DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/3/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 are pending. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 (note: claim 11 was previously canceled).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 – “replace “the” before “inner” with --an--.
Correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 – replace “the” before “transition” with --a--.
Line 2 – replace “the” before “convex” with --a--.
Line 1 – replace “the” before “direction” with --a--.
Correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 – replace “a” before “fixing element” with --the--.
Line 3 – replace “a” before “release member” with --the--.
Line 6 – add --at least two bowl-shaped-- between “the” and “wall elements”.
Line 6 – replace “a tubular” before “sleeve portion” with --the--.
Correction is required.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hama et al U.S. Patent No. 5,692,784.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 1, Hama et al disclose a plug-in insert configured for insertion into a main body (where the plug-in insert is capable of being configured to be inserted into a corresponding main body), the plug-in insert configured to releasably couple a tubular element in the main body (such as at 38 as shown in Fig 1), the plug-in insert comprising:
a plug-in sleeve (at 18, 32);
a fixing element (at 112); and
a release member (at 26),
wherein the fixing element (at 112) is configured to releasably fix a tubular element (as shown in Fig 1), inserted via an insertion opening (opening of 18 where 26 is inserted), in the plug-in sleeve and the release member (at 26) cooperates with the fixing element (at 112) in such a way that the fixing of the tubular element is released by an axial movement of the release member relative to the plug-in sleeve (column 7, lines 15-20),
wherein the plug-in sleeve (at 18, 32) comprises a sleeve portion (see below) formed of at least one wall element, wherein the at least one wall element is a metallic flat material portion (column 4, lines 27-28) formed into a shell-shaped or circumferentially closed element (as shown in Fig 1) by stamping and bending (It is noted that the limitation “by stamping and bending” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth.), wherein the sleeve portion includes a bead (at 30) integrally embossed in the metallic flat material portion of the at least one wall element, and wherein the fixing element (at 112) is enclosed by the sleeve portion and fixed in the sleeve portion in interlocking fashion (as shown in Fig 1),
wherein the sleeve portion has, at a second free end (see below) of the plug-in sleeve that is opposite to the insertion opening, a flange (see below) for forming a contact surface for a sealing element, and wherein the fixing element (at 112):
is fixed at an edge in the bead (at 30) of the sleeve portion of the plug-in sleeve in such a way that the bead of the sleeve portion forms a circumferential bulge (as shown in Fig 1) into which an edge of the fixing element is inserted and is thus held in the bead in an interlocking manner (column 5, lines 61-65).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 8, Hama et al disclose wherein the fixing element (at 112) is a disk-shaped claw ring which has, on the inner circumferential side, a plurality of reversibly bendable claws (at 119, 119) for fixing the tubular element (as shown in Fig 3).
With regard to claim 10, Hama et al disclose wherein between a central region (region between 30 and 32), in which the fixing element is held, and the second free end of the plug-in sleeve opposite to the insertion opening, the sleeve portion is formed to taper in a funnel shape (see above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner et al in view of Gotz et al WIPO Patent No. WO 2013/020637 A2.
With regard to claim 3, Hama et al disclose the claimed invention but do not disclose that the sleeve portion comprises at least two stamped, formed, and shell-shaped bent pieces (It is noted that the limitation “stamped, formed, and shell-shaped” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth.) of flat material as wall elements, which are joined together to form a circumferentially closed sleeve portion. Gotz teaches that a sleeve portion can be formed from two pieces to form a sleeve portion with a fixing element to make it easier to form the assembly (as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sleeve portion comprise at least two pieces which are joined together to form a circumferentially closed sleeve portion with a reasonable expectation of success to make it easier to form the assembly as taught by Gotz and since it is a design consideration within the skill of the art to construct a component, formerly of a one-piece construction, from separate elements fastened together.
With regard to claim 12, Hama et al disclose a method for manufacturing a plug-in insert according to Claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising:
providing at least one piece of flat material (where a stainless steel piece of material is provided - column 4, lines 27-28), a fixing element (at 112), and a release member (at 26);
inserting the fixing element (at 112) during the joining together of the at least two bowl-shaped wall elements (wherein the fixing element is inserted within the sleeve portion); and
inserting the release member (at 26) into the plug-in sleeve (see Fig 1).
Hama et al do not disclose stamping the at least one piece of flat material to obtain at least one flat material stamping and bending at least two flat material stampings into bowl-shaped wall elements and joining together the wall elements into a tubular sleeve portion. The Examiner takes Official Notice wherein it is old and well known in the art to stamp and bend a flat piece of metallic material as a method to form a sleeve portion as stamping provides different benefits such as strength, durability and versatility for forming a range of shapes and sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stamped and bend a flat piece of metallic material as a method to form a sleeve portion with a reasonable expectation of success as stamping provides different benefits such as strength, durability and versatility for forming a range of shapes and sizes.
Hama et al also do not disclose bending at least two flat material stampings into bowl-shaped wall elements and joining together the wall elements into a tubular sleeve portion.
Gotz teaches that a sleeve portion can be formed from two pieces to form a sleeve portion with a fixing element to make it easier to form the assembly (as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sleeve portion comprise at least two pieces which are joined together to form a circumferentially closed sleeve portion with a reasonable expectation of success to make it easier to form the assembly as taught by Gotz and since it is a design consideration within the skill of the art to construct a component, formerly of a one-piece construction, from separate elements fastened together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANNIE KEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1820. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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.
/F.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679