DETAILED ACTION
The Response filed 19 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-15 remain pending. Claims 5 has been canceled.
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 filed 19 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons in view of the previously cited prior art references - Gregg (US 1,516,851) and Foster (US 2,915,325).
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pg. 6 of the Response that the prior art lacks “a valve seat having at least one flow aperture, and a valve body having a sealing surface which rests in a fluid-tight manner on the valve seat or on the at least flow aperture in the closed state of the valve. The flow aperture deviates from a circular shape arranged concentrically with respect to the central axis, and in the closed state an edge of the at least one flow aperture engages into the sealing surface in the axial direction.” However, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 wherein the valve seat has at least one flow aperture 29 (Figs. 3-4), wherein the valve body 38 has a sealing surface which rests in a fluid-tight manner on the valve seat or on the at least flow aperture in the closed state of the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44, wherein the flow aperture 29, in cross section or in a front view deviates from a circular shape arranged concentrically with respect to the central axis (Figs. 3-4), and/or the valve guide 37 is mounted to slide axially in a guide receptacle of the valve seat (comprising the opening in the valve seat 30 that receives the valve guide 37), and wherein, in the closed state of the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44 (Fig. 2), an edge of the at least one flow aperture 29 engages into the sealing surface in the axial direction (pg. 2, lines 33-36 and 44-48).
Alternatively, the teaching in Gregg of the valve seating being at least partially provided by the disk 28 forming the plurality of flow apertures 29 is used to modify Foster, in Figs. 1-4 of which, a core 20 (like the disk 28 disclosed in Gregg) forms a plurality of flow apertures 28 within a surrounding seating portion 20 for the valve 23.
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pg. 7 of the Response, regarding Foster, that “the plurality of apertures 28 are located axially inwardly from the valve seat 25, and it is respectfully submitted that the apertures 28 are not an aperture of the valve seat 25. Rather, the apertures 28 are formed in the internal passageway 29 in the snout 20 to communicate the passageway 29 with the other connector.” However, as discussed above, Foster is now modified in view of Gregg to have the core 20 forming the flow apertures 28 contribute to the seating surface for the valve 38, like Gregg teaches with disk 28 comprising flow apertures 29.
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pg. 7 of the Response, regarding Foster, that “there is no edge of the at least one flow aperture of the valve seat 25 which engages into the conical sealing surface of the valve body 23. The apertures 28 of the internal passageway 29 do not have an edge that engages the valve body 23.” However, as discussed above, Foster is now modified in view of Gregg to have the core 20 forming the flow apertures 28 contribute to the seating surface for the valve 38, and Gregg teaches that in the closed state of the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44 (Fig. 2), an edge of the at least one flow aperture 29 engages into the sealing surface in the axial direction (pg. 2, lines 33-36 and 44-48).
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pg. 7 of the Response that Gregg fails to teach an edge of the flow apertures 29 which engage into the sealing surface of the valve body 38 in the axial direction. However, the valve body 38 closes the flow apertures 29 in the decoupled, closed state (Fig. 2) by seating against the disk 28 with the apertures (pg. 2, lines 33-36 and 44-48), so the valve body 38 inherently has a sealing surface that engages an edge of each of the flow apertures 29 in the axial direction to close flow through each aperture 29.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 20, “at least flow aperture” should be changed to --at least one flow aperture--.
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 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected (wherein claims 2-4 and 6-15 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 22, it is unclear which of “the at least one flow aperture” the recitation of “the flow aperture” refers to. As understood, “the flow aperture” is intended to recite “the at least one flow aperture.”
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gregg (US 1,516,851).
Regarding claim 1, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 a line connector (A) for fluidic coupling with a complementary line connector (B), wherein the line connector (A) comprises a connecting body 10, 16, 20 wherein the connecting body 10, 16, 20 has a connecting section 20 for connecting to a pipe (such as the pipe at/with valve 26) or to an aggregate and a coupling section 10 for coupling with the complementary line connector (B),
wherein the coupling section 10 and the connecting section 20 are fluidically connected to each other via an internal channel (comprising chambers 15, 21, and ports 14) of the connecting body 10, 16, 20, wherein a section of the internal channel assigned to the coupling section 10 defines a central axis in a longitudinal direction of the complementary line connector (B) and also an axial direction and a radial direction and also a circumferential direction, wherein the coupling section 10 terminates in the axial direction in a coupling opening,
wherein a valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44 is arranged in the internal channel, wherein the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44 comprises a valve guide 37, an axially movable valve body 38, and a valve seat (comprising the surface(s) of the disk 28 that the valve head seats on, as disclosed in pg. 2, lines 33-36 and 44-48), wherein the valve guide 37 defines the movement direction of the valve body 38, wherein the line connector (A) is designed such that the valve body 38 rests in a fluid-tight manner on the valve seat in a closed state (Fig. 2) of the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44 and does not rest on the valve seat in an open state (Fig. 1) of the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44, wherein the valve seat has at least one flow aperture 29 (Figs. 3-4), wherein the valve body 38 has a sealing surface which rests in a fluid-tight manner on the valve seat or on the at least flow aperture in the closed state of the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44,
wherein the flow aperture 29, in cross section or in a front view deviates from a circular shape arranged concentrically with respect to the central axis (Figs. 3-4),
and/or
the valve guide 37 is mounted to slide axially in a guide receptacle of the valve seat (comprising the opening in the valve seat 30 that receives the valve guide 37),
and wherein, in the closed state of the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44 (Fig. 2), an edge of the at least one flow aperture 29 engages into the sealing surface in the axial direction (pg. 2, lines 33-36 and 44-48).
Regarding claim 2, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the valve seat has at least two flow apertures 29 (Figs. 3-4) each with complete peripheral edges (because each aperture 29 inherently has at least one edge/peripheral edge).
Regarding claim 3, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the at least one or only one flow aperture 29 deviates from the circular shape (because the at least one flow aperture 29 is arch shaped).
Regarding claim 4, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the at least one flow aperture 29 is elongated or arched in a cross section or in a front view.
Regarding claim 6, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that an axially outward end of the valve guide 37 projects past the valve seat or the guide receptacle (comprising the opening in the valve seat 30 that receives the valve guide 37) in an axially outward direction.
Regarding claim 7, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the valve seat is produced separately from the connecting body 10, 16, 20 and is fixed in the connecting body 10, 16, 20 or in a valve seat section of the connecting body, 10, 16, 20 (via fastener 27).
Regarding claim 8, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44 comprises a reset element 14, wherein the reset element 14 is arranged axially outward from the valve seat or from the guide receptacle (comprising the opening in the valve seat 30 that receives the valve guide 37).
Regarding claim 9, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the line connector (A) comprises a valve seat holder 27 for securing the valve seat in the connecting body 10, 16, 20.
Regarding claim 10, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the connecting body 10, 16, 20 is designed as one piece and is integrally formed (because it is comprised of rigidly attached pieces).
Regarding claim 11, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the valve body 38 does not contact the connecting body 10, 16, 20 in the open state of the valve and/or in the closed state of the valve (at least in the closed state of the valve, as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the line connector (A) is designed such that the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44 opens or closes depending on a connection of the line connector (A) with the complementary line connector (B).
Regarding claim 13, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the line connector (B) is a coupling socket or a coupling plug (wherein “coupling socket” and “coupling plug” are broadly interpreted as names of structures, and not necessarily further defining a structure or function, or because the line connector (B) acts as a socket in which the valve 37, 38 reciprocates or the conduit 20 is inserted).
Regarding claim 14, Gregg discloses in Figs. 1-6 a fluid line comprising at least one line connector (A) according to claim 1 and a pipe (comprising any of the pipes connected to the valves 26 connected to the connectors A, B).
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.
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 15 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrillo (US 2022/0018474) in view of Gregg.
Regarding claim 15, Carrillo discloses in Figs. 1-9 use of a line connector 12 in an electric vehicle (abstract), but lacks disclosing that the line connector is according to claim 1.
Gregg teaches in Figs. 1-6 a line connector according to claim 1, as discussed above in the anticipatory rejection of claim 1 in view of Gregg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the line connector disclosed by Carrillo to be like the line connector taught by Gregg (at least at the connection end 18 disclosed by Carrillo), so the valve taught by Gregg that automatically closes upon disconnection to a complementary line connector protects the check valve 10 disclosed by Carrillo, and the diaphragm thereof, from the external debris/fluids when the line connector isn’t connected to the complementary line connector.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 (alternatively: all; as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 2,915,325) in view of Gregg.
Regarding claim 1, Foster discloses in Figs. 1-4 a line connector 11 for fluidic coupling with a complementary line connector 12, wherein the line connector 11 comprises a connecting body (comprising the outer housing of the line connector 11) wherein the connecting body has a connecting section (with threads 17) for connecting to a pipe 13, 19 or to an aggregate and a coupling section (with the bore in which the complementary line connector 12 is fitted) for coupling with the complementary line connector 12,
wherein the coupling section and the connecting section are fluidically connected to each other via an internal channel (in which the valve 23 is disposed) of the connecting body, wherein a section of the internal channel assigned to the coupling section defines a central axis in a longitudinal direction of the complimentary line connector 12 and also an axial direction and a radial direction and also a circumferential direction, wherein the coupling section terminates in the axial direction in a coupling opening,
wherein a valve 20, 21, 23, 22, 24 is arranged in the internal channel, wherein the valve 20, 21, 23, 22, 24 comprises a valve guide 22, an axially movable valve body 23, 22, and a valve seat 20, 21 (with seating surface 25), wherein the valve guide 22 defines the movement direction of the valve body 23, 22, wherein the line connector 11 is designed such that the valve body 23, 22 rests in a fluid-tight manner on the valve seat 20, 21 in a closed state (Fig. 4) of the valve 20, 21, 23, 22, 24 and does not rest on the valve seat 20, 21 in an open state (Fig. 3) of the valve 20, 21, 23, 22, 24, wherein the valve seat 20, 21 has at least one flow aperture 28, wherein the valve body 23, 22 has a sealing surface which rests in a fluid-tight manner on the valve seat 20, 21 (Fig. 4) or on the at least flow aperture 28 in the closed state of the valve 20, 21, 23, 22, 24 (specifically, the valve body 23, 22 rests on the valve seat 20, 21),
wherein the flow aperture 28, in cross section or in a front view deviates from a circular shape arranged concentrically with respect to the central axis (inherently to form the plurality of apertures 28, disclosed in col. 2, lines 48-51, in the annular configuration around the valve spring housing 21),
and/or
the valve guide 22 is mounted to slide axially in a guide receptacle 21 of the valve seat 20, 21.
Foster lacks teaching that in the closed state of the valve 20, 21, 23, 22, 24 (Fig. 4), an edge of the at least one flow aperture 28 engages into the sealing surface int the axial direction.
Gregg teaches in Figs. 1-6 that in the closed state of the valve 30, 38, 37, 39, 44 (Fig. 2), an edge of the at least one flow aperture 29 engages into the sealing surface in the axial direction (pg. 2, lines 33-36 and 44-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve disclosed by Foster so that the core forming the flow apertures also contributes to the seating surface of the valve seat such that an edge of at least one flow aperture engages the sealing surface of the valve, as Foster teaches, so the seating surface has a greater surface area that provides greater distribution of stress on the seating surface and the valve such that the probability of damage is reduced.
Regarding claim 2, Foster discloses in Figs. 1-4 that the valve seat 20, 21 has at least two flow apertures 28 (col. 2, lines 48-51) each with complete peripheral edges (because each aperture 28 inherently has at least one edge/peripheral edge).
Regarding claims 3-4, Foster discloses in Figs. 1-4 a plurality of apertures 28, as previously discussed, but is silent with regard to their specific shape.
Gregg teaches in Figs. 1-6 a similar plurality of apertures 29, wherein the at least one or only one flow aperture 28 deviates from the circular shape, because the at least one flow aperture 29 is elongated or arched in a cross section or in a front view.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apertures disclosed by Foster deviate from the circular shape by being arc shaped, as Gregg teaches, because Foster is silent with regard to such detail and as an obvious modification of shape (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). Furthermore, the two arcs disclosed by Gregg are naturally produced when providing the two ribs to symmetrically support the guide receptacle in the middle of the apertures with minimum disruption in flow.
Regarding claim 6, Foster discloses in Figs. 1-4 that an axially outward end of the valve guide 22 projects past the valve seat 20, 21 or the guide receptacle 21 in an axially outward direction.
Regarding claim 8, Foster discloses in Figs. 1-4 that the valve 20, 21, 23, 22, 24 comprises a reset element 24, wherein the reset element 24 is arranged axially outward from the valve seat 20, 21 or from the guide receptacle 21.
Regarding claim 10, Foster discloses in Figs. 1-4 that the connecting body is designed as one piece and is integrally formed.
Regarding claim 12, Foster discloses in Figs. 1-4 that the line connector 11 is designed such that the valve 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 opens or closes depending on a connection of the line connector 11 with the complementary line connector 12.
Regarding claim 13, Foster discloses in Figs. 1-4 that the line connector 11 is a coupling socket (because it has an outer sleeve 30 in which the complementary line connector 12 is inserted) or a coupling plug (because the valve seat 20 is inserted into a socket 45 in the complementary line connector 12).
Regarding claim 14, Foster discloses in Figs. 1-4 a fluid line 11, 19, 13, 12, 37, 14 comprising at least one line connector 11 according to claim 1 and a pipe 13 (or pipe 14).
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 11, Foster discloses a valve seat as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the valve seat is produced separately from the connecting body and is fixed in the connecting body or in a valve seat section of the connecting body, the line connector comprises a valve seat holder for securing the valve seat in the connecting body, and wherein the valve body does not contact the connecting body in the open state of the valve and/or in the closed state of the valve.
Gregg teaches in Figs. 1-6 a similar valve seat 28, wherein the valve seat 28 is produced separately from the connecting body 10 and is fixed in the connecting body 10 or in a valve seat section of the connecting body 10. Regarding claim 9, the line connector (A) comprises a valve seat holder 27 for securing the valve seat 28 in the connecting body 10 (pg. 2, lines 8-16). Regarding claim 11, the valve body 38, 37 does not contact the connecting body 10 in the open state of the valve and/or in the closed state of the valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve seat (including the guide receptacle formed therewith) to be produced separately from the connecting body and fixed to the connecting body, as Gregg teaches, as an obvious separation of parts (MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). Furthermore, having the valve be separable allows more flexibility in the assembly process, and allows for more modularity so smaller parts can be repaired/replaced for cheaper costs compared to larger/integral parts.
Regarding claim 11, in modifying Foster in view of Gregg, to have the valve seat and guide receptacle be separate from the connector body, as discussed above, the valve body does not contact the connecting body in the open state of the valve and/or in the closed state of the valve.
Claim 15 (alternatively and as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrillo in view of Foster and Gregg.
Regarding claim 15, Carrillo discloses in Figs. 1-9 use of a line connector 12 in an electric vehicle (abstract), but lacks disclosing that the line connector is according to claim 1.
Foster teaches in Figs. 1-4, and in view of Gregg, a line connector according to claim 1, as discussed above in the obvious rejection of claim 1 in view of Foster and Gregg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the line connector disclosed by Carrillo to be like the line connector taught by Foster and Gregg (at least at the connection end 18 disclosed by Carrillo), so the valve taught by Foster that automatically closes upon disconnection to a complementary line connector protects the check valve 10 disclosed by Carrillo, and the diaphragm thereof, from the external debris/fluids when the line connector isn’t connected to the complementary line connector.
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 Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights