DETAILED ACTION
The present application has been made of the record and currently claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In fig. 1, the pin (100) and box (153) lacks cross-hatching under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
In fig. 2, the pin (100) lacks cross-hatching under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
In fig. 3, the box (150) lacks cross-hatching under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
In fig. 2, the load flank lead (204) appears to be incorrectly measuring the wrong parts (ex., the load flank lead/pitch would be based on the load flank side opposite the stab flank side 202; ex., 204 should be measured from load flank sides of two threads compared to measuring from stab flank sides).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Besse (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0186899).
Claim 1, Besse discloses:
A coupling (see annotated figure below), comprising:
a box member (102) with an interior surface that includes:
box threads (see annotated figure);
a frustoconical seal surface (see annotated figure); and
a relief groove (see annotated figure) disposed between the box threads and the frustoconical seal surface; and
a pin member (101) having a mating shape to be inserted into the box member (see annotated figure),
wherein an outer surface of the pin member includes:
pin threads (see annotated figure) shaped to mate with the box threads to form a threaded connection region and limit axial advancement of the pin member within the box member to a connected position (see annotated figure), which connected position disposes a leading portion (133) of the pin threads in the relief groove of the box member such that the leading portion of the pin threads thereby lack contact with the box member (see annotated figure); and
a curvilinear seal surface (see annotated figure) sharing a same longitudinal central axis with the frustoconical seal surface (see annotated figure) of the box member such that a seal forms at an interface between the curvilinear seal surface and the frustoconical seal surface in the connected position (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
1261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein the curvilinear seal surface is located between a terminal end (107, annotated figure above) of the pin member and the pin threads.
Claim 3, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein the box threads and the pin threads are wedge threads (see annotated figure above hereinafter).
Claim 4, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein tapers of the box threads and the pin threads match (for illustrative purposes, see figs. 7-9, where taper 120 is the same for both).
Claim 10, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein the curvilinear seal surface begins at a terminal end of the pin member (see annotated figure).
Claim 11, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein interference of the curvilinear seal surface with the frustoconical seal surface occurs without contact of axial limiting mating profiles between the pin and box members outside of the threaded connection region (see annotated figure).
Claim 12, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein the relief groove of the box member defines a larger inside diameter relative to both an outer diameter of the leading portion for crests of the pin threads and an inner diameter for roots of the box threads adjacent the relief groove (0070, where the groove is greater in diameter than adjacent diameter of tooth).
Claim 14, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the pin member includes a separation area (see annotated figure) that lacks the pin threads, is tapered and is disposed between the pin threads and the curvilinear seal surface (see annotated figure, where the area is tapered).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besse as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 5, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the box threads taper between 0.08 inch/inch and 0.1 inch/inch and the frustoconical seal surface tapers between 0.09 inch/inch and 0.142 inch/inch.
However, while Besse does not expressly disclose “box threads taper between 0.08 inch/inch and 0.1 inch/inch and the frustoconical seal surface tapers between 0.09 inch/inch and 0.142 inch/inch”, the “taper” of the box threads and seal surface may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Besse discloses that the box/pin thread taper (120) is a known parameter within a range of 1-5 degrees (0058) and that the conical taper is a known parameter in the range of 0.025 to 0.075 (0063).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the taper of the box threads and the conical sealing surface of Besse to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “taper” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Besse explicitly discloses that these are known parameters that can vary. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In regards to claim 7, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein height of the pin threads and box threads is 0.07 to 0.072 inches.
However, while Besse does not expressly disclose “height of the pin threads and box threads is 0.07 to 0.072 inches”, the “height” of the threads may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Besse discloses that the height of the threads is a known parameter (0071).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the height of each of the threads of Besse to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “height” of the threads may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Besse discloses that the height of the threads is a known parameter (0071). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In regards to claim 8, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the pin threads extend along the pin member a length of 4.0 to 4.25 inches.
