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 .
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 06/26/2026
Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn.
Claims 19 and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Claims 1-11, 14-18, and 21-22 are being examined in this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/27/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 14-16, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (Pub. No. US 20030088965 A1, herein Green) in view of Hirako (JP 2017133577 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Green discloses a method (Fig. 4), comprising:
disposing a collar (32) around an outer surface of a tubing (14, Fig. 5);
advancing a coupling portion (distal end 24 of tubing) of the tubing around a spigot extension (20, Fig. 2) of a spigot (12);
advancing the collar toward the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension (Paragraphs [0021]-[0022]); and
axially and radially retaining the tubing with the spigot via the collar (Paragraph [0019], tubing held in place axially via barbs 22 due to radial pressure applied from coil spring, Fig. 2).
Green does not expressly disclose melting a portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension.
Hirako teaches melting a portion of the collar (annular fabric made of warp yarn 7 and weft yarn 8) to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension (Fig. 2, “when the annular fabric 4 is heated in this state, as shown in FIG. 2, the monofilament of the weft 8 is thermally contracted, the diameter of the annular fabric 4 is reduced, and the insertion portion 3 of the fitting 2 is annularly connected” – Page 2 Paragraph 8).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, wanting to provide a secure connection between their tubing/spigot, would have looked to other methods of connection in order to provide the most secure connection possible. Because Hirako teaches that including a meltable fabric that can be melted without any special tools or skills, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a meltable fabric as part of the collar of Green, and to further perform a step of melting the added portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension to provide a more secure connection (see page 2 of translated version of Hirako).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
frictionally engaging the outer surface of the tubing at a friction surface (Hirako, area where hose 1 is engaged with annular fabric 4 in Fig. 2) of the collar by melting the portion of the collar (Hirako, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by Green further comprising frictionally engaging the outer surface of the tubing at a friction surface of the collar by melting the portion of the collar as taught by Hirako so that so that the tubing is properly secured to the spigot (Hirako, Page 2 Paragraph 9).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
advancing the coupling portion (Green, 24) of the tubing past a flared portion of the spigot extension (Green, 22, Figs 2 and 5).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 3, further comprising:
advancing the collar past the flared portion of the spigot extension (Green, Fig. 5, Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 4, further comprising: radially expanding the collar over the flared portion of the spigot extension (D2 smaller compared to D3 when stretched over tubular portion 20 in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the coupling portion of the tubing comprises a coupling inner diameter equal to or larger than a spigot extension outer diameter (Green, distal end 24 of tube 12 larger than outer diameter of tubular portion 20 in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Green discloses a method (Fig. 4), comprising:
disposing a collar (32) with a helical body (32 with a helical shape in Fig. 2) around an outer surface of a tubing (14, Fig. 5);
advancing a coupling portion of the tubing (distal end 24 of tubing) around a spigot extension (22, Fig. 2) of a spigot (20, Fig. 5);
advancing the collar toward the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension (Paragraphs [0021]-[0022]);
radially expanding the helical body over a flared portion (22) of the spigot extension (D2 smaller compared to D3 when stretched over tubular portion 20 in Fig. 2); and
axially and radially retaining the tubing with the spigot via the collar (Paragraph [0019], tubing held in place axially via barbs 22 due to radial pressure applied from coil spring, Fig. 2).
Green does not expressly disclose melting a portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension.
Hirako teaches melting a portion of the collar (annular fabric made of warp yarn 7 and weft yarn 8) to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension (Fig. 2, “when the annular fabric 4 is heated in this state, as shown in FIG. 2, the monofilament of the weft 8 is thermally contracted, the diameter of the annular fabric 4 is reduced, and the insertion portion 3 of the fitting 2 is annularly connected” – Page 2 Paragraph 8);
A person having ordinary skill in the art, wanting to provide a secure connection between their tubing/spigot, would have looked to other methods of connection in order to provide the most secure connection possible. Because Hirako teaches that including a meltable fabric that can be melted without any special tools or skills, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a meltable fabric as part of the collar of Green, and to further perform a step of melting the added portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension to provide a more secure connection (see page 2 of translated version of Hirako).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 14, further comprising:
frictionally engaging the outer surface of the tubing at a friction surface (Hirako, area where hose 1 is engaged with annular fabric 4 in Fig. 2) of the collar by melting the portion of the collar (Hirako, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by Green further comprising frictionally engaging the outer surface of the tubing at a friction surface of the collar by melting the portion of the collar as taught by Hirako so that the tubing is properly secured to the spigot (Hirako, Page 2 Paragraph 9).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 14, further comprising:
advancing the coupling portion (Green, 24) of the tubing past the flared portion of the spigot extension (Green, 22, Figs 2 and 5).
Regarding Claim 21, Green discloses a method, comprising:
disposing a collar (32) around an outer surface of a tubing (14, Fig. 5);
positioning a coupling portion of the tubing (distal end 24 of tubing) over a spigot extension (22, Fig. 5) of a spigot (20);
advancing the collar past a flared portion (22) of the spigot extension (Figs 2 and 5);
disposing the collar around the coupling portion (Fig. 2); and
axially and radially retaining the tubing with the spigot via the collar (Paragraph [0019], tubing held in place axially via barbs 22 due to radial pressure applied from coil spring, Fig. 2).
Green does not expressly disclose melting a portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension.
Hirako teaches melting a portion of the collar (annular fabric made of warp yarn 7 and weft yarn 8) to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension (Fig. 2, “when the annular fabric 4 is heated in this state, as shown in FIG. 2, the monofilament of the weft 8 is thermally contracted, the diameter of the annular fabric 4 is reduced, and the insertion portion 3 of the fitting 2 is annularly connected” – Page 2 Paragraph 8).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, wanting to provide a secure connection between their tubing/spigot, would have looked to other methods of connection in order to provide the most secure connection possible. Because Hirako teaches that including a meltable fabric that can be melted without any special tools or skills, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a meltable fabric as part of the collar of Green, and to further perform a step of melting the added portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension to provide a more secure connection (see page 2 of translated version of Hirako).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 21, wherein melting the portion of the collar comprises unifying an outer diameter of the collar (Hirako, “when the annular fabric 4 is heated in this state, as shown in FIG. 2, the monofilament of the weft 8 is thermally contracted, the diameter of the annular fabric 4 is reduced, and the insertion portion 3 of the fitting 2 is annularly connected.” – Page 2 Paragraph 8, “When the warp yarn 7 of the annular fabric 4 is made of a low-melting yarn, the low-melting yarn is partially melted by the heat at this time, and the weft yarn 8 is fixed and the entire annular fabric 4 is made into a resin so The low-melting yarn is melted and the annular fabric 4 is hardened and not frayed.” – Page 2 Paragraph 11).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Green wherein melting the portion of the collar comprises unifying an outer diameter of the collar as taught by Hirako so that an entire length of the collar is able to contract and tighten around the fitting (Hirako, Page 2 Paragraph 9).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Green in view of Hirako, further in view of Nakano et al. (Pub. No. US 20080197624 A1, herein Nakano).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 1.
Modified Green in view of Hirako does not expressly disclose applying a solvent between the coupling portion of the tubing and the spigot extension of the spigot.
Nakano teaches applying a solvent (8) between the coupling portion of the tubing (6) and the spigot extension (2-2) of the spigot (2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by modified Green in view of Hirako by applying a solvent between the coupling portion of the tubing and the spigot extension of the spigot as taught by Nakano so that the connection properly adhered (Nakano, Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Green in view of Hirako and Nakano discloses the method of Claim 6, further comprising:
curing the solvent to bond the tubing and the spigot (Nakano, Paragraph [0072]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by modified Green in view of Hirako by curing the solvent to bond the tubing and the spigot as taught by Nakano so that the resin has a high adhesive strength (Nakano, Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 14.
Modified Green in view of Hirako does not expressly disclose further comprising: applying a solvent between the coupling portion of the tubing and the spigot extension of the spigot.
Nakano teaches applying a solvent (8) between the coupling portion of the tubing (6) and the spigot extension (2-2) of the spigot (2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by modified Green in view of Hirako by applying a solvent between the coupling portion of the tubing and the spigot extension of the spigot as taught by Nakano so that the connection properly adhered (Nakano, Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Green in view of Hirako and Nanako discloses the method of Claim 17, further comprising:
curing the solvent to bond the tubing and the spigot (Nakano, Paragraph [0072]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by modified Green in view of Hirako by curing the solvent to bond the tubing and the spigot as taught by Nakano so that the resin has a high adhesive strength (Nakano, Paragraph [0073]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Hirako, further in view of Friedman (US 2375357 A).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 1.
Modified Green in view of Hirako does not expressly disclose further comprising: extruding a collar stock; and cutting the collar stock to form the collar.
Friedman teaches extruding a collar stock (10); and cutting the collar stock to form the collar (Col. 3 Lines 37-48).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by modified Green in view of Hirako further comprising: extruding a collar stock; and cutting the collar stock to form the collar as taught by Friedman so that it is more economical to form collars (Friedman, Col. 2 Lines 28-30).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Green in view of Hirako and Friedman discloses the method of Claim 8, further comprising:
helically winding the collar stock (Friedman, Figs. 2-3, Col. 3 Lines 43-44).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by modified Green in view of Hirako further comprising helically winding the collar stock as taught by Friedman so that a helical spring made of a continuous piece of plastic can be made (Friedman, Col. 3 Lines 30-32).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Hirako, further in view of Kinghorn et al. (US 5770139 A, herein Kinghorn).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Green in view of Hirako discloses the method of Claim 10.
Modified Green in view of Hirako does not expressly disclose further comprising: coupling an expander sleeve to the tubing to define the coupling portion.
Kinghorn teaches coupling an expander sleeve (18) to the tubing (14) to define the coupling portion (area where sleeve 18 overlaps tubing 14 in Fig. 2B).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by modified Green in view of Hirako further comprising: coupling an expander sleeve to the tubing to define the coupling portion as taught by Kinghorn so that disengagement of the tubing is prevented (Kinghorn, Col. 2 Lines 63-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered.
In regards to Applicants argument:
“The disclosure was objected to because elements 312, 314, 316, 318, 412, 418, 422 are shown in the drawings, but not mentioned within the specification. Applicant has amended the specification to mention the element numbers shown in the drawings. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection.”
This argument is persuasive and the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In regards to Applicants argument:
“The cited references are not understood to teach or suggest each and every feature of independent Claim 1, particularly with respect to at least the steps of "advancing the collar toward the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension" and "melting a portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension."
This argument is persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection for claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Green and Hirako.
In regards to the cited references not being understood to teach “melting a portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension". Hirako discloses an annular fabric 4 fit around the outside of a hose 1. This fabric is made of a rigid synthetic resin, Page 2 Paragraph 6, preferably made of a low-melting yarn with a melting point of suitably around 160 degrees Celsius, Page 2 Paragraph 7. A person having ordinary skill in the art, wanting to provide a secure connection between their tubing/spigot, would have looked to other methods of connection in order to provide the most secure connection possible. Because Hirako teaches that including a meltable fabric that can be melted without any special tools or skills, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a meltable fabric as part of the collar of Green, and to further perform a step of melting the added portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension to provide a more secure connection (see page 2 of translated version of Hirako).
In regards to Applicants argument that:
“For at least the reasons discussed above with respect to independent Claim 1, the cited references are not understood to teach or suggest each and every step of independent Claim 14, particularly with respect to at least the steps of "advancing the collar toward the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension" and "melting a portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension. Moreover, the cited references are not understood to teach or suggest "radially expanding the helical body over a flared portion of the spigot extension."
This argument is persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection for claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Green and Hirako.
In regards to the cited references not being understood to teach “melting a portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension". Hirako discloses an annular fabric 4 fit around the outside of a hose 1. This fabric is made of a rigid synthetic resin, Page 2 Paragraph 6, preferably made of a low-melting yarn with a melting point of suitably around 160 degrees Celsius, Page 2 Paragraph 7. A person having ordinary skill in the art, wanting to provide a secure connection between their tubing/spigot, would have looked to other methods of connection in order to provide the most secure connection possible. Because Hirako teaches that including a meltable fabric that can be melted without any special tools or skills, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a meltable fabric as part of the collar of Green, and to further perform a step of melting the added portion of the collar to radially engage the coupling portion of the tubing around the spigot extension to provide a more secure connection (see page 2 of translated version of Hirako).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Golovan whose telephone number is (571)272-2119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm Alt. Fri off.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/MARK GOLOVAN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /James D Ponton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights