DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected and claims 5-6 and 12-14 are cancelled.
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 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 6 that the position base portion does not have a smaller thickness than the holder main body, the examiner respectfully disagrees as Barthel explicitly discloses this in 7:43-44 and it can be explicitly shown in fig. 4E that the thickness of positioning base portion 9 is less than the thickness of the main body (ex., see near 7). In other words, see annotated fig. 4F below where the positioning base portion 9 is behind element 16 and does not show a cross-section which means the main body 7 which is showing the cross section is thicker than the positioning base portion 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
623
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s remaining arguments (ex., width/thickness of the positioning base portion) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,677,699).
In regards to claim 1, Barthel discloses:
A holder (see fig. 1 hereinafter unless otherwise noted) configured to hold connection between a female connector (2) and a male connector (5, fig. 2a),
wherein the female connector is provided with:
a slit (15) in which the holder is mounted;
a fitting hole (3) including an opening portion that opens to an outer surface of the female connector,
the fitting hole passing through the slit (see fig. 1): and
a fluid flow path communicating with the fitting hole (see fig. 1), and
the male connector includes a projecting section (see 26 in fig. 4f) configured to be fitted into the fitting hole,
the holder comprising:
a holder main body having a U shape (see fig. 1) and including a pair of arm portions (8) elastically deformable in a direction in which the arm portions are separated from each other; and
a locking protrusion (17) provided on at least one of the pair of arm portions and configured to, in a state where the projecting section is fitted into the fitting hole, enter a locking groove formed on an outer periphery of the projecting section, thereby preventing the projecting section from coming out of the fitting hole (structurally, there is nothing preventing the inclined slits from engaging a groove),
wherein the locking protrusion includes a surface (see slightly above arrow 17 where there is an inclined surface) that is oriented toward the opening portion in a state where the holder is mounted in the slit (ex., see fig. 1), and
the surface is provided with an inclined surface (see near 17) inclined in a manner so that a thickness of the locking protrusion decreases inward in a width direction of the holder main body (see fig. 1),
the holder main body includes a coupling portion (7) configured to couple the pair of arm portions to each other,
a positioning base (9) portion protrudes from the coupling portion toward a space between the pair of arm portions,
the female connector includes a first positioning portion (see near 16; ex., see fig. 3a where element 16 has a recess), and
the positioning base portion includes a second positioning portion (12) at a position between the pair of arm portions,
the second positioning portion being engageable with the first positioning portion (ex., compare fig. 3b with fig. 3c),
one of the first positioning portion and the second positioning portion is a protrusion and the other of the first positioning portion and the second positioning portion is a recess (ex., see fig. 3c), and
said recess and said protrusion are configured to maintain an engagement of the second positioning portion with the first positioning portion (ex., see fig. 3c),
the holder main body includes a first surface (see annotated fig. 1 below) and a second surface opposite to the first surface in a thickness direction of the holder main body (see annotated fig. 1, where there is an opposite surface of the first surface),
the positioning base portion has a plate shape extending along a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction of the holder main body (ex., see annotated fig. 1, where the position base portion extends radially inward),
a thickness of the positioning base portion, along the thickness direction of the holder main body, being smaller than a thickness of the holder main body (see annotated fig 4E above, where the positioning base portion is not as thick as the main body because the cross-section material of the main body is shown, while the positioning base portion cross-section is not shown),
the positioning base portion includes one surface (see annotated fig. 1) flush with the first surface (see annotated fig. 1) and another surface entirely offset from the second surface (it is inherent the opposite surface is offset from second surface as shown in fig. 4E),
the second positioning portion is disposed on the surface of the positioning base portion (see annotated fig. 1),
but does not disclose:
the thickness of the positioning base portion is smaller than a width of the positioning base portion along the width direction of the holder main body.
In regards to the thickness being smaller than a width, while Barthel does not disclose the relative dimensions of the thickness with respect to the width of the positioning base portion, the relative dimensions of the positioning base portion may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and design parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the relative dimensions of the positioning base portion of Barthel to meet the limitation of claim 1, as the relative dimensions of the positioning base portion may be optimized to the desired operation parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would be been predictable because modifying the relative dimensions of a known base portion to meet the limitations of the claim would have been a obvious matter of design choice.
Furthermore, it is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality of thickness and the width of the positioning base portion. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the width and thickness of the positioning base portion as desired for the intended use.
PNG
media_image2.png
768
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Barthel further discloses:
The holder according to claim 1, wherein the locking protrusion is provided on each of the pair of arm portions (see fig. 1).
In regards to claim 3, Barthel further discloses:
The holder according to claim 1, wherein the locking protrusion extends in a direction in which the pair of arm portions extend (see fig. 1).
In regards to claim 4, Barthel further discloses:
The holder according to claim 1, wherein the locking protrusion is located at a distal end portion of at least one of the pair of arm portions (ex., see fig. 1).
In regards to claim 10, Barthel discloses:
A fluid pressure device set comprising:
a fluid pressure device (see fig. 1 hereinafter unless otherwise noted), comprising:
a female connector (2): and
a holder (6) configured to hold connection between the female connector and a male connector,
wherein the female connector is provided with:
a slit (15) in which the holder is mounted:
a fitting hole (3) including an opening portion that opens to an outer surface of the female connector (see fig. 1),
the fitting hole passing through the slit (see fig. 1); and
a fluid flow path communicating with the fitting hole (see fig. 1),
the male connector includes a projecting section (see fig. 4F) configured to be fitted into the fitting hole, and
the holder comprising:
a holder main body having a U shape (see fig. 1) and including a pair of arm portions (8) elastically deformable in a direction in which the arm portions are separated from each other; and
a locking protrusion (17) provided on at least one of the pair of arm portions and configured to, in a state where the projecting section is fitted into the fitting hole, enter a locking groove formed on an outer periphery of the projecting section, thereby preventing the projecting section from coming out of the fitting hole (structurally, there is nothing preventing the inclined slits from engaging a groove),
wherein the locking protrusion includes a surface (see slightly above arrow 17 where there is an inclined surface) that is oriented toward the opening portion in a state where the holder is mounted in the slit (ex., see fig. 1), and
the surface is provided with an inclined surface (see near 17) inclined in a manner so that a thickness of the locking protrusion decreases inward in a width direction of the holder main body (see fig. 1),
the holder main body includes a coupling portion (7) configured to couple the pair of arm portions to each other,
a positioning base (9) portion protrudes from the coupling portion toward a space between the pair of arm portions,
the female connector includes a first positioning portion (see near 16; ex., see fig. 3a where element 16 has a recess), and
the positioning base portion includes a second positioning portion (12) at a position between the pair of arm portions,
the second positioning portion being engageable with the first positioning portion (ex., compare fig. 3b with fig. 3c),
one of the first positioning portion and the second positioning portion is a protrusion and the other of the first positioning portion and the second positioning portion is a recess (ex., see fig. 3c), and
said recess and said protrusion are configured to maintain an engagement of the second positioning portion with the first positioning portion (ex., see fig. 3c),
the holder main body includes a first surface (see annotated fig. 1 below) and a second surface opposite to the first surface in a thickness direction of the holder main body (see annotated fig. 1, where there is an opposite surface of the first surface),
the positioning base portion has a plate shape extending along a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction of the holder main body (ex., see annotated fig. 1, where the position base portion extends radially inward),
a thickness of the positioning base portion, along the thickness direction of the holder main body, being smaller than a thickness of the holder main body (see annotated fig 4E above, where the positioning base portion is not as thick as the main body because the cross-section material of the main body is shown, while the positioning base portion cross-section is not shown),
the positioning base portion includes one surface (see annotated fig. 1) flush with the first surface (see annotated fig. 1) and another surface entirely offset from the second surface (it is inherent the opposite surface is offset from second surface as shown in fig. 4E),
the second positioning portion is disposed on the surface of the positioning base portion (see annotated fig. 1),
but does not disclose:
the thickness of the positioning base portion is smaller than a width of the positioning base portion along the width direction of the holder main body.
In regards to the thickness being smaller than a width, while Barthel does not disclose the relative dimensions of the thickness with respect to the width of the positioning base portion, the relative dimensions of the positioning base portion may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and design parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the relative dimensions of the positioning base portion of Barthel to meet the limitation of claim 1, as the relative dimensions of the positioning base portion may be optimized to the desired operation parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would be been predictable because modifying the relative dimensions of a known base portion to meet the limitations of the claim would have been a obvious matter of design choice.
Furthermore, it is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality of thickness and the width of the positioning base portion. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the width and thickness of the positioning base portion as desired for the intended use.
In regards to claim 11, Barthel discloses:
A fluid pressure device set comprising:
a fluid pressure device (see fig. 1 hereinafter unless otherwise noted), comprising:
a female connector (2): and
a holder (6) configured to hold connection between the female connector and a male connector,
wherein the female connector is provided with:
a slit (15) in which the holder is mounted:
a fitting hole (3) including an opening portion that opens to an outer surface of the female connector (see fig. 1),
the fitting hole passing through the slit (see fig. 1); and
a fluid flow path communicating with the fitting hole (see fig. 1),
the male connector includes a projecting section (see fig. 4F) configured to be fitted into the fitting hole, and
the holder comprising:
a holder main body having a U shape (see fig. 1) and including a pair of arm portions (8) elastically deformable in a direction in which the arm portions are separated from each other; and
a locking protrusion (17) provided on at least one of the pair of arm portions and configured to, in a state where the projecting section is fitted into the fitting hole, enter a locking groove formed on an outer periphery of the projecting section, thereby preventing the projecting section from coming out of the fitting hole (structurally, there is nothing preventing the inclined slits from engaging a groove),
wherein the locking protrusion includes a surface (see slightly above arrow 17 where there is an inclined surface) that is oriented toward the opening portion in a state where the holder is mounted in the slit (ex., see fig. 1), and
the surface is provided with an inclined surface (see near 17) inclined in a manner so that a thickness of the locking protrusion decreases inward in a width direction of the holder main body (see fig. 1),
the holder main body includes a coupling portion (7) configured to couple the pair of arm portions to each other,
a positioning base (9) portion protrudes from the coupling portion toward a space between the pair of arm portions,
the female connector includes a first positioning portion (see near 16; ex., see fig. 3a where element 16 has a recess), and
the positioning base portion includes a second positioning portion (12) at a position between the pair of arm portions,
the second positioning portion being engageable with the first positioning portion (ex., compare fig. 3b with fig. 3c),
one of the first positioning portion and the second positioning portion is a protrusion and the other of the first positioning portion and the second positioning portion is a recess (ex., see fig. 3c), and
said recess and said protrusion are configured to maintain an engagement of the second positioning portion with the first positioning portion (ex., see fig. 3c),
the holder main body includes a first surface (see annotated fig. 1 below) and a second surface opposite to the first surface in a thickness direction of the holder main body (see annotated fig. 1, where there is an opposite surface of the first surface),
the positioning base portion has a plate shape extending along a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction of the holder main body (ex., see annotated fig. 1, where the position base portion extends radially inward),
a thickness of the positioning base portion, along the thickness direction of the holder main body, being smaller than a thickness of the holder main body (see annotated fig 4E above, where the positioning base portion is not as thick as the main body because the cross-section material of the main body is shown, while the positioning base portion cross-section is not shown),
the positioning base portion includes one surface (see annotated fig. 1) flush with the first surface (see annotated fig. 1) and another surface entirely offset from the second surface (it is inherent the opposite surface is offset from second surface as shown in fig. 4E),
the second positioning portion is disposed on the surface of the positioning base portion (see annotated fig. 1),
a connection member (ex., the remaining portion of male member in fig. 2a) including the male connector to be connected to the female connector.
but does not disclose:
the thickness of the positioning base portion is smaller than a width of the positioning base portion along the width direction of the holder main body.
