renault SAS further discloses wherein
the third pin insertion slit have a partial oval shape in plan view (Fig. 3, slit at 9 has at least a partial oval shape in the plan view shown).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is objected to for the reasons above under Claim Objections and claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and are also objected to.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claim 1:
In regard to claim 1, the claim requires all the features of claim 5, therefore, Renault SAS in view of Okabe discloses those same features, however, Renault SAS in view of Okabe do not show or suggest an auxiliary member provided on an upper surface of the upper block, in which a second pin insertion slit, a second sleeve insertion hole, and a second bolt insertion hole are formed, and the second sleeve insertion hole is located between the second pin insertion slit and the second bolt insertion hole, and the second pin insertion slit opens to one side surface of the auxiliary member in the longitudinal direction as required by claim 1. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Renault SAS in view of Okabe, alone or in combination, to include an auxiliary member provided on an upper surface of the upper block, in which a second pin insertion slit, a second sleeve insertion hole, and a second bolt insertion hole are formed, and the second sleeve insertion hole is located between the second pin insertion slit and the second bolt insertion hole, and the second pin insertion slit opens to one side surface of the auxiliary member in the longitudinal direction with a reasonable expectation of success because such a modification would require hindsight reasoning and reconstruction.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dorland et al. (US 9,114,687 B2), Ortega Gomez et al. (US 11,067,202 B2), Field et al. (US 6,481,756 B1), Slais et al. (US 6,386,593 B1), Kesler et al. (US 9,556,993 B2), Kim et al. (US 7,766,391 B2), Kesler et al. (US 8,468,849 B2), Yamanashi et al. (US 7,425,021 B2), Kesler (US 11,754,204 B2), Wood et al. (US 2002/0117850 A1), and Anderson, Jr. (US 5,354,101) disclose a joint structure having at least an upper block, a lower block, and at least one bolt joining the two blocks together similar to the critical features of applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679