DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1, 7, 8, 10-13, and 19 are rejected, claims 5, 16, and 17 are objected to, claims 21-22 are allowed, and claims 2-4, 6, 9, 14, 15, 18, and 20 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 6 that Ohlsson’s plurality of locking elements is not a free standing structure that can be transplanted into Neue, the examiner respectfully disagrees as, for example, page 9 of the Office Action dated 11/18/2025, the rejection requires the structure of the cup’s semi-circular groove:
“It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the single locking element of Neue with the plurality of locking elements of Ohlsson such that the retaining element comprises a semi-circular groove engaged with the semi-circular end of each of the plurality of locking elements because Neue discloses a device which differs from the claim device by a replacement of the locking element of Ohlsson engaged with a semi-circular groove, Ohlsson discloses a similar device comprising the known plurality of locking elements that are similarly urged by an elastic component and engaged with a semi- circular groove to retain a male nipple (3:40-42), and one of ordinary skill could have replaced the one known locking element with the plurality of locking element to meet the limitation of claim 1 because simply replacing one similar locking element for another similar locking element would have not produced any new or unexpected results.” (page 9 of the OA).
In response to applicants arguments on page 6 that Neue would require to import the bearing cup, the examiner respectfully disagrees as both Neue and Ohlsson discloses locking elements directly engaged with an elastic element within a retaining element, and replacing one known configuration of locking elements with elastic rings attached within a retaining element with another known configuration of locking elements and elastic rings placed within the retaining element of Neue would not require the importation of the retaining element of Ohlsson’s as all that is required is a semi-circular groove in the retaining element of Neue (ex., see the 103 rejection above which mentioned the groove). In other words, in the annotated figure below, replacing the locking element and elastic element of Neue with the locking elements and elastic element of Ohlsson’s such that the locking element is engaged in a semi-circular groove of Neue would not require the importation of the cup.
PNG
media_image1.png
624
1177
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicants arguments on page 6 that the OA does not identify individual replicability of locking elements in an axially opening groove without removing the holder, the examiner respectfully disagrees as there is nothing structural that would prevent individual removal or insertion of locking elements in the retaining element (ex., removing the retaining element of Neue in view of Ohlsson’s and then removing each locking element is not structurally prevented; ex., see annotated figure above of Ohlsson’s where there is nothing structural that would prevent a single locking element from being removed).
In response to applicants arguments on page 7 that the proposed modification would change Neue principle of operation, the examiner respectfully disagrees as both locking element and elastic element combination of both Neue and Ohlsson’s both function in the same way (ex., a nipple is inserted, the locking element presses against an elastic element, nipple further continues until locked by the locking element being pressed by elastic element).
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, the limitation “with one rounded end” should be “with the rounded end” as the “rounded end” was previously recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 7, 8, 10-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neue (FR-1410901) in view of Ohlsson (U.S. Patent No. 7,735,880).
In regards to claim 1, Neue discloses:
A coupling for a nipple (see fig. 8 hereinafter; ex., the nipple is not required but shown as 2), comprising
a main body (1) having a cylindrical opening (see entire opening comprising elements 16, 15, 13, and 14), for a fluid,
a holder (16) arranged in the opening (see fig. 8),
the holder holding a locking element (14; ex., “holding” is a broad limitation that only requires supportive contact which can be shown in fig. 8 where the holder is axially holding locking element especially when the nipple is inserted therein) for connecting and disconnecting the nipple to the coupling (ex., see the engagement of the pipe 14),
the holder, the main body and the locking element each being separate (see fig. 8), and
a retaining element (15) retaining the holder in the opening,
the retaining element engaging the plurality of locking elements (ex., see near 14),
wherein the retaining element comprises a locking element groove (see near 14) for engaging the plurality of locking elements,
wherein the locking element groove opens axially to receive the locking element in an axial direction (ex., see fig. 8, where the locking element is directly insert axially),
wherein the retaining element is separate from the holder and the locking element and the main body (see fig. 8), and
wherein the locking element facilitate connecting and disconnecting between the nipple and the main body (ex., see fig. 8),
but does not disclose:
a plurality of locking elements such that:
wherein each of the plurality of locking elements is separate from each other,
wherein the retaining element comprising a circumferential locking element groove having a substantially semi-circular cross-section,
wherein each of the locking elements has a rounded end received in the circumferential locking element groove,
wherein each of the plurality of locking elements is individually removable and replaceable without removing the holder from the opening and without removing any other one of the plurality of locking elements.
In regards to the plurality of locking elements, Ohlsson discloses a similar device (see fig. 2) comprising a threaded nut (8) comprising a plurality of locking elements (13) engaged in a groove (see near 14) and urged by an elastic element (16; ex., similar to Lavene where the locking element is pressed by an elastic element) to engage with a male nipple (3:40-42, where the locking elements engage in a groove of the male part; ex., see reference EP-0375674 which discloses a nipple),
a holder (see annotated fig. 2 below; ex., a “holder” is a broad limitation that only requires an element to provide some sort of support) of a female adapter (2, fig. 2) directly pressing against the O-ring to further hold the locking elements in place (see annotated fig. 2);
wherein each of the plurality of locking elements is individually removable and replaceable when the holder is monolithically attached to a female part and without removing any other one of the plurality of locking elements (ex., if the threaded cap 8, cup 10, O-ring 16, and locking elements were removed, there is nothing structural preventing the removal of a single locking element from the cup while the holder is still attached; ex., the claim only requires that the holder is not removed and does not require that the plurality of locking elements are in the holder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the single locking element and elastic element of Neue with the plurality of locking elements and O-ring of Ohlsson such that the retaining element of Neue comprises a semi-circular groove engaged with the semi-circular end of each of the plurality of locking elements and the O-ring directly contacts the holder and locking elements because Neue discloses a device which differs from the claim device by a replacement of the locking elements, groove, and elastic element of Ohlsson, Ohlsson discloses a similar device comprising the known plurality of locking elements, semi-circular groove, and O-ring where the locking elements are similarly urged by an elastic component and engaged with a semi-circular groove of the retaining element to retain a male nipple (3:40-42), both Neue and Ohlsson discloses devices where the elastic components engage a holder and the locking element engages a groove, and one of ordinary skill could have replaced the one known locking element and elastic element with the plurality of locking element and O-ring to meet the limitation of claim 1 because simply replacing one similar locking system comprising a locking element, elastic element, and groove for another similar locking element, O-ring, and semi-circular groove would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
PNG
media_image2.png
614
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7, Neue in view of Ohlsson further discloses:
The coupling according to claim 1, wherein the holder is arranged between a shoulder (see near 17 of Neue) and the retaining element (see fig. 8),
the shoulder being formed by the opening and a second opening (see fig. 8).
In regards to claim 8, Neue further discloses:
The coupling according to claim 1, wherein a sealing element (9) is arranged on the main body, and/or on the holder, for sealing against the nipple.
In regards to claim 10, Neue in view of Ohlsson discloses:
The coupling according to claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the holder is made out of plastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a plastic material for the holder of Neue in view of Ohlsson because 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 11, Neue in view of Ohlsson further discloses:
The coupling according to claim 1, wherein the holder holds 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 locking elements (see fig. 2 of Ohlsson).
In regards to claim 12, Neue further discloses:
The coupling according to claim 1, wherein the coupling is a push-pull coupling (see fig. 1).
In regards to claim 13, Neue further discloses:
The coupling according to claim 1, wherein the retaining element engages the main body by threads (ex., see fig. 8).
In regards to claim 19, Neue in view of Ohlsson further discloses:
The coupling according to claim 1, wherein each locking element is a separate element (ex., see fig. 2 of Ohlsson) and is substantially rectangular with “the” rounded end (ex., see fig. 2 of Ohlsson) and an opposite end having a groove (see near 15 in fig. 2 of Ohlsson).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
Claims 5, 16, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 22, Neue in view of Ohlsson’s is currently the best prior art which discloses:
A coupling (see fig. 8 hereinafter) comprising
a main body (1) having an opening, for a fluid, disposed in the main body (see fig. 8), the opening being cylindrical;
a holder (16) arranged in the opening,
the holder holding a locking element for releasably connecting and disconnecting a nipple to the coupling in a repeatable manner (see fig. 8),
the holder, the main body, and the locking element each being separate (see fig. 8), and
a retaining element (15) retaining the holder in the opening,
the retaining element engaging the locking element (see fig. 8),
wherein the retaining element comprises a locking element groove (see near 14) for engaging the locking element (see fig. 8),
wherein the locking element groove opens axially to receive the locking element in an axial direction (see fig. 8),
wherein the retaining element is separate from the holder and the locking element and the main body (see fig. 8), and
wherein the locking element facilitate connecting and disconnecting between the nipple and the main body (see fig. 8),
wherein the retaining element engages the main body by threads (see near 15),
but does not disclose:
a plurality of locking elements such that:
wherein each of the plurality of locking elements is separate from each other,
wherein each of the plurality of locking elements is individually removable from and individually replaceable in the holder without removing any other one of the plurality of locking elements,
wherein the retaining element comprises the locking element groove being substantially semi-circular in cross-section.
In regards to the plurality of locking elements, Ohlsson discloses a similar device (see fig. 2) comprising a threaded nut (8) comprising a plurality of locking elements (13) engaged in a groove (see near 14) and urged by an elastic element (16; ex., similar to Lavene where the locking element is pressed by an elastic element) to engage with a male nipple (3:40-42, where the locking elements engage in a groove of the male part; ex., see reference EP-0375674 which discloses a nipple).
However, both Neue and Ohlsson does not disclose that each of the plurality of locking elements is individually removable from and individually replaceable in the holder without removing any other one of the plurality of locking elements.
Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Neue in view of Ohlsson to meet the limitation of claim 22 as such modification to have each of the plurality of locking element to be removable from and replicable in the holder would require impermissible hindsight.
Similarly, in regards to claims 5 and 16-17 and 21, Neue in view of Ohlsson’s is the best prior art of record and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Neue in view of Ohlsson’s to meet the limitations of claims 5, 16-17, and 21 such that the holder comprises the elastic element (ex., claim 5), the holder contacts the sides of the locking element (ex., claims 16-17), or the holder is inserted with the plurality of locking elements (ex., claim 21, which requires the holder holding the plurality of locking elements and then inserting the plurality of locking elements and the holder) as such modification would require impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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