DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/25/2026.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “Still another object of the present invention is to provide a flexible pipe connector and a manufacturing method therefor that allow brazing welding between components to be simultaneously performed by performing a single heating process in a heat treatment furnace, and allow a processing hardening heat treatment work to remove stress generated during welding or metal processing.” Brazing and welding are entirely different processes that are mutually exclusive of one another. The original disclose and drawing illustrate the method brazing and not welding.
Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("While we have held many times that a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning," in such a situation the written description must clearly redefine a claim term "so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine that claim term."); Hormone Research Foundation Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 15 USPQ2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For this Office Action Only, the Examiner will interpret the specification as “brazing” and not “welding”, and Applicant should amend the specification accordingly.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites “plate-shaped ring 700” and “plate-shaped ring 70”; however, both statements cannot be correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “welded” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “brazing,” while the accepted meaning is “the state or condition to join pieces of metal or plastic by heating and allowing the edges to flow together or by hammering or pressing together.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For this Office Action Only, the Examiner will interpret the claim(s) as “brazed”, and Applicant should amend claim(s) accordingly.
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) 1-3, 5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2216468, Farrar.
In regards to claim 1, in Figure 2 and with paragraphs detailing said figure, Farrar discloses a flexible pipe connector comprising: a corrugated pipe (20) having a plurality of alternately formed crests and roots; an end ring (14) having one side portion inserted into and welded (pg. 2, lines 10-70) to an end portion of the corrugated pipe; a protective ring (36, 36e) disposed on an outer side of the end portion of the corrugated pipe; a braided mesh (26) configured to cover a portion of an outer circumferential surface of the end ring, an outer circumferential surface of the corrugated pipe, and an outer circumferential surface of the circular ring; and a welding ring (28) inserted into an outer side of the end ring, an end portion of the braided mesh being inserted into a gap formed between the welding ring and the end ring and welded (pg. 2, lines 10-70).
In regards to claim 2, in Figure 2 and with paragraphs detailing said figure, Farrar discloses the protective ring includes a circular ring inserted into a root formed in the end portion of the corrugated pipe.
In regards to claim 3, in Figure 2 and with paragraphs detailing said figure, Farrar discloses the circular ring is inserted into a root formed at an extreme end in the root formed in the end portion of the corrugated pipe.
In regards to claim 5, in Figure 2 and with paragraphs detailing said figure, Farrar discloses the circular ring protrudes outward from the corrugated pipe beyond the crest of the corrugated pipe.
In regards to claim 7, in Figure 2 and with paragraphs detailing said figure, Farrar discloses the protective ring includes a plate-shaped ring disposed on the outer side of the end portion of the corrugated pipe.
In regards to claim 8, in Figure 2 and with paragraphs detailing said figure, Farrar discloses the plate-shaped ring includes a body disposed on the outer side of the corrugated pipe; and an engaging portion (38) bent radially inward from an end portion of the body and being in contact with the end portion of the corrugated pipe.
In regards to claim 9, in Figure 2 and with paragraphs detailing said figure, Farrar discloses the welding ring has an expanded pipe portion formed in one side portion, and the end portion of the braided net is inserted into a gap between the expanded pipe portion and the end ring.
In regards to claim 10, in Figure 2 and with paragraphs detailing said figure, Farrar discloses the end ring has a step portion formed in an one side portion having a smaller outer diameter than the other side portion, the step portion of the end ring and the end portion of the corrugated pipe are welded, a shoulder portion is formed between the other side portion of the end ring and the step portion, an vertical extension portion is formed at an extreme end in the end portion of the corrugated pipe, and the shoulder portion of the end ring and the vertical extension portion of the corrugated pipe are welded.
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) 6, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrar.
In regards to claim 6, Farrar discloses the claimed invention except for the circular ring having an outer diameter 1.0mm to 2.0mm larger than that of the crest of the corrugated pipe. The Farrar invention is fully capable of being fabricated with the circular ring having an outer diameter 1.0mm to 2.0mm larger than that of the crest of the corrugated pipe. It 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 to fabricate the circular ring having an outer diameter 1.0mm to 2.0mm larger than that of the crest of the corrugated pipe, since a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 11, Farrar discloses the claimed invention except for the welding ring being formed as an inclined surface. The Farrar invention is fully capable of being fabricated with the welding ring being formed as an inclined surface. It 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 to fabricate the welding ring with an inclined surface, since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to claim 13, Farrar discloses the claimed invention except for the corrugated pipe having a Vickers hardness of 175 to 185. The Farrar invention is fully capable of being fabricated with the corrugated pipe having a Vickers hardness of 175 to 185. It 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 to fabricate the corrugated pipe with a Vickers hardness of 175 to 185, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M DUNWOODY whose telephone number is (571)272-7080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/AARON M DUNWOODY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights