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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification should include a “Related Applications” section that includes the patent numbers of the related applications.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, it is unclear how the coupling can connect the first pipe to a plurality of pipes, when it appears the second end can only be connected to one pipe at a time and therefore, the coupling could only connect the first pipe to one other pipe at a time.
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) 1-8, 11-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. 5,853,202.
In regard to claim 1, Li et al. discloses a coupling connecting a first pipe (at 46) to a plurality of pipes (at 13) comprising: a first end 46 configured to connect the first pipe; and a second end 13 configured to connect the plurality of pipes; wherein the second end 13 is a tapered end that comprises a plurality of lateral ribs 12 and a plurality of longitudinal ribs 18’; wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs 18’comprises a pliable and wedge- like shape that conforms to each of the plurality of pipes; and wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs 18’ tapers towards a top of the second end 13 to accommodate the plurality of pipes.
In regard to claim 2, wherein the plurality of lateral ribs 12 forms a plurality of circumferential rings.
In regard to claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of lateral ribs 12 is a mechanical stop.
In regard to claim 4, wherein the lateral rib 12 closest to a top of the second end is a pipe stop.
In regard to claim 5, wherein the plurality of pipes comprises at least three pipes (13 could be attached to three different pipes 34).
In regard to claim 6, wherein the at least three pipes have three varying pipe diameters (the diameter of the pipe is stretch and therefore 13 could accept three different sized diameter pipes).
In regard to claim 7, wherein the first pipe has a larger pipe diameter than a pipe diameter of each of the plurality of pipes.
In regard to claim 8, wherein the first pipe is a corrugated pipe (claim appears to be only drawn to the fitting and not the fitting in combination with the pipes).
In regard to claim 11, Li et al. discloses a coupling 40 for a pipe comprising: a first end 46; and a second end 13: wherein the second end 13 is tapered and comprises a plurality of lateral ribs 22 and a plurality of longitudinal ribs 18’; wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs comprises a pliable and wedge- like shape; and wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs tapers towards a top of the second end.
In regard to claim 12, wherein the first end fits a first pipe.
In regard to claim 13, wherein the first pipe is a corrugated pipe (claim is only positively drawn to the fitting).
In regard to claim 16, wherein the second end is configured to connect a plurality of pipes 34.
In regard to claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs 18’ conforms to each of the plurality of pipes.
In regard to claim 18, wherein the plurality of pipes 34 comprises at least three pipes.
In regard to claim 19, wherein the at least three pipes have three varying pipe diameters (the claim is only positively drawn to the coupling).
In regard to claim 20, wherein the first pipe has a larger pipe diameter than a pipe diameter of each of the plurality of pipes (the claim is only positively drawn to the coupling).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo 8,485,561.
In regard to claim 1, Guo discloses a coupling 1 connecting a first pipe to a plurality of pipes comprising: a first end 14 configured to connect the first pipe; and a second end 5 configured to connect the plurality of pipes (at 5, 4, 1); wherein the second end is a tapered end that comprises a plurality of lateral ribs (see lateral ribs represented by the two circumferential lines close together on each tapered surface, as best shown in fig. 3 located on the tapered surfaces separating the cylindrical sections) and a plurality of longitudinal ribs 6; wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs 6 comprises a pliable and wedge- like shape that conforms to each of the plurality of pipes; and wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs tapers towards a top of the second end to accommodate the plurality of pipes (see the profile of 6 in fig. 1).
In regard to claim 2, wherein the plurality of lateral ribs forms a plurality of circumferential rings (see lateral ribs, as best shown in fig. 3 located on the tapered surfaces separating the cylindrical sections).
In regard to claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of lateral ribs is a mechanical stop.
In regard to claim 4, wherein the lateral rib closest to a top of the second end is a pipe stop.
In regard to claim 5, wherein the plurality of pipes comprises at least three pipes (sized for cylindrical portions 5,4,1).
In regard to claim 6, wherein the at least three pipes have three varying pipe diameters.
In regard to claim 7, wherein the first pipe (the pipe accepted on end 14) has a larger pipe diameter than a pipe diameter of each of the plurality of pipes.
In regard to claim 8, wherein the first pipe is a corrugated pipe.
In regard to claim 9, wherein the first end comprises a plurality of tabs 8.
In regard to claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of tabs 8 snap fits the first pipe onto the first end.
In regard to claim 11, Guo discloses a coupling 1 for a pipe comprising: a first end 14; and a second end 5: wherein the second end is tapered and comprises a plurality of lateral ribs (see lateral ribs represented by the two circumferential lines close together on each tapered surface, as best shown in fig. 3 located on the tapered surfaces separating the cylindrical sections) and a plurality of longitudinal ribs 6; wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs 6 comprises a pliable and wedge- like shape; and wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs tapers towards a top of the second end (see profile of 6 in fig. 1).
In regard to claim 12, wherein the first end 14 fits a first pipe.
In regard to claim 13, wherein the first pipe is a corrugated pipe.
In regard to claim 14, wherein the first end comprises a plurality of tabs 8.
In regard to claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of tabs 8 snap fits the first pipe onto the first end.
In regard to claim 16, wherein the second end is configured to connect a plurality of pipes (sized for cylindrical portions 5,4,1).
In regard to claim 16, wherein the second end is configured to connect a plurality of pipes (sized for cylindrical portions 5,4,1).
In regard to claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of longitudinal ribs 6 conforms to each of the plurality of pipes.
In regard to claim 18, wherein the plurality of pipes comprises at least three pipes (sized for cylindrical portions 5,4,1).
In regard to claim 19, wherein the at least three pipes have three varying pipe diameters.
In regard to claim 20, wherein the first pipe (14 is larger than 5,4,1) has a larger pipe diameter than a pipe diameter of each of the plurality of pipes.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,140,252. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming similar subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,644,545. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming similar subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