In regards to the thickness being smaller than a width, while Barthel does not disclose the relative dimensions of the thickness with respect to the width of the positioning base portion, the relative dimensions of the positioning base portion may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and design parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the relative dimensions of the positioning base portion of Barthel to meet the limitation of claim 1, as the relative dimensions of the positioning base portion may be optimized to the desired operation parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would be been predictable because modifying the relative dimensions of a known base portion to meet the limitations of the claim would have been a obvious matter of design choice.
Furthermore, it is noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality of thickness and the width of the positioning base portion. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the width and thickness of the positioning base portion as desired for the intended use.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthel as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Saunus et al. (EP-3734135).
In regards to claim 7, Barthel discloses:
The holder according to claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the holder main body is provided with an operation portion configured to be held by fingers of a user.
In regards to the operation portion, Saunus discloses a similar holder device (ex., see fig. 5b) comprising an operation portion (35; ex., a handle) to allow easy handling of the holder during engagement of the holder into a slot (0099:22-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the coupling portion of Barthel with the provision of the handle to provide the benefit of easy handling of a holder, as taught by Saunus (0099:22-26).
In regards to claim 8, Barthel in view of Saunus further discloses:
The holder according to claim 7, wherein operation portion is located on an opposite side of the coupling portion from the pair of arm portions, and
extends in the width direction of the holder main body (ex., see fig. 5b of Saunus).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthel in view of Saunus as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,168,822).
In regards to claim 9, Barthel in view of Saunus discloses:
The holder according to claim 8,
but does not disclose:
wherein the holder main body is provided in plurality,
the plurality of holder main bodies being provided to be spaced apart from each other in a direction in which the operation portion extends, and
the locking protrusion is provided on each of the plurality of holder main bodies.
In regards to a plurality holders, Lee discloses a similar device (see fig. 7) comprising a holder (170) comprising a plurality of holder main bodies (173) to couple a plurality of hoses (see fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the holder of Barthel in view of Saunus to comprise a plurality of holder bodies such that the holder bodies are spaced apart from each other in a direction in which the operation portion extends to allow multiple hoses to be connected by one holder because Lee discloses that holders are known to comprising holder bodies spaced apart from each other in a direction in which the operation portion extends (see fig. 15) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, modifying the holder of Barthel in view of Saunus to comprise a plurality of holder bodies spaced apart from each other in a direction in which the operation portion extends, which is a known configuration as disclosed by Lee, would not produce any new and unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Klein et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0242510) discloses the second best reference comprising a u-shaped connector (see fig. 14) comprising a flexible hook (57) that engages a hole (144, fig. 13g).
Handt et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,377,375) discloses a very similar U-shaped connector (58, fig. 9) comprising a flush flexible hook (66, fig. 9) engaging with hemispherical hole (74, fig. 8) to hold the u-shaped connector (see figs. 8-10).
Corbett et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,937,705) discloses a similar locking mechanism comprising a flexible hook (86, fig. 2) engaging a window (96, fig. 2) to hold the locking mechanism unless a tool is inserted into the window (see fig. 3).
Thillet et al. (U.S. Patent no. 11,598,461) discloses a very similar device comprising a u-shaped connector (60, fig. 9) comprising a protrusion (70, fig. 9) that engages with a window (50, fig. 4).
Zbiral et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,680,670) discloses a similar device comprising a hook (86, fig. 16) to engage a window to hold the u-shaped connector.
Benoit et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,430,365) discloses a similar device comprising a flexible hook (72, fig. 2) to engage a window to hold the u-shaped connector.
Gabbey et al. (U.S. PGPUb No. 2022/0299143) discloses a very similar device to Barthel comprising different embodiments of the locking arm (ex., compare fig. 8 with fig. 13, where the locking arm can be interchanged).
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 ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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 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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights