DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 24-28 are rejected and claims 3, 4, 8, 12, 17, and 21-23 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, see page 10, filed 1/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-20 and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive because Otter discloses a device only for a low-pressure application compared Rotter which is a high-pressure application. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Evans in view of Greig.
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, 2, 5-7, 9, 14, 15, 24-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,367,594) in view of Greig (U.S. Patent No. 6,345,431).
In regards to claim 1, Evans discloses:
A coupling (see figs. 1-6; see fig. 1 hereinafter unless otherwise noted) configured to connect first and second hoses (ex., hose 70 in fig. 6 and threaded member on portion 46), comprising:
an elongate, unitary housing (10);
at least one barb (36) at one end of said housing to define a barbed end of said housing;
a non-toothed threaded end (46; ex., threaded end) opposite the barbed end of said housing,
a thread on an outer surface of said housing rearward of one of said at least one barb closest to said non-toothed end in a direction toward said non-toothed end,
said thread being situated farther from a central axis of said housing than said at least one barb (see fig. 1),
said housing having a conduit (70, fig. 5) in said barbed end and a conduit in said non-toothed end (ex., it is inherent that a threaded pipe would connect to threaded end 46 as discussed in 5:27-32),
said conduit in said barbed end being smaller in cross-sectional area than said conduit in said non-toothed end (it is inherent that the pipe on the threaded end is greater in diameter than the pipe in the barbed end),
said housing including a transition region (see to the left of 44 in fig. 5) with a variable diameter coupling said conduit in said barbed end and said conduit in said non-toothed end (ex., see fig. 5),
whereby said barbed end is connected to and inside of the first hose (see fig. 5) and said non-toothed end is connected to and inside of the second hose (ex., it is inherent an outer threaded end would connect to a threaded hose),
wherein non-toothed end (46) is shown as a single-threaded structure but may have any suitable single-, multi-, or non-threaded structure, and may perform any desired function (5:34-38; ex., the invention does not require the connection must be threaded),
but does not disclose:
first, second and third trapezoid teeth at an opposite end of said housing from said barbed end to define a toothed end of said housing,
said first, second and third teeth being spaced apart from one another;
wherein said first, second and third trapezoid teeth engage with the second hose and reduce the possibility of separation of the second hose from said coupling.
In regards to the plurality of teeth, Greig discloses a similar device comprising a plurality of trapezoidal teeth (26) formed by trapezoidal grooves (28) to constrict an end portion of a pipe by a sleeve (2:59-62; see annotated fig. 2 below),
wherein the trapezoidal groove adjacent to the shoulder is preferably wider than any other trapezoidal groove (2:37-41; 2:65-66 which discloses the wide groove due to material buildup prevention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the non-toothed threads of Evans with a plurality of trapezoidal teeth defined by a plurality of trapezoidal grooves to engage with a tube comprising a sleeve such that a first, second and third trapezoid tooth are formed at an opposite end of said housing from said barbed end and the last trapezoidal groove is the widest because Evans explicitly discloses that non-threaded structures can be used to perform any desired function (5:34-38), Evans discloses a device which differs from the present invention by a replacement of a threaded outer surface with a trapezoidal toothed outer surface formed by trapezoidal grooves, Greig discloses a similar device connecting pipes using a sleeve to allow constricting of a pipe on a trapezoidal toothed end (2:59-62), and replacing a threaded connection outer surface for connecting a threaded pipe with a toothed outer surface for connecting a pipe end with a sleeve would not have produced any new or unexpected results.
PNG
media_image1.png
653
1047
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Evans further discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein said thread is configured such that when a ferrule (14) of the first hose includes a complementary thread on an inner surface, said thread of said housing enables threading engagement of said ferrule to said thread of said housing.
In regards to claim 5, Evans further discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein said at least one barb comprises a plurality of identical, circumferentially extending barbs (see near 36 in fig. 1 where both are identical).
In regards to claim 6, Evans in view of Grieg discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein said first tooth is closest to an edge of said housing at said toothed end (it is inherent that the first tooth would be at the edge as similarly shown in annotated fig. 2 of Greig below),
said second tooth is inward of said first tooth and said third tooth is closest to said barbed end (ex., it is inherent that the second tooth would be in between both first and third tooth as shown in annotated fig. 2 of Greig above; ex., it is inherent that the third tooth is closest to the barbed end as that would be the tooth furthest from the edge),
said first, second and third teeth extending circumferentially around said housing.
but does not explicitly disclose:
said first, second and third teeth being the only teeth on said toothed end of said housing.
In regards to the number of teeth, while Evans in view of Greig does not explicitly disclose the first, second, third teeth being the only teeth, the “number of teeth” 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 because Grieg does not disclose that more than three teeth is critical or required and Grieg discloses the functionality of the teeth and grooves such that the teeth provide gripping of the pipe while the grooves provides gaps for the pipe to flow into (2:59-67; ex., changing the number of teeth and grooves changes how much the pipe is gripped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Evans in view of Greig such that said first, second and third teeth are the only teeth on said toothed end of said housing, as the “number of teeth” 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 because selecting the number of teeth based on the desired amount of gripping or selecting the number of grooves based on how much piping should flow into grooves (ex., 2:59-67 of Grieg) is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 7, Evans in view of Grieg discloses:
The coupling of claim 6, wherein the groove width of each tooth is a known parameter such that the last groove is wider than the remaining grooves (2:37-41; 2:65-66 of Grieg),
but does not disclose:
wherein said first and second teeth are spaced apart a distance in an axial direction of said housing of about 2.54 mm,
said second and third teeth are spaced apart a distance in an axial direction of said housing of about 2.54 mm, and
wherein said third tooth is spaced apart a distance in an axial direction of said housing of about 5.08 mm from a remaining part of said housing.
In regards to the dimensions, while Evans in view of Grieg does not disclose the distances between each tooth, the “distances” 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 because Greig explicitly discloses that the width of the grooves are a known parameter (2:37-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the distances of Evans in view of Grieg between the first and second and the second and third tooth to meet the limitation of claim 7, as the “distances” 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 because Greig explicitly discloses that the width of the grooves are a known parameter (ex., 2:37-41). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In addition, it has been held that if the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 9, Evans in view of Grieg discloses:
The coupling of claim 6, wherein said first and second teeth are spaced apart a set distance (it is inherent that the first and second tooth would be spaced apart a distance),
a remaining part of said housing (ex., after the third groove there would be a shoulder 48 as shown in fig. 1 of Evans; ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Greig which shows a shoulder),
said third tooth is spaced apart a distance from a remaining part of said housing that is larger than the distance that said first and second teeth are spaced apart (2:37-41; 2:65-66 of Grieg),
but does not disclose:
said second and third teeth are spaced apart the same distance as between said first and second teeth, and
said third tooth is spaced apart a distance from a remaining part of said housing that is twice the distance that said first and second teeth are spaced apart.
In regards to the dimensions, while Evans in view of Grieg does not disclose the distances between each tooth, the “distances” 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 because Greig explicitly discloses that the width of the grooves are a known parameter (2:37-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the distances of Evans in view of Greig such that said second and third teeth are spaced apart the same distance as between said first and second teeth and said third tooth is spaced apart a distance from a remaining part of said housing that is twice the distance that said first and second teeth are spaced apart to meet claim 9, as the “distances” 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 because Greig explicitly discloses that the width of the grooves are a known parameter (2:37-41). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In addition, it has been held that if the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 14, Evans in view of Grieg further discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein said teeth are configured to enable coupling with the second hose while avoiding separation of the second hose with said toothed end of said housing at a pressure of about 40,000 psi (structurally, both the present invention and prior art both comprise three trapezoidal teeth that appear would meet the limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 15, Evans discloses:
A coupling (see fig. 1 hereinafter) configured to connect first and second hoses, comprising:
an elongate, unitary housing (10);
at least one barb (36) at one end of said housing to define a barbed end of said housing;
a non-toothed end (46; ex., the threaded end) at an opposite end of said housing from said barbed end;
a thread (18) on an outer surface of said housing rearward of one of said at least one barb closest to said non-toothed end of said housing in a direction toward said non-toothed end of said housing,
said thread being situated farther from a central axis of said housing than said at least one barb (ex., see fig. 1, where 18 is radially larger than 36),
whereby said barbed end is connected to and inside of the first hose (ex., see 70 in fig. 5) and said non-toothed end is connected to and inside of the second hose (ex., it is inherent that a threaded pipe would connect to threaded end 46 as discussed in 5:27-32) such that non-toothed end engage with the second hose (ex., via threads) and reduce the possibility of separation of the second hose from said coupling,
whereby a ferrule (14) of the first hose includes a complementary thread (24) on an inner surface to enable threading engagement of said ferrule to said thread of said housing, and
wherein non-toothed end (46) is shown as a single-threaded structure but may have any suitable single-, multi-, or non-threaded structure, and may perform any desired function (5:34-38; ex., the invention does not require the connection must be threaded),
but does not disclose:
a plurality of teeth at an opposite end of said housing from said barbed end to define a toothed end of said housing,
said plurality of teeth being spaced apart from one another;
said plurality of teeth engage with the second hose and reduce the possibility of separation of the second hose from said coupling.
In regards to the plurality of teeth, Greig discloses a similar device comprising a plurality of trapezoidal teeth (26) formed by trapezoidal grooves (28) to constrict an end portion of a pipe by a sleeve (2:59-62; see annotated fig. 2 above),
wherein the trapezoidal groove adjacent to the shoulder is preferably wider than any other trapezoidal groove (2:37-41; 2:65-66 which discloses the wide groove due to material buildup prevention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the non-toothed threads of Evans with a plurality of trapezoidal teeth defined by a plurality of trapezoidal grooves to engage with a tube comprising a sleeve such that a first, second and third trapezoid tooth are formed at an opposite end of said housing from said barbed end where the last trapezoidal groove is the widest because Evans explicitly discloses that non-threaded structures can be used to perform any desired function (5:34-38), Evans discloses a device which differs from the present invention by a replacement of a threaded outer surface with a trapezoidal toothed outer surface formed by trapezoidal grooves, Greig discloses a similar device connecting pipes using a sleeve to allow constricting of a pipe on a trapezoidal toothed end (2:59-62), and replacing a threaded connection outer surface for connecting a threaded pipe with a toothed outer surface for connecting a pipe end with a sleeve would not have produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to claim 24, Evans in view of Grieg further discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein said transition region is at a location between, on one side, all of said first, second and third trapezoid teeth at said toothed end of said housing and, on an opposite side, said barbed end of said housing (see fig. 1 of Evans).
In regards to claim 25, Evans in view of Grieg further discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein each of said first, second and third trapezoid teeth extends uniformly each in their respective shape around a circumference of an outer surface of said housing.
In regards to claim 26, Evans in view of Grieg further discloses:
The coupling of claim 15, wherein said housing has a conduit in said barbed end (ex., see fig 1 of Evans) and a conduit in said toothed end (ex., a tube with a sleeve),
said conduit in said barbed end being smaller in cross-sectional area than said conduit in said toothed end (it is inherent that the toothed end would be larger in cross section than barbed end as shown by fig. 1 of Evans),
said housing including a transition region with a variable diameter coupling said conduit in said barbed end and said conduit in said toothed end (see fig. 1 of Evans).
In regards to claim 28, Evans in view of Grieg further discloses:
The coupling of claim 1, wherein said housing further includes a tubular part on which said thread is situated (see cross section in fig. 5 of Evans).
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Grieg as applied in claim 6 above and in further view of Lorenz (U.S. PGPub No. 2004/0051303).
In regards to claim 10, Evans in view of Grieg discloses:
The coupling of claim 6, wherein said housing includes a first groove (see the rejection of claim 6 above, where there are 3 grooves and 3 teeth) between said first and second teeth,
a second groove between said second and third teeth (it is inherent there would be two grooves left) and
a third groove (ex., the last groove being widest) between said third tooth and a remaining part of said housing,
but does not disclose:
a distance in an axial direction of said housing between the edge of said housing at said toothed end and a center of said first groove being equal to a distance in an axial direction of said housing between the center of said first groove and the center of said second groove.
In regards to the dimensions, while Evans in view of Grieg does not expressly disclose the distances between each tooth, the “distances” 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 because Lorenz discloses that the dimensions of the spacing of teeth is a known parameter (ex., see fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the distances of Evans in view of Grieg to meet the limitation of claim 10, as the “distances” 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 because Lorenz discloses that the dimensions of the spacing of teeth is a known parameter (ex., see fig. 9). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In addition, it has been held that if the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 11, Evans in view of Grieg discloses:
The coupling of claim 10,
wherein the distance in the axial direction of said housing between the center of said second groove and the center of said third groove is greater than the distance in the axial direction of said housing between the center of said first groove and the center of said second groove (it is inherent that the distance between center of second and third groove would be greater as the last groove must be wider, as taught by Greig 2:37-41),
but does not disclose:
wherein the distance in the axial direction of said housing between the edge of said housing at said toothed end and the center of said first groove and the distance in the axial direction of said housing between the center of said first groove and the center of said second groove is about 8.04 mm.
In regards to the dimensions, while Evans in view of Grieg does not disclose the distances between each tooth, the “distances” 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 because Lorenz discloses that the dimensions of the spacing of teeth is a known parameter (ex., see fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the distances of Evans in view of Grieg to meet the limitation of claim 11, as the “distances” 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 because Lorenz discloses that the dimensions of the spacing of teeth is a known parameter (ex., see fig. 9). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In addition, it has been held that if the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 13, Evans in view of Grieg and Lorenz discloses:
The coupling of claim 10, wherein the angle is a known parameter (1:10-12 of Evans, where the angle is obtuse between the base and the side which would make the angle of opening of each side an acute angle),
but does not disclose:
wherein an angle of opening of each of said first, second and third grooves is about 20 degrees.
In regards to the angular dimensions, while Evans in view of Grieg and Lorenz does not expressly disclose the angle of the grooves, the “angles” 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 because Evans explicitly discloses that the angle is a known parameter (1:10-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the angle of opening of each of said first, second and third grooves of Evans in view of Grieg to be about 20 degrees, as the “angle” 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 addition, it has been held that if the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 16, 18, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Greig and in further view of Liebelt et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,853,320) and Fotus (U.S. Patent No. 4,736,969).
In regards to claim 16, Evans discloses:
A safety conduit system (see fig. 1 hereinafter) configured to connect first and second hoses, comprising:
a conduit (70, fig. 5) having opposite ends, and a ferrule at one end (14),
the ferrule including an inner thread (24); and
a coupling (10) comprising:
an elongate, unitary housing (48);
at least one barb (36) at one end of said housing to define a barbed end of said housing;
a non-toothed end (46) at an opposite end of said housing from said barbed end to define a threaded end of said housing,
a thread (22) on an outer surface of said housing rearward of one of said at least one barb closest to said non-toothed end of said housing in a direction toward said non-toothed end of said housing,
said thread of said housing being situated farther from a central axis of said housing than said at least one barb,
the ferrule (14) of said conduit threadingly engaging with said threads of said housing,
whereby said non-toothed end of a first one of said couplings is connected to and inside of the first hose such that said non-toothed end engage with the first hose and reduce the possibility of separation of the first hose from the first one of said couplings (ex., it is inherent that a threaded pipe would connect to threaded end 46 as discussed in 5:27-32) and
wherein non-toothed end (46) is shown as a single-threaded structure but may have any suitable single-, multi-, or non-threaded structure, and may perform any desired function (5:34-38; ex., the invention does not require the connection must be threaded),
but does not disclose:
the conduit comprising a thermoplastic, steel-reinforced hose
a pair of couplings, one at each end of said conduit,
first, second and third trapezoid teeth at an opposite end of said housing from said barbed end to define a toothed end of said housing,
said first, second and third teeth being spaced apart from one another; and
each of said ends of said conduit being connected to said barbed end of a respective one of said couplings,
said toothed end of a second one of said couplings is connected to and inside of the second hose,
said first, second and third trapezoid teeth of the second one of said couplings engage with the second hose and reduce the possibility of separation of the second hose from the second one of said couplings.
In regards to the plurality of teeth, Greig discloses a similar device comprising a plurality of trapezoidal teeth (26) formed by trapezoidal grooves (28) to constrict an end portion of a pipe by a sleeve (2:59-62; see annotated fig. 2 below),
wherein the trapezoidal groove adjacent to the shoulder is preferably wider than any other trapezoidal groove (2:37-41; 2:65-66 which discloses the wide groove due to material buildup prevention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the non-toothed threads of Evans with a plurality of trapezoidal teeth defined by a plurality of trapezoidal grooves to engage a tube with a sleeve such that a first, second and third trapezoid tooth are formed at an opposite end of said housing from said barbed end and the last trapezoidal groove is the widest because Evans explicitly discloses that non-threaded structures can be used to perform any desired function (5:34-38), Evans discloses a device which differs from the present invention by a replacement of a threaded outer surface with a trapezoidal toothed outer surface formed by trapezoidal grooves, Greig discloses a similar device connecting pipes using a sleeve to allow constricting of a pipe on a trapezoidal toothed end (2:59-62), and replacing a threaded connection outer surface for connecting a threaded pipe with a toothed outer surface for connecting a pipe end with a sleeve would not have produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to the duplication of the coupling on the opposite end of the hose, Liebelt (ex., explicitly disclosed by Evans in 1:38-43) discloses a similar device (see fig. 1 hereinafter) comprising a hose (14) and two identical couplings on opposite ends (10, 20 on the left and right side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the coupling of Evans in view of Grieg to comprise a identical pair of couplings on each end of the hose of Evans because Evans explicitly discloses Liebelt as prior art (1:38-43), Liebelt discloses a similar device comprising a plurality of couplings on each end of a hose (see fig. 1) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, duplicating the exact same coupling to be placed on the other end of the hose would not have produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to the thermoplastic, steel hose, Fotus discloses a similar device (see fig. 3) which discloses an elastomeric stainless steel wire braided hoses (2:16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a thermoplastic, steel-reinforced hose for Evans in view of Grieg and Liebelt because Evans explicitly discloses it is known to use tubing that has a metal sheath or multilayered (1:48-50), Fotus discloses that it is known to use an elastomeric stainless steel wire braided hoses (2:16-25) for a similar devices 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 18, Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus discloses:
The safety conduit system of claim 16, wherein said first tooth is closest to an edge of said housing at said toothed end (see annotated fig. 2 of Grieg),
said second tooth is inward of said first tooth (see annotated fig. 2 of Grieg) and
said third tooth is closest to said barbed end (it is inherent that the last tooth would be closest to the barbed end as shown in annotated fig. 2 of Grieg),
but does not disclose:
said first, second and third teeth being the only teeth on said toothed end of said housing and extending circumferentially around said housing.
In regards to the number of teeth, while Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus does not explicitly disclose the first, second, third teeth being the only teeth, the “number of teeth” 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 because Grieg does not disclose that more than three teeth is critical or required and Grieg discloses the functionality of the teeth and grooves such that the teeth provide gripping of the pipe while the grooves provides gaps for the pipe to flow into (2:59-67; ex., changing the number of teeth and grooves changes how much the pipe is gripped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus such that said first, second and third teeth are the only teeth on said toothed end of said housing, as the “number of teeth” 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 because selecting the number of teeth based on the desired amount of gripping or selecting the number of grooves based on how much piping should flow into grooves (ex., 2:59-67 of Grieg) is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 19, Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus discloses:
The coupling of claim 6, wherein said first and second teeth are spaced apart a set distance (it is inherent that the first and second tooth would be spaced apart a distance),
a remaining part of said housing (ex., after the third groove there would be a shoulder 48 as shown in fig. 1 of Evans; ex., see annotated fig. 1 of Greig which shows a shoulder),
said third tooth is spaced apart a distance from a remaining part of said housing that is larger than the distance that said first and second teeth are spaced apart (2:37-41; 2:65-66),
but does not disclose:
said second and third teeth are spaced apart the same distance as between said first and second teeth, and
said third tooth is spaced apart a distance from a remaining part of said housing that is twice the distance that said first and second teeth are spaced apart.
In regards to the dimensions, while Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus does not disclose the distances between each tooth, the “distances” 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 because Grieg explicitly discloses that the width of the grooves are a known parameter (2:37-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the distances of Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus such that said second and third teeth are spaced apart the same distance as between said first and second teeth and said third tooth is spaced apart a distance from a remaining part of said housing that is twice the distance that said first and second teeth are spaced apart to meet claim 9, as the “distances” 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 because Greig explicitly discloses that the width of the grooves are a known parameter (2:37-41 of Evans). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In addition, it has been held that if the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 27, Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus discloses:
The safety conduit system of claim 16, wherein each of said housings has a first conduit in said barbed end (see fig. 1 of Evans) and a second conduit in said toothed end (ex., a tube with a sleeve),
said first conduit in said barbed end being smaller in cross-sectional area than said second conduit in said toothed end (it is inherent that the cross section of the toothed end is larger than the barbed end as shown in fig. 1 of Evans),
each of said housings including a transition region with a variable diameter coupling said first conduit in said barbed end and said second conduit in said toothed end (see fig. 1 of Evans).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus as applied in claim 18 above and in further view of Lorenz.
In regards to claim 20, Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus discloses:
The safety conduit system of claim 18, wherein said housing includes a first groove (see the rejection of claim 18 above, where there are 3 grooves and 3 teeth) between said first and second teeth,
a second groove between said second and third teeth (it is inherent there would be two grooves left) and
a third groove (ex., the last groove being widest) between said third tooth and a remaining part of said housing,
a distance in the axial direction of said housing between the center of said second groove and the center of said third groove is greater than the distance in the axial direction of said housing between the center of said first groove and the center of said second groove (it is inherent that the distance between center of second and third groove would be greater as the last groove must be wider, as taught by Greig 2:37-41),
but does not disclose:
a distance in an axial direction of said housing between the edge of said housing at said toothed end and a center of said first groove being equal to a distance in an axial direction of said housing between the center of said first groove and the center of said second groove;
wherein an angle of opening of each of said first, second and third grooves is about 20 degrees.
In regards to the dimensions, while Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt and Fotus does not expressly disclose the distances between each tooth, the “distances” 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 because Lorenz discloses that the dimensions of the spacing of teeth is a known parameter (ex., see fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the distances of Evans in view of Grieg to meet the limitation of claim 20, as the “distances” 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 because Lorenz discloses that the dimensions of the spacing of teeth is a known parameter (ex., see fig. 9). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In addition, it has been held that if the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to the angular dimensions, while Evans in view of Grieg, Liebelt, Fotus and Lorenz does not expressly disclose the angle of the grooves, the “angles” 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 because Evans explicitly discloses that the angle is a known parameter (1:10-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the angle of opening of each of said first, second and third grooves of Evans in view of Grieg to be about 20 degrees, as the “angle” 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 addition, it has been held that if the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Conclusion
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