DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Myers et al. (USP 4,655,482 hereinafter "Myers").
In regards to claim 1, Myers discloses a fastener assembly comprising:
a tube fitting (20) defining a longitudinal axis;
a lock assembly (42) releasably coupled to the tube fitting and including teeth (56); and
a conduit nut (44) defining an inner cavity (central bore) sized and shaped to receive a
portion of the tube fitting therein (shown in fig. 4), the conduit nut comprising a circumferential
wall extending about a periphery of the conduit nut and notches (62) wherein the lock assembly
is positionable between a locked position in which the teeth are engaged with the notches and an
unlocked position in which the teeth are spaced from the notches, the tube fitting is fixed against
rotation within the inner cavity when the lock assembly is in the locked position, and the tube
fitting is rotatable within the inner cavity when the lock assembly is in the unlocked position (see
column 2, line 59 - column 3, line 23).
In regards to claim 2, Myers further discloses the lock assembly comprises a lock
member (at "54") and a sleeve (at "42"), wherein at least one of the lock member or the sleeve
comprises the teeth, and wherein the sleeve is displaced axially or rotated to switch the lock
assembly between the locked position and the unlocked position (shown in figs. 3a-3d).
In regards to claims 6 and 12, Myers further discloses at least one of the lock member
or the sleeve is configured to engage the tube fitting and to fix rotation of the lock assembly
relative to the tube fitting when the lock assembly is in the locked position (see column 2, line 59
- column 3, line 23).
In regards to claim 8, Myers further discloses in the unlocked position, the teeth are
displaced radially inward of the circumferential wall (shown in fig. 3) and the teeth are
disengaged from the notches such that the conduit nut is rotatable relative to the tube fitting (see
column 2, line 59 - column 3, line 23]).
In regards to claims 9 and 15, Myers further disclose g a bias component (46)
positioned to bias a lock assembly (56, 62) toward a locked position (see column 3 ,lines 31-35).
In regards to claim 10, Myers discloses a lock assembly (42) for a tube fitting defining a
longitudinal axis, the lock assembly comprising:
a lock member (at "54");
a sleeve (at"42"), wherein at least one of the lock member or the sleeve comprises teeth
(56); and
a conduit nut (44) defining an inner cavity (central bore) sized and shaped to receive a
portion of the tube fitting (shown in fig. 4) therein, the conduit nut including notches (62),
wherein the lock assembly is positionable between a locked position in which the teeth are
engaged with the notches and an unlocked position in which the teeth are spaced from the
notches, the tube fitting is fixed against rotation within the inner cavity when the lock assembly
is in the locked position, and the tube fitting is rotatable within the inner cavity when the lock
assembly is in the unlocked position (see column 2, line 59 - column 3, line 23).
In regards to claim 11, Myers further discloses the sleeve is displaced axially or rotated
to switch the lock assembly between the locked position and the unlocked position
(see column 2, line 59 - column 3, line 23).
In regards to claim 14, Myers further discloses the teeth extend from an end of the
sleeve, and wherein the teeth are spaced axially from the notches when the lock assembly is in
the unlocked position (see column 2, line 59 - column 3, line 23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-5, 7, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ratchet teeth of Myers do not fix the sleeve against rotation. The examiner disagrees. It is noted that claim 1 requires only that “the tube fitting is fixed against rotation within the inner cavity when the lock assembly is in the locked position”. Column 2, lines 59-66 clearly states that in the locked position, the ratchet teeth “prevent the rotation in an opposite direction” of the nut 26 (and thus the tube fitting 20). Thus, since the fitting is preventing from rotating in one direction, it is “fixed against rotation” as required by the claim. In other words, the claim does not require rotation in both directions to be prevented, and the limitation has been met.
Applicant argues that Myers does not disclose that a cavity of the conduit 44 is shaped to receive any portion of the tube fitting therein as required by claim 1. The examiner disagrees. It is first noted that “sized and shaped to receive” is a functional limitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, since the sleeve 44 has a greater diameter than the tube fitting 20, it is capable of performing the required function and the limitation has been met.
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 ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D. Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679 06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights