DETAILED ACTION
The present application has been made of the record and currently claims 1-12 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 first solid wall (21), second solid wall (22), cylindrical spacer (23), attachment (23), solid working wall (10), transition region (25), reinforcing wall (27), seal (41), and solid closure wall (26) lacks cross-hatching under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). In other words, the entire flange comprising a seal and fasteners as shown in fig. 1 except for the filling portion lack cross-hatching.
In fig. 2, the spacers (23) and reinforcing wall (27) comprise solid black shading area under 37 CFR 1.84(m).
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 § 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, 4, and 11 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.
In regards to claim 2, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In regards to claim 4, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In regards to claim 11, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joly et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0023737).
Claim 1, Joly discloses:
A fluid connection flange (see fig. 2a and fig. 2b hereinafter), comprising a solid first wall (23) forming a bearing surface (see near 23) intended to be applied against an attachment surface,
a solid second wall (22) provided facing the first wall (see fig. 2a),
at least one solid cylindrical spacer (27) extending perpendicularly between the first and the second wall, forming a passage (25) intended to allow a shank of an attachment member to pass therethrough (structurally there is nothing preventing an attachment member from going into the passage), and
a lacunary filling portion (see where metal foam is used for structural integrity in paragraphs 0081-0082), extending between the first wall and the second wall (see paragraph 0081-0082, where the foam occupies the entire space), outside the spacers (it is inherent that foam would go past the spacers as it occupies the space),
wherein the first wall, the second wall, said at least one spacer and the filling portion are produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique (see note below).
In regards to additive manufacturing, it is noted that “the first wall (21), the second wall (22), said at least one spacer (23) and the filling portion (31) are produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth.
Claim 3, Joly discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, wherein the filling portion has a cellular, columnar or lattice structure (ex., foam would inherently meet this limitation).
Claim 7, Joly discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, comprising, at least along one edge of the first wall, a solid closure wall (26) extending from said edge of the first wall (ex., as shown in fig. 2b) towards the second wall (ex., see fig. 2b).
Claim 8, Joly discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, wherein the filling portion opens out along the outer edge of the first wall (it is inherent that the filling portion would occupy the empty space and therefore meet the limitation of the claim).
Claim 11, as best understood, Jolly discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 9,
wherein the flange is made of metal, preferably selected from the group consisting of nickel-based alloys, aluminum-based alloys, titanium-based alloys and steels (see paragraph 0103, where aluminum is used).
Claim 12, Joly discloses:
A mechanical part (ex., a pipe as described in paragraph 0003 where a pipe and a flange are connected to each other) comprising:
A fluid connection flange (see fig. 2a and fig. 2b hereinafter), comprising a solid first wall (23) forming a bearing surface (see near 23) intended to be applied against an attachment surface,
a solid second wall (22) provided facing the first wall (see fig. 2a),
at least one solid cylindrical spacer (27) extending perpendicularly between the first and the second wall, forming a passage (25) intended to allow a shank of an attachment member to pass therethrough (structurally there is nothing preventing an attachment member from going into the passage), and
a lacunary filling portion (see where metal foam is used for structural integrity in paragraphs 0081-0082), extending between the first wall and the second wall (see paragraph 0081-0082, where the foam occupies the entire space), outside the spacers (it is inherent that foam would go past the spacers as it occupies the space),
wherein the first wall, the second wall, said at least one spacer and the filling portion are produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique (see note below).
In regards to additive manufacturing, it is noted that “the first wall (21), the second wall (22), said at least one spacer (23) and the filling portion (31) are produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth.
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) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joly.
In regards to claim 2, as best understood, Joly discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, wherein the distance between the first wall and the second wall is constant,
but does not disclose:
wherein the distance between the first wall and the second wall is at least 300%, preferably at least 500%, of the thickness of the first wall.
In regards to the distance, while Joly does not disclose “the distance between the first wall and the second wall is at least 300% of the thickness of the wall”, the “distance” and “thickness” 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the distance of Joly such that “the distance between the first wall and the second wall is at least 300% of the thickness of the wall”, as the “distance” 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 4, as best understood, Jolly discloses:
The fluid connection flange of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the filling portion occupies at least 50%, preferably at least 80%, more preferably at least 90%, of the volume defined between the first and second walls outside each spacer.
In regards to the distance, while Joly does not disclose “the filling portion occupies at least 50% of the volume defined between the first and second walls outside each spacer”, the “volume” 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the volume of the filling portion of Joly to meet the limitation of the claim such that “the filling portion occupies at least 50% of the volume defined between the first and second walls outside each spacer”, as the “volume” 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR-100758812) in view of Joly.
In regards to claim 1, Kim discloses:
A fluid connection flange, comprising
a solid first wall (see annotated fig. 2 below) forming a bearing surface (see fig. 5) intended to be applied against an attachment surface,
a solid second wall (see annotated fig. 2) provided facing the first wall (see annotated fig. 2),
at least one solid spacer (see annotated fig. 2) extending perpendicularly between the first and the second wall (see annotated fig. 2), forming a passage (see annotated fig. 7 below) intended to allow a shank (55, annotated fig. 2) or an attachment member to pass therethrough, and
a plurality of empty spaces (see annotated fig. 7) extending between the first wall and the second wall, outside the spacers,
wherein the first wall, the second wall, and said at least one spacer are produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique (see note below),
but does not disclose:
at least one solid cylindrical spacer;
a lacunary filling portion, extending between the first wall and the second wall, outside the spacers,
the filling portion is produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique.
In regards to the cylindrical spacer, Joly discloses a similar device (see figs. 2a and 2b) comprising cylindrical spacer (27) such that the cylindrical spacer is within a space between a first and second flange (22, 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the shape of the spacer of Kim such that the spacer of Kim is a cylindrical spacer within the empty space between the flanges of Kim because Joly discloses that cylindrically shaped spacers within the space between two flanges is known (see fig. 2a) and it has been held that a change in shape has been found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
In regards to the lacunary filling portion, Joly discloses a similar device (see fig. 2b) where an empty space (28) can be either air or alternatively metal foam, where metal foam is used for structural integrity (see paragraphs 0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the empty space of Kim in view of Joly with the provision of foam to meet the limitation of the claim because Joly discloses that there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions of using either air or foam as the material for the space (see paragraph 0082). A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because Kim and Joly both disclose the empty space is known to be air (ex., as shown by Kim and Joly) while Joly also discloses that foam can be used instead of air for structurally integrity reasons (0082) and modifying the empty space of Kim in view of Jolly with the provision of foam is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results.
In regards to additive manufacturing, it is noted that “the first wall (21), the second wall (22), said at least one spacer (23) and the filling portion (31) are produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
423
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, as best understood, Kim in view of Joly discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, wherein the distance between the first wall and the second wall is constant,
but does not disclose:
wherein the distance between the first wall and the second wall is at least 300%, preferably at least 500%, of the thickness of the first wall.
In regards to the distance, while Kim in view of Joly does not disclose “the distance between the first wall and the second wall is at least 300% of the thickness of the wall”, the “distance” and “thickness” 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the distance of Kim in view of Joly such that “the distance between the first wall and the second wall is at least 300% of the thickness of the wall”, as the “distance” 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 3, Kim in view of Jolly further discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, wherein the filling portion (31) has a cellular, columnar or lattice structure (it is inherent that a foam material would meet the limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 4, as best understood, Kim in view of Jolly discloses:
The fluid connection flange of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the filling portion occupies at least 50%, preferably at least 80%, more preferably at least 90%, of the volume defined between the first and second walls outside each spacer.
In regards to the distance, while Kim in view of Joly does not disclose “the filling portion occupies at least 50% of the volume defined between the first and second walls outside each spacer”, the “volume” 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the volume of the filling portion of Kim in view of Joly to meet the limitation of the claim such that “the filling portion occupies at least 50% of the volume defined between the first and second walls outside each spacer”, as the “volume” 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 5, Kim in view of Joly further discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, comprising a notch (see 19 in fig. 5 of Kim) formed in the bearing surface, and comprising a seal (ex., 20 in fig. 5) installed in said notch formed in the bearing surface (see fig. 5).
In regards to claim 6, Kim in view of Joly further discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 5, comprising a solid reinforcing wall (see annotated fig. 7 above hereinafter) extending from the second wall towards the first wall (ex., see fig. 5, where the wall is connected directly between both walls) perpendicularly to the second wall, and
wherein said reinforcing wall extends to said notch (ex., see fig. 5) formed in the bearing surface.
In regards to claim 7, Kim in view of Joly further discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, comprising, at least along one edge of the first wall, a solid closure wall (see annotated fig. 7) extending from said edge of the first wall (ex., as shown in fig. 5 near groove) towards the second wall (ex., see fig. 5).
In regards to claim 8, Kim in view of Joly further discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, wherein the filling portion opens out along the outer edge of the first wall (it is inherent that the filling portion would occupy the empty space and therefore meet the limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 9, Kim in view of Joly further discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, comprising a solid working wall (see near 18 in fig. 5) extending perpendicularly from an inner edge of the second wall (ex., see fig. 5 which is similarly structured to the present invention), opposite the first wall (see fig. 5).
In regards to claim 10, Kim in view of Joly further discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 1, comprising a solid transition wall (see annotated fig. 5 below) extending obliquely between the second wall (see annotated fig. 5) and the working wall (see annotated fig. 5),
wherein a second filling portion (see annotated fig. 5) is provided in the volume defined between the working wall, the transition wall and the second wall (see annotated fig. 5, where there is a small volume between each of the elements).
PNG
media_image3.png
654
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11, as best understood, Kim in view of Joly discloses:
The fluid connection flange according to claim 9,
but does not disclose:
wherein the flange is made of metal, preferably selected from the group consisting of nickel-based alloys, aluminum-based alloys, titanium-based alloys and steels.
In regards to the metal, Joly discloses a similar device where it is known to use metal such as stainless steel or carbon steel or aluminum (see paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a metal material for the flange and filling portion of Kim in view of Joly such as aluminum based alloys because Joly discloses that it is known to use aluminum for sealing flanges (see paragraph 0103) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 12, Kim discloses:
A mechanical part (see near 50 in fig. 2) comprising:
A fluid connection flange (see near 12 in fig. 2), comprising
a solid first wall (see annotated fig. 2 above hereinafter) forming a bearing surface (see fig. 5) intended to be applied against an attachment surface,
a solid second wall (see annotated fig. 2) provided facing the first wall (see annotated fig. 2),
at least one solid spacer (see annotated fig. 2) extending perpendicularly between the first and the second wall (see annotated fig. 2), forming a passage (see annotated fig. 7 above) intended to allow a shank (55, annotated fig. 2) or an attachment member to pass therethrough, and
a plurality of empty spaces (see annotated fig. 7) extending between the first wall and the second wall, outside the spacers,
wherein the first wall, the second wall, and said at least one spacer are produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique (see note below),
but does not disclose:
at least one solid cylindrical spacer;
a lacunary filling portion, extending between the first wall and the second wall, outside the spacers,
the filling portion is produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique.
In regards to the cylindrical spacer, Joly discloses a similar device (see figs. 2a and 2b) comprising cylindrical spacer (27) such that the cylindrical spacer is within a space between a first and second flange (22, 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the shape of the spacer of Kim such that the spacer of Kim is a cylindrical spacer within the empty space between the flanges of Kim because Joly discloses that cylindrically shaped spacers within the space between two flanges is known (see fig. 2a) and it has been held that a change in shape has been found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
In regards to the lacunary filling portion, Joly discloses a similar device (see fig. 2b) where an empty space (28) can be either air or alternatively metal foam, where metal foam is used for structural integrity (see paragraphs 0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the empty space of Kim in view of Joly with the provision of foam to meet the limitation of the claim because Joly discloses that there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions of using either air or foam as the material for the space (see paragraph 0082). A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because Kim and Joly both disclose the empty space is known to be air (ex., as shown by Kim and Joly) while Joly also discloses that foam can be used instead of air for structurally integrity reasons (0082) and modifying the empty space of Kim in view of Jolly with the provision of foam is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results.
In regards to additive manufacturing, it is noted that “the first wall (21), the second wall (22), said at least one spacer (23) and the filling portion (31) are produced jointly and integrally by an additive manufacturing technique” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spencer (U.S. Patent No. 3,466,070) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
Chi et al. (CN- 115126947) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
Jin et al. (DR-101478947) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
Lang (DE-4028237) discloses a similarly structured device to the present invention.
Lee (KR-200315348) discloses a similarly structured 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
