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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as anticipated by Swane (US 6,880,593) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Swane in view of Hubbard (US 4,185,844).
Regarding claim 1, Swane discloses: an apparatus for removable mounting of a hose into an air-conditioning duct extending through a wall between an indoor space and an outdoor space to allow fluid communication therebetween via the hose, the hose being corrugated along its length to allow threadable engagement (preamble given limited patentable weight because it’s not necessary to understand the body of the claim), the apparatus comprising:
a unitary body, including
a tube (56) that is threadably engageable with the hose (via threads 52) and adapted for insertion into the duct so as to cause sealing engagement of the tube with the duct (56 is is so capable),
a flange (20, 30 which are secured together) disposed at an end of the tube for abutting the wall around the duct upon the tube being fully inserted into the duct (20 is so capable) ;
a plug (36) adapted to threadably engage with the tube in place of threadable engagement of the hose with the tube so as to allow sealing of the plug against the body to sealingly close the tube when the hose is displaced out of the tube (“threads 52, which accept mating threads on the cap 36”); and
a cap (38) pivotably attached to the flange to allow the cap to be rotated towards the flange to cover the tube (via the disclosed “hinges”).
Alternatively, should it be determined that Swane’s body is not unitary, see Hubbard, which teaches that it was known to form such a body (i.e., a tube 32 and flange 46) which are unitary. To simplify assembly, it would have been obvious to use a unitary body (i.e., a unitary tube and flange) in Swane’s device.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard (US 4,185,844) in view of Swane (US 6,880,593).
Regarding claim 1, Hubbard discloses: an apparatus for removable mounting of a hose into an air-conditioning duct extending through a wall between an indoor space and an outdoor space to allow fluid communication therebetween via the hose, the hose being corrugated along its length to allow threadable engagement (preamble given limited patentable weight because it’s not necessary to understand the body of the claim), the apparatus comprising:
a unitary body, including
a tube (32) that is threadably engageable with the hose (just as it threadably engages threaded cap 18) and adapted for insertion into the duct so as to cause sealing engagement of the tube with the duct (32 is so capable),
a flange (46) disposed at an end of the tube for abutting the wall around the duct upon the tube being fully inserted into the duct (46 is so capable) ;
a plug (18) adapted to threadably engage with the tube in place of threadable engagement of the hose with the tube so as to allow sealing of the plug against the body to sealingly close the tube when the hose is displaced out of the tube (“a threaded cap 18 closes the exterior end of the filleter tube assembly 14”); and
Hubbard does not disclose a cap pivotably attached to the flange to allow the cap to be rotated towards the flange to cover the tube. Swane teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use a cap (38) pivotally attached to a similar flange (30) to allow the cap to be rotated towards the flange to cover a similar tube (see FIGS 1, 2). To protect Hubbard’s plug and tube, it would have been obvious to use a cap that is pivotably mounted to the flange, as claimed by Applicant and disclosed by Swane.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swane, or Swane in view of Hubbard, or Hubbard in view of Swane (as alternatively set forth above regarding claim 1), and further in view of either Glesser (US 5,580,019) or Marshell (US 4,653,711).
Regarding claim 2, Swane and/or Hubbard fail to disclose wherein the cap defines a plurality of tabs extending from a face of the cap and being positioned relative to each other to frictionally engage with opposite sides of the plug to allow clamping of the plug onto the cap when the plug is displaced out of the tube. Each of Glesser and Marshell independently teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use a cap that defines a plurality of tabs (e.g., see Glesser at FIGS 5, 6; Marshell at elements 36, 38)) extending from a face of a similar cap and being positioned relative to each other to frictionally engage with opposite sides of a similar plug to allow clamping of the plug onto the cap when the plug is displaced out of a similar tube (as in FIG 3). To hold the plug of Swane or Hubbard, it would have been obvious to use a plurality of tabs extending from the face of the cap, as claimed by Applicant and taught by either of Glesser or Marshell.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Swane disclsoes wherein the face is an inner face of the cap, and a rim of the cap extends between the face of the cap and the tube so as to space the plurality of tabs axially away from the tube when the cap is rotated onto the flange (see the rim around the perimeter of cap 38, in FIG 1 of Swane).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose apertures as claimed, however the use of apertures was notoriously well-known in the art before the effective filing date (official notice), and it would have been obvious to use apertures on the flange of the cited prior art for fastening the flange to a wall of the automobile body.
Regarding claim 10, Swane and/or Hubbard discloses taht the plug includes an insulator extending axially at least partially across the plug (i.e., the material that forms the plug inherently has some insulate properties) to mitigate thermal loss across the duct in response to the plug being received in the tube (it is so capable).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 are allowed.
Claims 5, 6, 8 and 9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,422,458 discloses a flex duct connection system including a unitary body for mounting in a duct, but which system does not include a plug and cap as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
12/1/25