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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on November 12, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 5 are pending and amended in the application. Twenty-six pages of specification (sixteen pages marked up version and ten pages clean version) and two pages of drawings were received on November 12, 2025. The specification and the drawings are NOT acceptable because the concept of a “broken ring,” “first bump” and “second bump” were not disclosed in the original disclosure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the broken ring as recited in line 14 of claim 1; and
the external irrigation hose is connected to the fixing sleeve by threading as recited in line 4 of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “movablely” in line 7, should read --movably.-- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 and 3 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 2, line 7, the recitation “an end of the pipe locking sleeve” appears to be a double inclusion of the “one end of the pipe locking sleeve” recited in line 10 of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the slotting" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a plurality of slottings in the claim, it is unclear which particular “slotting” is referred by the Applicant in line 8. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the outer side wall of the pipe locking sleeve" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should read -- the outer wall of the pipe locking sleeve.--
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.
The preamble of the claims fails to limit the structure of the claimed invention. If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim. MPEP 2111.02. The preamble of the claims recites a “irrigation hose connector.” The recitation “irrigation” has been considered to merely indicate the intended use of the hose connector. Irrigation is not a positively recited limitation and fails to structurally limit the claimed invention. It is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim because the body of the claim, standing alone, fully describes the claimed invention. This interpretation applies to all pending claims.
Claims 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dehar (US 3724882).
With respect to claim 1, Dehar discloses an irrigation hose connector (Fig. 1-4) comprises a fixing sleeve (18), a limiting sleeve (24 of 17) and a pipe locking sleeve (mostly defined by 19); the limiting sleeve is integrally arranged at one (right) end of the fixing sleeve (Figs. 2 and 3), the limiting sleeve is provided with an activity space (space enclosed by 18 and space from 22 to 33 defined by 17) whose diameter gradually decreases (from 33 to 22 of 17); and the pipe locking sleeve is movablely arranged in the activity space of the limiting sleeve; a plurality of slottings (between fingers 19) are arranged at intervals on a (left) side wall of one (left) end of the pipe locking sleeve; the plurality of slottings are limited (restrained) in the activity space, a plurality of ribs (29) are arranged on an inner side of the pipe locking sleeve; each one of the plurality of ribs is arranged between two of the plurality of slottings; the plurality of ribs together forms a broken circle inside the pipe locking sleeve (Fig. 1. Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention); the plurality of ribs are made of elastic metal materials (stamped resilient metal. Col. 3, lines 21-22).
With respect to claim 2, Dehar discloses the irrigation hose connector according to claim 1, wherein a first bump (encircling 16) is arranged on an inner side wall of the limiting sleeve; a second bump (pointed by marker “31” and the slope on the right in Fig. 2), which is capable of fitting (coordinately connected) with the first bump to prevent the pipe locking sleeve from completely separating from the limiting sleeve, is arranged on an outer wall of the pipe locking sleeve and the second bump is located at an (left) end of the pipe locking sleeve near to an opening of the slotting.
With respect to claim 3, Dehar discloses the irrigation hose connector according to claim 2, wherein a limiting convex edge (33) with a diameter greater than an opening of the limiting sleeve is arranged on the outer side wall of the pipe locking sleeve; the limiting convex edge is located at an (right) end of the pipe locking sleeve away from the second bump, an activity (annular) slot is formed between the limiting convex edge and the second bump.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobo et al. (US 9541228. Bobo hereinafter) in view of Dehar (US 3724882).
With respect to claim 1, Bobo discloses an irrigation hose connector (Fig. 1-16) comprises a fixing sleeve (18), a limiting sleeve (67, 40) and a pipe locking sleeve (70); the limiting sleeve is integrally arranged at one (inner) end of the fixing sleeve, the limiting sleeve is provided with an activity space (mostly occupied by 74 and 50) whose diameter gradually (in multiple steps of 67 and 48 of 50) decreases; and the pipe locking sleeve is movablely arranged in the activity space of the limiting sleeve; a plurality of slottings (between legs 72) are arranged at intervals on a (lower) side wall of one (lower) end of the pipe locking sleeve; the plurality of slottings are limited in the activity space.
Bobo fails to disclose a plurality of ribs are arranged on an inner side of the pipe locking sleeve; each one of the plurality of ribs is arranged between two of the plurality of slottings; the plurality of ribs together forms a broken circle inside the pipe locking sleeve; the plurality of ribs are made of elastic metal materials.
However, Dehar teaches an irrigation hose connector (Fig. 1-4) comprises a fixing sleeve (18), a limiting sleeve (24 of 17) and a pipe locking sleeve (mostly defined by 19); the limiting sleeve is integrally arranged at one (right) end of the fixing sleeve (Figs. 2 and 3), the limiting sleeve is provided with an activity space (space enclosed by 18 and space from 22 to 33 defined by 17) whose diameter gradually decreases (from 33 to 22 of 17); and the pipe locking sleeve is movablely arranged in the activity space of the limiting sleeve; a plurality of slottings (between fingers 19) are arranged at intervals on a (left) side wall of one (left) end of the pipe locking sleeve; the plurality of slottings are limited (restrained) in the activity space, a plurality of ribs (29) are arranged on an inner side of the pipe locking sleeve; each one of the plurality of ribs is arranged between two of the plurality of slottings; the plurality of ribs together forms a broken circle inside the pipe locking sleeve (Fig. 1. Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention); the plurality of ribs are made of elastic metal materials (stamped resilient metal. Col. 3, lines 21-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of adding a plurality of ribs on an inner side of the pipe locking sleeve, as taught by Dehar, to Bobo’s pipe locking sleeve, in order to provide a secure pipe connection (Col. 3, lines 6-15).
With respect to claim 2, Bobo’s irrigation hose connector modified by Dehar’s plurality of ribs, Bobo further discloses wherein a first bump (See Fig. 3 with additional annotations below) is arranged on an inner side wall of the limiting sleeve; a second bump, which is capable of fitting (coordinately connected) with the first bump to prevent the pipe locking sleeve from completely separating from the limiting sleeve, is arranged on an outer wall of the pipe locking sleeve and the second bump is located at an (lower) end of the pipe locking sleeve near to an opening of the slotting.
With respect to claim 3, Bobo’s irrigation hose connector modified by Dehar’s plurality of ribs, Bobo further discloses wherein a limiting convex edge (See Fig. 3 with additional annotations below) with a diameter greater than an opening of the limiting sleeve is arranged on the outer side wall of the pipe locking sleeve; the limiting convex edge is located at an (upper) end of the pipe locking sleeve away from the second bump, an activity (annular) slot is formed between the limiting convex edge and the second bump.
With respect to claim 5, Bobo’s irrigation hose connector modified by Dehar’s plurality of ribs, Bobo further discloses the irrigation hose connector according to claim 4, wherein a circular fixing (annular) slot is arranged on an inner side wall of the fixing sleeve.
Bobo fails to discloses an external irrigation hose is connected to the fixing sleeve by threading.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threading pipe connection because these pipe connection methods are well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the threading pipe connection because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the threading pipe connection because such a change is a mere alternative and functionally equivalent pipe connection method. And because such a change would only produce an expected result, i.e, connecting two pipes. The use of alternative and functionally equivalent pipe connection method would have been desirable to those of ordinary skill in the art based on the economics and availability of components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference or combination of referenced applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
PNG
media_image1.png
361
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O. Hall can be reached on (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 25, 2025