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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 6/26/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1, 4, 10-11, and 19-20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the preceding 112b rejection on page 5:
Applicant's present amendment resolves the preceding office actions stated 112b rejection of claims 4 and 10
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the independent claims on page 5-10:
Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon in the preceding office action does not teach the following limitations of the presently amended claims:
“a plurality of flanges disposed around the housing”
“a ring disposed around the housing”
“a ring concentric with the housing”
In this regard applicant merely recites parts of the disclosure of the prior art and summarily states that the preceding office action has not shown that the prior art has anticipates/teaches the subject matter of the presently amended claims.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
See examiner's rejection as necessitated by the amendment, below, which details the manner that the disclosure/teachings of the prior art of record may be considered to anticipate/teach the subject matter of the presently amended claims.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding dependent claims on page 10:
Applicant argues that their preceding arguments render the independent claims allowable, and consequently likewise the dependent claims are allowable.
See examiner's rejection as necessitated by the amendment, below, detailing the prior art which discloses/teaches the limitations of the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210404587 A1, henceforth written as Mansour.
Regarding claim 1, Mansour discloses:
A coupler comprising:
(coupler assembly 100; fig 1-4)
a first connector
(upper connector 110; fig 1-4)
having a first end, a second end opposite the first end,
(see examiner's annotation of Mansour's fig 2 defining the claimed first end and second end)
and a valve disposed between the first end and the second end,
(paragraph 25; upper connector contains a sealing valve (not enumerated/illustrated) to govern the flow path between inlet 112 and outlet 114, thus the claimed valve can be considered to span from the inlet 112 which feeds the sealing valve (not enumerated/illustrated) and the outlet 114 which discharges the sealing valve (not enumerated/illustrated) )
the second end including a mating portion, wherein the valve extends at least partially into the mating portion; and
(see examiner's annotation of Mansour's fig 2 defining the claimed mating portion; paragraph 25, noting the disposition of the sealing valve between inlet 112 and outlet 114 and therein extending at least partially into and within the mating portion)
a second connector having a housing,
(coupler 150 having a housing (not enumerated) ; fig 1-4)
a plurality of flanges disposed around the housing,
(first retaining fingers 152 are arranged circumferentially, therein disposed, around the housing (not enumerated) of coupler 150; fig 1-4)
each of the plurality of flanges being separated from an adjacent flange by a cut,
(paragraph 34; retaining fingers 152 are separated from each other via slots cut from the material of coupler 150; fig 1-4)
the plurality of flanges configured to engage with the mating portion when the second connector is coupled to the first connector,
(fig 3-4 illustrate retaining fingers 152 engaging the mating portion when connector 110 is coupled to coupler 150)
wherein the first connector is configured to decouple from the second connector in response to a pullout force exceeding a predetermined threshold force.
(paragraph 48, "In other words, the coupler 150 can be configured to allow the lower connector 130 to be released with a lower pullout force compared to the upper connector 110. ", thus there is a predetermined threshold pull out force for removing connector 110 from coupler 150, the value of this threshold force is greater than the pullout force required to remove connector 130 from coupler 150)
PNG
media_image1.png
276
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotation of Mansour’s fig 2
Regarding claim 2, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the mating portion includes a groove circumferentially disposed on the mating portion, the groove configured to receive a portion of one of the plurality of flanges.
(see examiner's annotation of Mansour's fig 2 defining the claimed groove and Mansour's fig 3-4 which illustrates the reception of a portion of fingers 152 received in the groove;
Regarding claim 3, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of flanges includes a ridge, the ridge configured to engage the groove when the first connector is coupled to the second connector.
(fig3-4 illustrates protruding feature 153 engaging the claimed groove when connector 110 and coupler 150 are coupled together)
Regarding claim 5, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the pullout force is a force applied to the second connector along a central axis of the second connector and the central axis extends at least along a length of the second connector .
Examiner notes the recited "pull out force" is recited in the preceding claim 1 as a force which is applied to decouple the first connector and second connector. Claim language of “configured to” implies a functional language and the prior art must at least be capable of performing the recited function, of having an axial force to the second connector to remove the second connector from the first connector. Accordingly, as upper connector 110 is mated to coupler 150 by being inserted therein, thus comprising an axially directed insertion force see paragraph 33+38, the removal of such elements will likewise require a removal force which comprises an axial component to axially displace connector 110 from coupler 150, and thus is functionally capable of the claimed axial force being applied to disconnect the claimed elements in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 6, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 5, wherein the central axis extends through the first connector and the second connector when the first connector is coupled to the second connector.
(fig 2 provides a dotted axial line (not enumerated) which can be considered the central axis spanning connector 110 and coupler 150)
Regarding claim 7, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the valve is configured to extend at least partially into the housing when the first connector is coupled to the second connector.
(fig 3-4 demonstrates the extension of the claimed valve within the housing of coupler 150 when connector 110 and coupler 150 are coupled)
Regarding claim 8, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the coupler has a first configuration and in the first configuration the first connector is coupled to the second connector such that the valve is at least partially disposed within the housing.
(fig 3-4 demonstrates the first configuration where connector 110 and coupler 150 are coupled and the claimed valve is at least partially disposed within housing of coupler 150)
Regarding claim 9, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the coupler has a second configuration and in the second configuration the first connector is disconnected from the second connector.
(fig 2 demonstrates the second configuration where connector 110 and coupler 150 are disconnected )
Regarding claim 10, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the first connector is coupled to a first portion of tubing at the first end
(paragraph 21; portion of tubing (not enumerated/illustrated) engages with inlet 112)
and the second connector is coupled to a second portion of tubing at a connecting portion of the second connector.
(lower connector 130, considered a portion of tubing, couples to retaining fingers 158, proximate the connecting portion of coupler 150; fig 4)
Regarding claim 11, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the second connector includes a gap disposed radially between the plurality of flanges and the housing, and the mating portion is at least partially disposed within the gap when the first connector is coupled to the second connector.
(see examiner's annotation of Monsour's fig 3 denoting the claimed gap, as being radially between the radially interior surface of feature 153 and an opposing portion of the housing of coupler 150)
PNG
media_image2.png
492
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotation of Mansour’s fig 3, which for ease of reference and clarity of the annotation examiner has removed the illustrations of structures of connector 110 which is received in/coupled to coupler 150 and added dotted lines following the circular shapes of certain elements, such as the claimed ring and the radially interior surface of the housing of coupler 150 opposing features 153, which were originally obfuscated by connector 110 in Mansour’s fig 3.
Regarding claim 12, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein a fluid pathway is formed between the second connector and the first connector when the first connector is coupled to the second connector.
(fig 4 demonstrates the assembled state of coupler assembly 100 when fluid flows from inlet 112 to outlet 134, accordingly as demonstrated in fig 3, when coupler 150 and connector 110 are first mated, there is a fluid pathway formed in between the coupler 150 and connector 110 extending from inlet 112 through outlet 114 toward the protruding feature 156 of coupler 150)
Regarding claim 13, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the housing includes a plurality of ribs circumferentially disposed around the housing, the plurality of ribs configured to contact the mating portion when the first connector is coupled to the second connector.
(see examiner's annotation of Monsour's fig 3 denoting the claimed ribs which are configured to contact the previously noted claimed mating portion during the radial alignment of connector 110 and coupler 150)
Regarding claim 14, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the housing includes a ring circumferentially disposed around the housing, the ring configured to contact the mating portion when the first connector is coupled to the second connector.
(see examiner's annotation of Monsour's fig 3 denoting the claimed ring, and fig 3-4 demonstrating the contact of the claimed mating portion and the claimed ring)
Regarding claim 15, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flanges are biased radially inward and are configured to flex radially outward when coupling the first connector to the second connector.
(paragraph 33-38; retaining fingers 152 are flexed radially outward around collar 116 during insertion of connector 110 into coupler 150 and then fingers 152 are biased radially inward to mate against collar 116)
Regarding claim 16, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flanges form a ring, the ring being concentric with an opening of the housing.
(see examiner's annotation of Monsour's fig 3 denoting the claimed ring and demonstrating the manner that the leftward ends of fingers 152 form a ring concentric with an opening of coupler 150's housing)
Regarding claim 17, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flanges are configured to deflect away from a central axis when decoupling the first connector to the second connector.
(paragraph 33-38+48; claim language of “configured to” implies a functional language and the prior art must at least be capable of performing the recited function, such that as the plurality of flanges are configured to deflect away from the central axis during coupling, they are functionally capable of similar deflection during decoupling of connector 110 and coupler 150)
Regarding claim 18, Mansour discloses:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the mating portion is at least partially disposed within the second connector when the first connector is coupled to the second connector.
(fig 3-4 demonstrates the disposal of the claimed mating portion within coupler 150 when coupler 150 and connector 110 are coupled together)
Regarding claim 19, Mansour discloses:
A coupler comprising:
(coupler assembly 100; fig 1-4)
a first connector
(upper connector 110; fig 1-4)
having a first end, a second end opposite the first end,
(see examiner's annotation of Mansour's fig 2 defining the claimed first end and second end)
a mating portion disposed proximate the second end,
(see examiner's annotation of Mansour's fig 2 defining the claimed mating portion and demonstrating its proximity to the claimed second end)
the first connector including a valve disposed between the first end and the second end, the valve at least partially extending into the mating portion; and
(paragraph 25; upper connector contains a sealing valve (not enumerated/illustrated) to govern the flow path between inlet 112 and outlet 114, thus the claimed valve can be considered to span from the inlet 112 which feeds the sealing valve (not enumerated/illustrated) and the outlet 114 which discharges the sealing valve (not enumerated/illustrated) ; paragraph 25, noting the disposition of the sealing valve between inlet 112 and outlet 114 and therein extending at least partially into and within the mating portion))
a second connector having a housing
(coupler 150 having a housing (not enumerated) ; fig 1-4)
and ring disposed around the housing, the ring having a plurality of cuts forming a plurality of flanges,
(see examiner's annotation of Monsour's fig 3 denoting the claimed ring, demonstrating the manner that the cut slots 160 form the fingers 152 from the claimed ring, and demonstrating the arrangement of the claimed ring circumferentially, therein disposed, around the housing (not enumerated) of coupler 150)
each of the plurality of flanges including a ridge extending radially inward and each of the plurality of flanges being biased radially inward,
(fig 3-4 illustrating the radially inward extension of protruding feature 153, and paragraph 38 demonstrates the manner that fingers 152 are biased radially inward after being flexed radially outward when travelling over collar 116)
wherein the first connector is configured to decouple from the second connector in response to a pullout force exceeding a predetermined threshold force,
(paragraph 48, "In other words, the coupler 150 can be configured to allow the lower connector 130 to be released with a lower pullout force compared to the upper connector 110. ", thus there is a predetermined threshold pull out force for removing connector 110 from coupler 150, the value of this threshold force is greater than the pullout force required to remove connector 130 from coupler 150)
wherein at least one of the plurality of flanges is configured to deflect radially outward to allow the first connector to decouple from the second connector when the pullout force exceeds the predetermined threshold force.
(paragraph 33-38+48; claim language of “configured to” implies a functional language and the prior art must at least be capable of performing the recited function, such that as the plurality of flanges are configured to deflect away from the central axis during coupling, they are functionally capable of similar deflection during decoupling of connector 110 and coupler 150)
Regarding claim 20, Mansour discloses:
A coupler comprising:
(coupler assembly 100; fig 1-4)
a first connector
(upper connector 110; fig 1-4)
having a first end, a second end opposite the first end,
(see examiner's annotation of Mansour's fig 2 defining the claimed first end and second end)
a tubing portion disposed proximate the first end and
(paragraph 21; portion of tubing (not enumerated/illustrated) engages with inlet 112)
a mating portion disposed proximate the second end,
(see examiner's annotation of Mansour's fig 2 defining the claimed mating portion and demonstrating its proximity to the claimed second end)
the first connector including a valve disposed between the first end and the second end, the valve at least partially extending into the mating portion,
(paragraph 25; upper connector contains a sealing valve (not enumerated/illustrated) to govern the flow path between inlet 112 and outlet 114, thus the claimed valve can be considered to span from the inlet 112 which feeds the sealing valve (not enumerated/illustrated) and the outlet 114 which discharges the sealing valve (not enumerated/illustrated) ; paragraph 25, noting the disposition of the sealing valve between inlet 112 and outlet 114 and therein extending at least partially into and within the mating portion))
the first connector including a groove circumferentially disposed around the mating portion; and
(see examiner's annotation of Mansour's fig 2 defining the claimed groove and Mansour's fig 3-4 which illustrates the reception of a portion of fingers 152 received in the groove)
a second connector having a housing
(coupler 150 having a housing (not enumerated) ; fig 1-4)
and ring concentric with the housing, the ring having a plurality of cuts forming a plurality of flanges,
(see examiner's annotation of Monsour's fig 3 denoting the claimed ring, demonstrating the manner that the cut slots 160 form the fingers 152 from the claimed ring, and demonstrating the arrangement of the claimed ring circumferentially around, therein concentric with, the housing (not enumerated) of coupler 150)
each of the plurality of flanges including a ridge extending radially inward and each of the plurality of flanges being biased radially inward,
(fig 3-4 illustrating the radially inward extension of protruding feature 153, and paragraph 38 demonstrates the manner that fingers 152 are biased radially inward after being flexed radially outward when travelling over collar 116)
the second connector including a gap between the housing and the ring, the gap configured to receive a portion of the mating portion when the first connector is coupled to the second connector,
(see examiner's annotation of Monsour's fig 3 denoting the claimed gap)
wherein a fluid pathway is formed between the first connector and the second connector when the first connector is coupled to the second connector,
(fig 4 demonstrates the assembled state of coupler assembly 100 when fluid flows from inlet 112 to outlet 134, accordingly as demonstrated in fig 3, when coupler 150 and connector 110 are first mated, there is a fluid pathway formed in between the coupler 150 and connector 110 extending from inlet 112 through outlet 114 toward the protruding feature 156 of coupler 150)
wherein the first connector is configured to decouple from the second connector in response to a pullout force exceeding a predetermined threshold force,
(paragraph 48, "In other words, the coupler 150 can be configured to allow the lower connector 130 to be released with a lower pullout force compared to the upper connector 110. ", thus there is a predetermined threshold pull out force for removing connector 110 from coupler 150, the value of this threshold force is greater than the pullout force required to remove connector 130 from coupler 150)
wherein at least one of the plurality of flanges is configured to deflect radially outward to allow the first connector to decouple from the second connector when the pullout force exceeds the predetermined threshold force.
(paragraph 33-38+48; claim language of “configured to” implies a functional language and the prior art must at least be capable of performing the recited function, such that as the plurality of flanges are configured to deflect away from the central axis during coupling, they are functionally capable of similar deflection during decoupling of connector 110 and coupler 150)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansour, as applied to claims above.
Regarding Claim 4,
Mansour discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
The coupler of claim 1, wherein the second connector includes [plural] cuts and [a same number of] flanges [as the number of cuts].
(paragraph 34; slots 160 cut into coupler 150 form fingers 152, of which there are an unspecified plurality which can be disposed around coupler 150 circumferentially )
However, Mansour is silent regarding:
the second connector includes three cuts and the plurality of flanges includes three flanges.
Notably, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) provides that a modification of the prior art amounting to a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Accordingly, duplicating flanges and cuts such that there are three would similarly lack patentable significance as a new and unexpected result is not produced by such a modification.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the claimed cuts and claimed flanges disclosed by Mansour as such a modification only requires routine skill in the art and would result in the expected and predictable invention of a coupler assembly having further advantageously redundant means for securing the mating elements together, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and paragraph 34 of Mansour.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FORREST DIPERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm eastern.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/FORREST B DIPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights