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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“tensioning structure acting at one end thereof on the coupling carrier and at an opposing end thereof on the carrier base” in claims 1 and 2
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11 and 13-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification fails to provide any corresponding structure for the “tensioning structure” in claims 1 and 2, which invokes 112f as noted above. The applicant alleges that this rejection is improper because the tensioning structure recited in the claims refers to the tensioning means 16 described in the specification at page 12, line 7 and in Fig. 1. However, the cited portion of the specification merely discloses that the tensioning means 18 acts at one end of the coupling carrier 8 and at the other end of the carrier base 16, and Figure 1 does not make it clear as to exactly what the tensioning means 18 actually is. The specification does not disclose the corresponding structure for the "tensioning structure". Thus, the “tensioning structure” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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, 2, 4-11 and 13-18 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 limitation “tensioning structure” in claims 1 and 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. "The spring pretensioning force can be adjusted within the connector by means of tensioning means, ropes or the like, depending on the technical requirements for the media to be transmitted." is disclosed in page 7, lines 11-13 of the subject specification but does not provide the corresponding structure for the tensioning structure. The applicant alleges that this rejection is improper because the tensioning structure recited in the claims refers to the tensioning means 16 described in the specification at page 12, line 7 and in Fig. 1. However, the cited portion of the specification merely discloses that the tensioning means 18 acts at one end of the coupling carrier 8 and at the other end of the carrier base 16, and Figure 1 does not make it clear as to exactly what the tensioning means 18 actually is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 4-11 and 13-18 are rejected for being dependent on claims 1 and 2.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140112699 A1 ("Lewkoski") in view of US 4378945 A ("Trautman").
Claim 1: Lewkoski teaches a multi-coupling (10) comprising: coupling lines (conduits) (para. 26. lines 4-5); an alignment aid (22, 20 and 30, 32) being associated with a first coupling part (12) and a second coupling part (14) and compensating for offset tolerances during threading of the first coupling part into the second coupling part during coupling of media couplings (26); at least one of said coupling parts has a coupling carrier (40) that is mounted floatingly transversely with respect to a coupling direction (16); the alignment aid having, on one of the coupling parts, a central pre-centering journal (20) that projects from a coupling carrier in the coupling direction and at least one precision centering journal (30) protruding from the coupling carrier in the coupling direction and arranged radially outward of a pre-centering journal axis (46); wherein the at least one precision centering journal has a head (head attached at end of 30) that is set back in the coupling direction with respect to a head (18) of the pre-centering journal (20) (Fig. 2A); and wherein the alignment aid has a coupling socket side on the other of the coupling parts, said coupling socket side having thereon, a central catching jaw (22) that merges in the coupling direction into a pre-centering guide (34) configured to coact with the pre-centering journal (para. 28, lines 13-20); and at least one precision centering guide (32), arranged outward of a pre-centering guide axis configured to coact with the at least one precision centering journal (Figs. 1 and 2A; para. 26, lines 1-4).
Lewkoski does not teach wherein the coupling carrier is mounted floatingly with respect to a carrier base transversely to the coupling direction, with at least one spring is arranged between the coupling carrier and the carrier base, and said spring is pretensioned by tensioning structure acting at one end thereof on the coupling carrier and at an opposing end thereof on the carrier base.
However, as best understood in view of the 112a and 112b issues noted above, Trautman teaches wherein the coupling carrier (104) is mounted floatingly with respect to a carrier base (28) transversely to the coupling direction, with at least one spring (106) is arranged between the coupling carrier and the carrier base, and said spring is pretensioned by tensioning structure acting at one end (110) thereof on the coupling carrier and at an opposing end (112) thereof on the carrier base (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the cited prior art with the features of Trautman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Trautman teaches a coupling structure in the form of a seal that "has a flexible bellows with an upper sealing end adapted to mate with a bell housing of an air intake pipe. The seal provides an effective breakaway joint" (Abstract)
Claim 2: Lewkoski teaches a multi-coupling (10) comprising: coupling lines (conduits) (para. 26. lines 4-5); an alignment aid (22, 20 and 30, 32) being associated with a first coupling part (12) and a second coupling part (14) and compensating for offset tolerances during threading of the first coupling part into the second coupling part during coupling of media couplings (26); wherein the coupling parts each has a coupling carrier (40, 24), one of said coupling carriers being mounted floatingly transversely to a coupling direction (16); wherein the alignment aid has, on one of the coupling parts, a central pre-centering journal (20) projecting from the coupling carrier thereof in the coupling direction and wherein in that the alignment aid has, on the other of said coupling parts, a central catching jaw (22); wherein a head of the at least one precision centering journal (head attached to end of 30) projects less far beyond the coupling carrier thereof than a head (18) of the pre-centering journal (20) from the other coupling carrier thereof (Fig. 2A); and wherein in that the central catching jaw (22) merges in the coupling direction into a pre-centering guide (34) (Figs. 1 and 2A).
The claim differs only in that on said one of the coupling parts, a central pre-centering journal (20) projecting from the coupling carrier thereof in the coupling direction and at least one precision centering guide (32) arranged outward of a pre-centering journal axis of the central pre-centering journal (46); and on the other of said coupling parts, a central catching jaw (22) and at least one precision centering journal (30) that projects from the coupling carrier of said other of said coupling parts in the coupling direction and is arranged radially outward of the catching jaw and is configured to coact with the at least one precision centering guide (Figs. 1 and 2A; para. 28, lines 13-20).
This is a rearrangement of parts, where the precision centering guide and precision centering journal would have had their locations switched. Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) With the rearrangement of the central pre-centering journal, precision centering guide, the central catching jaw, and the precision centering journal on the coupling parts, the device of Lewkoski would still work for its intended purpose of media coupling.
Lewkoski however, does not teach wherein the coupling carrier is mounted floatingly with respect to a carrier base transversely to the coupling direction, with at least one spring is arranged between the coupling carrier and the carrier base, and said spring is pretensioned by tensioning structure acting at one end thereof on the coupling carrier and at an opposing end thereof on the carrier base.
However, as best understood in view of the 112a and 112b issues noted above, Trautman teaches wherein the coupling carrier (104) is mounted floatingly with respect to a carrier base (28) transversely to the coupling direction, with at least one spring (106) is arranged between the coupling carrier and the carrier base, and said spring is pretensioned by tensioning structure acting at one end (110) thereof on the coupling carrier and at an opposing end (112) thereof on the carrier base (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the cited prior art with the features of Trautman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Trautman teaches a coupling structure in the form of a seal that "has a flexible bellows with an upper sealing end adapted to mate with a bell housing of an air intake pipe. The seal provides an effective breakaway joint" (Abstract)
Claim 4: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Trautman further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the coupling carrier (104), the carrier base (28), and the tensioning structure (110, 112) form an articulated parallelogram arrangement providing at least approximately axis-parallel alignment of the coupling parts during coupling of the coupling lines (Fig. 6; col. 3, lines 10-18).
Claim 5: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Trautman further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the at least one spring (106) includes three springs arranged in a star shape around the longitudinal axis of the coupling (Fig. 8), wherein the springs are helical springs (col. 3, line 27).
Claim 6: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lewkoski further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the pre-centering journal (20) operates as a media coupling or an actuator (para. 24, lines 14-21) (Fig. 1).
Claim 7: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lewkoski further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the at least one precision centering journal (30) operates as a media coupling or an actuator (para. 26, lines 4-8) (Fig. 1).
Claim 8: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lewkoski further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the coupling carrier (40) accommodates a plurality of media couplings (26) arranged in a star shape around the pre-centering journal axis (para. 25, lines 6-14) (Fig. 1).
Claim 9: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lewkoski further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the media couplings (26) are mounted floatingly transversely to the coupling direction in the coupling carrier (Fig. 1).
Claim 10: Lewkoski teaches a coupling plug (12) configured for use in the multi-coupling (10) according to claim 1, said coupling comprising: the central pre-centering journal (20) projecting in the coupling direction (16) from the coupling carrier (40) mounted floatingly transversely to the coupling direction; and three (para. 26, lines 15-21) precision centering journals (30) arranged radially around the pre-centering journal axis (45) and projecting from the coupling carrier in the coupling direction; wherein the precision centering journal heads (heads attached to 30) are set back relative to the pre-centering journal head (18) in the coupling direction, and by the plurality of media couplings (26) arranged in a star shape around the pre-centering journal axis (10) (para. 25, lines 6-14) (Fig. 1).
Claim 11: Lewkoski teaches a coupling socket (14) configured for use in the multi-coupling (10) according to claim 1, said coupling socket comprising: the central catching jaw (22) that merges into the pre-centering guide (34) in the coupling direction (34); and three (para. 26, lines 15-21) precision centering guides (30) arranged in a star shape around the pre-centering guide axis (Fig. 1); and the plurality of media couplings (26) arranged in a star shape around the pre-centering guide axis (para. 25, lines 6-14) (Figs. 1 and 2A).
Claim 13: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Trautman further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the coupling carrier (104), the carrier base (28), and the tensioning structure (110, 112) form an articulated parallelogram arrangement providing at least approximately axis-parallel alignment of the coupling parts during coupling of the coupling lines (Fig. 6; col. 3, lines 10-18).
Claim 14: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Trautman further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the at least one spring (106) includes three springs arranged in a star shape around the longitudinal axis of the coupling (Fig. 8), wherein the springs are helical springs (col. 3, line 27).
Claim 15: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Lewkoski further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the pre-centering journal (20) operates as a media coupling or an actuator (para. 24, lines 14-21) (Fig. 1).
Claim 16: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Lewkoski further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the at least one precision centering journal (30) operates as a media coupling or an actuator (para. 26, lines 4-8) (Fig. 1).
Claim 17: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Lewkoski further teaches the multi-coupling wherein the coupling carrier (40) accommodates a plurality of media couplings (26) arranged in a star shape around the pre-centering journal axis (para. 25, lines 6-14) (Fig. 1).
Claim 18: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Lewkoski further teaches the multi-coupling, wherein the media couplings (26) are mounted floatingly transversely to the coupling direction in the coupling carrier (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive. The drawing objections, the specification objections, and the claim objections have been overcome. However, the applicant alleges that the 112a and 112b rejections regarding “the tensioning structure” are improper because the tensioning structure recited in the claims refers to the tensioning means 16 described in the specification at page 12, line 7 and in Fig. 1. However, the cited portion of the specification merely discloses that the tensioning means 18 acts at one end of the coupling carrier 8 and at the other end of the carrier base 16, and Figure 1 does not make it clear as to exactly what the tensioning means 18 actually is. Thus, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the “tensioning structure”. Accordingly, the 112a and 112b rejections are maintained because the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for “the tensioning structure”. Furthermore, while the applicant amended independent claims 1 and 2 to incorporate the limitations of claim 3, this action does not overcome the rejection. The applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments demonstrating why the original rejection of claim 3 was erroneous. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614