However, while Besse does not expressly disclose “the pin threads extend along the pin member a length of 4.0 to 4.25 inches”, the “length” of the threads may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Besse discloses that the length of the threads is a known parameter (0051:1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the length of the pin threads of Besse to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “length” of the threads may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Besse discloses that the length of the threads is a known parameter (0051:1-6). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In regards to claim 9, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein with the box threads and the pin threads being wedge threads.
but does not disclose:
wherein load flank lead is 0.28 inches and stab flank lead is 0.27 inches.
However, while Besse does not expressly disclose “load flank lead is 0.28 inches and stab flank lead is 0.27 inches”, the “lead” of each of the load flank and stab flank may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Besse explicitly discloses that the load flank lead (LFP, figs. 3-4) and the stab flank lead (SFP, figs. 3-4) are known parameters such that the stab flank lead is smaller than the load flank lead (0057:16-21; ex., similar to the present invention where the stab flank lead 0.27 which is less than the load flank lead 0.28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the leads of the load flank and the stab flank of Besse to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “lead” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Besse explicitly discloses that the load flank lead (LFP, figs. 3-4) and the stab flank lead (SFP, figs. 3-4) are known parameters such that the stab flank lead is smaller than the load flank lead (0057:16-21; ex., similar to the present invention where the stab flank lead 0.27 which is less than the load flank lead 0.28). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besse as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Sugino et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0093799).
In regards to claim 6, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein contact of the frustoconical seal surface and the curvilinear seal surface in the connected position is separated along length of the pin member by an unthreaded portion (see separation area in annotated figure),
but does not disclose:
separated along length of the pin member more than 0.4 and less than 0.6 inches from the pin threads.
In regards to the length, while Besse does not disclose “contact of the frustoconical seal surface and the curvilinear seal surface … separated along length of the pin member more than 0.4 and less than 0.6 inches from the pin threads”, the “length” of the unthreaded portion may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Sugino discloses a similar device (see fig. 3 hereinafter) where a length (D) of unthreaded portion (11c) between pin threads (13) and sealing surface (21) is a known parameter (0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the length of the unthreaded portion of Besse to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “length” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Sugino explicitly discloses that the length of the separation are is a known parameter that can vary (0013). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In regards to claim 13, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the pin member includes a separation area (see annotated figure) that lacks the pin threads and is disposed between the pin threads and the curvilinear seal surface such that in the connected position contact of the frustoconical seal surface with the curvilinear seal surface is separated along length of the pin member (see annotated figure),
but does not disclose:
separated along length of the pin member more than 0.4 and less than 0.6 inches from the pin threads.
In regards to the length, while Besse does not disclose “contact of the frustoconical seal surface and the curvilinear seal surface … separated along length of the pin member more than 0.4 and less than 0.6 inches from the pin threads”, the “length” of the separation area may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Sugino discloses a similar device (see fig. 3 hereinafter) where a length (D) of unthreaded portion (11c) between pin threads (13) and sealing surface (21) is a known parameter (0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the length of the separation area of Besse to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “length” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Sugino explicitly discloses that the length of the separation are is a known parameter that can vary (0013). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In regards to claim 16, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein a gap is maintained between box thread crests of the box threads and pin thread roots of the pin threads when in the connected position (see “h” of the male threaded portion in fig. 9),
wherein a gap may also be maintained between box thread roots and pin thread crests (0059) but contact is principally between the male and female load flanks (0059; ex., suggesting that the gaps are optional),
but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein pin thread crests of the pin threads contact box thread roots of the box threads.
In regards to the gap configuration, Sugino discloses a similar device (see fig. 2) comprising wedge-shaped threads (see fig. 2) where crest of a male thread does not contact a root of a female thread (see fig. 2) but can also be configured as the crest of a male thread does contact a root of a female thread as an opposite variation (0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the pin threads of Besse such that pin thread crests of the pin threads contact box thread roots of the box threads because Besse explicitly discloses that the main contact is between the male and female load flanks such that a gap may be provided between the roots and crests (0059), Sugino explicitly discloses that gaps are known to be provided between the crests and roots in two configurations (0110), and modifying the device of Besse such that pin thread crests of the pin threads contact box thread roots of the box threads would not have produced any new or unexpected results as such modification would have been a mere matter of design choice, as shown by the obvious variants by Sugino (0110).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besse as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Hamamoto et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,823,931).
In regards to claim 15, Besse discloses:
The coupling of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the box member is part of a dual box coupler having an analogous additional box opposite facing and directly abutting the box member.
In regards to the duplicated ends, Hamamoto discloses a similar device comprising a box member with duplicate female ends (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the box of Besse to comprise duplicate ends to meet the limitation of the claim because Hamamoto discloses that it is known to have a box coupling to comprise duplicated ends and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, modifying the box of Besse with a duplicated female end would not produce any new and unexpected results.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besse in view of Sugino and in further view of Oku et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,506,311).
In regards to claim 17, Besse discloses:
A coupling (see annotated figure above hereinafter), comprising:
a box member (102) with an interior surface that includes:
box threads (see Box Threads in annotated figure) in a wedge thread shape and taper (see annotated figure);
a frustoconical seal surface (see Conical Surface in annotated figure); and
a relief groove (see annotated figure) disposed between the box threads and the frustoconical seal surface,
wherein the relief groove defines an inner diameter of the box member greater than at roots of the box threads adjacent the relief groove (0070, where the groove is greater in diameter than adjacent diameter of tooth); and
a pin member (101) having a mating shape to be inserted into the box member (see annotated figure),
wherein an outer surface of the pin member includes:
pin threads (see annotated figure) with taper and shaped to mate with the box threads (see annotated figure) to form a threaded connection region and limit axial advancement of the pin member within the box member to a connected position (see annotated figure), which connected position disposes a leading portion of the pin threads (133) in the relief groove (see annotated figure) of the box member such that the leading portion of the pin threads thereby lack contact with the box member (see annotated figure),
a curvilinear seal (see annotated figure) surface sharing a same longitudinal central axis with the frustoconical seal surface of the box member such that a seal forms at an interface between the curvilinear seal surface and the frustoconical seal surface in the connected position; and
a separation area (see annotated figure) that lacks the pin threads and is disposed between the pin threads and the curvilinear seal surface such that contact in the connected position of the frustoconical seal surface with the curvilinear seal surface is separated along length of the pin member (see annotated figure),
but does not disclose:
box threads taper between 0.08 inch/inch and 0.1 inch/inch;
frustoconical seal surface with taper between 0.09 inch/inch and 0.142 inch/inch; and
pin threads with taper between 0.08 inch/inch and 0.1 inch/inch
wherein the pin threads extend along the pin member a length of 4.0 to 4.25 inches, have a height of 0.07 to 0.072 inches and provide difference between the load flank lead and stab flank lead that is 0.1 inches;
contact in the connected position of the frustoconical seal surface with the curvilinear seal surface is separated along length of the pin member more than 0.4 and less than 0.6 inches from the pin threads.
In regards to the tapers, while Besse does not expressly disclose box/pin threads “taper between 0.08 inch/inch and 0.1 inch/inch” and “the frustoconical seal surface tapers between 0.09 inch/inch and 0.142 inch/inch”, the “taper” of the box/pin threads and seal surface may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Besse discloses that the box/pin thread taper (120) is a known parameter within a range of 1-5 degrees (0058) and that the conical taper is a known parameter in the range of 0.025 to 0.075 (0063).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the taper of the box/pin threads and the conical sealing surface of Besse to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “taper” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Besse explicitly discloses that these are known parameters that can vary. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In reads to the length of the threaded section and thread height, while Besse does not expressly disclose “the pin threads extend along the pin member a length of 4.0 to 4.25 inches” and “height of the pin threads and box threads is 0.07 to 0.072 inches”, the “length” of the threaded section and the height of the threads may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Besse discloses that the length of the threads is a known parameter (0051:1-6) and Besse discloses that the height of the threads is a known parameter (0071).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the height of each of the threads of Besse and the length of the pin threads of Besse to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “length” of the threaded section and “height” of the threads may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Besse discloses that the length of the threads is a known parameter (0051:1-6) and Besse discloses that the height of the threads is a known parameter (0071). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to length of separated area, while Besse does not disclose “contact of the frustoconical seal surface and the curvilinear seal surface … separated along length of the pin member more than 0.4 and less than 0.6 inches from the pin threads”, the “length” of the separation area may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Sugino discloses a similar device (see fig. 3 hereinafter) where a length (D) of unthreaded portion (11c) between pin threads (13) and sealing surface (21) is a known parameter (0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the length of the separation area of Besse to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “length” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Sugino explicitly discloses that the length of the separation are is a known parameter that can vary (0013). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to the difference between the load flank lead and stab flank lead, while Besse in view of Sugino does not disclose “difference between the load flank lead and stab flank lead that is 0.1 inches”, the “difference between the load flank lead and stab flank lead” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because both Besse explicitly discloses that the load flank lead (LFP, figs. 3-4) and the stab flank lead (SFP, figs. 3-4) are known parameters such that the stab flank lead is smaller than the load flank lead (0057:16-21), and Oku discloses a similar device (see fig. 2 hereinafter) comprising a load flank pitch (LP; it is inherent that “pitch” and “lead” are synonyms to each other hereinafter) and a stab flank lead (SP),
wherein Oku further explicitly discloses that “delta lead” is a known parameter that provide difference between the load flank lead and stab flank lead which determines the thread-crest widths as measured near the tips of the pin and box (2:41-50),
wherein Table 1 in col. 8 based on FEM analysis (8:12-16) discloses that a loading flank of 7.2mm (ex., 0.283in) and a stabbing flank of 7.056mm (ex., 0.277in) is known while a difference between the loading flank and stabbing flank is in the range of 0.144mm and 1.08mm (ex., 0.0057in to 0.04in).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the difference between the load flank lead and stab flank lead of Besse in view of Sugino to be 0.1 inches to meet the limitation of the claim, as the “difference” (ex., delta lead) may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because Besse explicitly discloses that the load flank lead (LFP, figs. 3-4) and the stab flank lead (SFP, figs. 3-4) are known parameters such that the stab flank lead is smaller than the load flank lead (0057:16-21) and Oku explicitly discloses that “delta lead” is a known varying parameter obtained using FEM analysis (8:12-16) which provides a difference between the load flank lead and stab flank lead which determines the thread-crest widths as measured near the tips of the pin and box (2:41-50). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In regards to claim 18, Besse further discloses:
The coupling of claim 17, wherein the separation area is tapered (see annotated figure).
In regards to claim 19, Besse further discloses:
The coupling of claim 17, wherein interference of the curvilinear seal surface with the frustoconical seal surface occurs in the connected position without contact of axial limiting mating profiles between the pin and box members outside of the threaded connection region (see annotated figure).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besse in view of Sugino and Oku as applied to claim 17 above and in further view of Hamamoto.
In regards to claim 20, Besse in view of Sugino and Oku discloses:
The coupling of claim 17,
but does not disclose:
wherein the box member is part of a dual box coupler having an analogous additional box opposite facing and directly abutting the box member.
In regards to the duplicated ends, Hamamoto discloses a similar device comprising a box member with duplicate female ends (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the box of Besse in view of Sugino and Oku to comprise duplicate ends to meet the limitation of the claim because Hamamoto discloses that it is known to have a box coupling to comprise duplicated ends and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, modifying the box of Besse in view of Sugino and Oku with a duplicated female ends would not produce any new and unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,264,758) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
Watts (U.S. PGPub No. 2002/0117856) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights