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 .
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hundeshagen et al (US 11,060,644).
As to claim 9, Hundeshagen et al discloses a pipe connection comprising: a first pipe (7) having a length, an inner surface defining an inner diameter, an outer surface with an outer diameter (Fig. 2), and a wall thickness defined by the distance between the inner surface and the outer surface (Fig. 2); a second pipe (opposing pipe 7, not shown) having a cylindrical wall with a cylindrical outer surface and a cylindrical inner bore; a pipe mandrel (1) mechanically engaging the first pipe to the second pipe, the pipe mandrel formed as a cylindrical tube with outwardly extending teeth (3) and including a first tubular end mechanically engaged within the inner diameter and a second tubular end mechanically engaged within the cylindrical inner bore (Fig. 2); a first press ring (9) having an inside diameter smaller than the outer diameter of the first pipe, the press ring encircling the first pipe radially outwardly of the pipe mandrel and deforming the first pipe radially inwardly into engagement with the teeth on the first tubular end (Fig. 2); a second press ring (9, not shown) having a diameter smaller than the cylindrical outer surface of the second pipe, the second press ring encircling the second pipe radially outwardly of the pipe mandrel and deforming the second pipe radially inwardly into engagement with the teeth on the second tubular end (Fig. 2); and at least one of: a) an elastomeric seal in an annular gland at each end of the mandrel; and b) a stop ring (4 or 5) encircling the mandrel and positioned between the belled ends.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hundeshagen et al (US 11,060,644) in view of Michels et al (US 8,745,843), and further in view of Homm (US 5,332,269).
As to claim 1, Hundeshagen et al discloses a pipe connection assembly comprising: a first pipe section (7) and a second pipe section (opposing pipe 7, not shown), each of the first pipe section and the second pipe section including: a tube having a length, an inner surface defining an inner diameter, an outer surface with an outer diameter, a wall thickness defined by the distance between the inner surface and the outer surface and a belled end with a larger inner diameter than the inner diameter through an adjacent portion of the tube and a larger outer diameter than the outer diameter (Fig. 2); a pipe mandrel (1) for mechanically engaging the first pipe section to the second pipe section, the pipe mandrel formed as a cylindrical tube and including a first tubular end configured to mechanically engage the first pipe section and a second tubular end configured to mechanically engage the second pipe section, the pipe mandrel being sized to be positionable within the belled ends of the first pipe section and the second pipe section (Fig. 2), the pipe mandrel including teeth (3) radially outwardly extending therefrom and having an inside diameter substantially equal to or greater than the inner diameter; a press ring (9) having an inside diameter smaller than the outer diameter of the metal tube and the press ring configured to be installed encircling the belled end radially outwardly of the pipe mandrel and to deform and hold the belled end radially inwardly into engagement with the teeth (Fig. 2).
Hundeshagen et al fails to teach that the tube is metal, and instead teaches a metal composite tube (see col. 10, ll. 14-24).
However, Michels et al teaches a similar pipe coupling that uses a sliding sleeve (4) to secure a composite pipe (8) to a mandrel or nipple (6). The pipe (8) can be a single layer pipe, plastic or metal (col. 10, ll. 56-58).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hundeshagen et al and use a metal pipe instead of a metal composite, as taught by Michels et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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.
There are clear benefits to using a metal pipe instead of a composite pipe, especially in light of the application for the pipe.
Hundeshagen et al fails to teach an elastomeric seal in an annular gland at an end of the mandrel.
However, Homm teaches a similar pipe coupling wherein an elastomeric seal (68) is disposed in a groove on the mandrel/nipple for sealing against the pipe.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hundeshagen et al to include an annular gland at an end of the mandrel, as taught by Homm, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide sealing for the pipe.
Claim(s) 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hundeshagen et al (US 11,060,644) in view of Michels et al (US 8,745,843)
As to claim 4, Hundeshagen et al discloses a pipe connection assembly comprising: a first pipe section (7) and a second pipe section (opposing pipe 7, not shown), each of the first pipe section and the second pipe section including: a tube having a length, an inner surface defining an inner diameter, an outer surface with an outer diameter, a wall thickness defined by the distance between the inner surface and the outer surface and a belled end with a larger inner diameter than the inner diameter through an adjacent portion of the metal tube and a larger outer diameter than the outer diameter (Fig. 2); a pipe mandrel (1) for mechanically engaging the first pipe section to the second pipe section, the pipe mandrel formed as a cylindrical tube and including a first tubular end configured to mechanically engage the first pipe section and a second tubular end configured to mechanically engage the second pipe section (Fig. 2), the pipe mandrel being sized to be positionable within the belled ends of the first pipe section and the second pipe section, the pipe mandrel including teeth (3) radially outwardly extending therefrom and having an inside diameter substantially equal to or greater than the inner diameter; a press ring (9) having an inside diameter smaller than the outer diameter of the metal tube and the press ring configured to be installed encircling the belled end radially outwardly of the pipe mandrel and to deform and hold the belled end radially inwardly into engagement with the teeth; and a stop ring (4 or 5) encircling the mandrel and positioned between the belled ends.
Hundeshagen et al fails to teach that the tube is metal, and instead teaches a metal composite tube (see col. 10, ll. 14-24).
However, Michels et al teaches a similar pipe coupling that uses a sliding sleeve (4) to secure a composite pipe (8) to a mandrel or nipple (6). The pipe (8) can be a single layer pipe, plastic or metal (col. 10, ll. 56-58).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hundeshagen et al and use a metal pipe instead of a metal composite, as taught by Michels et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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.
There are clear benefits to using a metal pipe instead of a composite pipe, especially in light of the application for the pipe.
As to claim 6, Hundeshagen et al/Michels et al discloses the pipe connection assembly of claim 4 wherein the stop ring has an inner diameter (i) greater than the outer diameter of mandrel and (ii) less than the outer diameter across the bell end and the stop ring has an outer diameter greater than the outer diameter at the bell end. See figures in Hundeshagen et al.
As to claim 7, Hundeshagen et al discloses a method for joining a first pipe section (7) to a second pipe section (opposing pipe 7, not shown), each of the first pipe section and the second pipe section including: a tube having a length, an inner surface defining an inner diameter, an outer surface with an outer diameter, a wall thickness defined by the distance between the inner surface and the outer surface and a belled end with a larger inner diameter than the inner diameter through an adjacent portion of the metal tube and a larger outer diameter than the outer diameter (Fig. 2); the method comprising: inserting a pipe mandrel (1) into the belled end of the first pipe section and into the belled end of the second pipe section (Fig. 2); installing a press ring (1) to encircle the belled end of the first pipe section, the press ring having an inner diameter smaller than a diameter across the outer surface of the belled end and installing the press ring includes deforming the metal tubular wall of the first pipe section radially inwardly into mechanical engagement with teeth on an outer diameter of the pipe mandrel (Fig. 2); and leaving the press ring in place encircling the wall of the first pipe section to hold the wall in mechanical engagement with the pipe mandrel, wherein the method further comprises one or more of: a) inserting the pipe mandrel includes urging an annular elastomeric seal on an end of the pipe mandrel into sealing engagement against the inner diameter of the belled end; and b) positioning a stop ring (5) around the pipe mandrel prior to inserting such that the stop ring resides between the belled ends and stopping advancement of the press ring during installing by abutting against the stop ring (Fig. 2).
Hundeshagen et al fails to teach that the tube is metal, and instead teaches a metal composite tube (see col. 10, ll. 14-24).
However, Michels et al teaches a similar pipe coupling that uses a sliding sleeve (4) to secure a composite pipe (8) to a mandrel or nipple (6). The pipe (8) can be a single layer pipe, plastic or metal (col. 10, ll. 56-58).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hundeshagen et al and use a metal pipe instead of a metal composite, as taught by Michels et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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.
There are clear benefits to using a metal pipe instead of a composite pipe, especially in light of the application for the pipe.
As to claim 8, Hundeshagen et al/Michels et al discloses the method of claim 7 wherein the pipe mandrel includes further outwardly extending teeth (3) on the outer diameter and mechanically engaging the second pipe section to the pipe mandrel includes deforming the second metal tube into engagement with the further outwardly extending teeth and installing a second press ring (not shown) to encircle the second metal tube and to hold the second metal tube in engagement with the further outwardly extending teeth.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hundeshagen et al (US 11,060,644) in view of Michels et al (US 8,745,843), and further in view of Homm (US 5,332,269), and further in view of Fischerkeller et al (US 6,155,302).
As to claim 2, Hundeshagen et al/Michels et al/Homm discloses the pipe connection assembly of claim 1 except that the teeth each have a radiused tip.
However, Fischerkeller et al teaches a pipe coupling wherein the nipple includes teeth (14) that are rounded or radiused. Fischerkeller et al indicates that the teeth can have a sharp configuration or a less-sharp configuration (see col. 2, ll. 7-22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hundeshagen et al/Michels et al/Homm such that the teeth each have a radiused tip, as taught by Fischerkeller et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative design configuration based on the design requirements or user preference.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hundeshagen et al (US 11,060,644) in view of Michels et al (US 8,745,843), and further in view of Fischerkeller et al (US 6,155,302).
As to claim 5, Hundeshagen et al/Michels et al discloses the pipe connection assembly of claim 1 except that the teeth each have a radiused tip.
However, Fischerkeller et al teaches a pipe coupling wherein the nipple includes teeth (14) that are rounded or radiused. Fischerkeller et al indicates that the teeth can have a sharp configuration or a less-sharp configuration (see col. 2, ll. 7-22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hundeshagen et al/Michels et al such that the teeth each have a radiused tip, as taught by Fischerkeller et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative design configuration based on the design requirements or user preference.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hundeshagen et al (US 11,060,644) in view of Fischerkeller et al (US 6,155,302).
As to claim 10, Hundeshagen et al discloses the pipe connection assembly of claim 1 except that the teeth each have a radiused tip.
However, Fischerkeller et al teaches a pipe coupling wherein the nipple includes teeth (14) that are rounded or radiused. Fischerkeller et al indicates that the teeth can have a sharp configuration or a less-sharp configuration (see col. 2, ll. 7-22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hundeshagen et al such that the teeth each have a radiused tip, as taught by Fischerkeller et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative design configuration based on the design requirements or user preference.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hundeshagen et al (US 11,060,644) in view of Michels et al (US 8,745,843), and further in view of Homm (US 5,332,269), and further in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 3, Hundeshagen et al/Michels et al/Homm discloses the pipe connection assembly of claim 1 except that the belled end includes tapered area that has a tapering angle between the inner diameter and the larger inner diameter of the belled end and the pipe mandrel includes a tapering surface at the end and wherein the angle at which the tapering surface tapers is less than the tapering angle of the belled end.
However, the Office takes Official Notice of the use of a pipe connection wherein the angle at which the tapering surface tapers is less than the tapering angle of the belled end. This is usually to ensure proper or better securement of the pipe.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hundeshagen et al such that each belled end includes a tapered area that has a tapering angle between the inner diameter and the larger inner diameter of the belled end and the pipe mandrel includes a tapering surface at each end and wherein the angle at which the tapering surface tapers is less than the tapering angle of the belled end, as taught by Official Notice, in order to ensure proper or better securement of the pipe.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hundeshagen et al (US 11,060,644) in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 11, Hundeshagen et al discloses the pipe connection of claim 9 except that each belled end includes a tapered area that has a tapering angle between the inner diameter and the larger inner diameter of the belled end and the pipe mandrel includes a tapering surface at each end and wherein the angle at which the tapering surface tapers is less than the tapering angle of the belled end.
However, the Office takes Official Notice of the use of a pipe connection wherein the angle at which the tapering surface tapers is less than the tapering angle of the belled end. This is usually to ensure proper or better securement of the pipe.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hundeshagen et al such that each belled end includes a tapered area that has a tapering angle between the inner diameter and the larger inner diameter of the belled end and the pipe mandrel includes a tapering surface at each end and wherein the angle at which the tapering surface tapers is less than the tapering angle of the belled end, as taught by Official Notice, in order to ensure proper or better securement of the pipe.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
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 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haener discloses a pipe coupling assembly for metal pipes similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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 M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights