DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 05/04/2026, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden in searching and examining of all Claims 1-20. This is not found persuasive because the subcombination of Claim 1, directed towards a system comprising a housing and including a turn fitting and a receiver, does not require the limitations of the subcombination of Claim 18, directed towards a filter assembly comprising a filter, two gaskets adjacent to the filter and a sleeve including a guide insertion. Similarly, the subcombination of Claim 18, nor its depending claims, does not require the limitations of the subcombination of Claim 1. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as in a subcombination not requiring the filter and gasket of subcombination II. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 § 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)(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 1-2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent JPH0647857U (‘Yamamoto’). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Yamamoto discloses a system comprising:
a housing attachable to a column ([0002]) and including a turn fitting (Fig. 1, [0006], fitting 4A) and a receiver (Fig. 1, [0006], case 1B),
wherein the turn fitting is movable relative to the receiver and along an axis of the housing between a neutral state and an attached state (Fig. 1, [0006], fittings 4A and 4B approach each other in the axial direction),
wherein, in the neutral state, the turn fitting is disposed at a first axial location along the axis of the housing (Fig. 1, [0006]), and
wherein, in the attached state, the turn fitting is disposed at a second axial location along the axis of the housing (Fig. 1, [0006]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: the turn fitting comprises an engagement member (Fig. 1, [0006], threaded cylindrical portion 6A of case 1A) that is:
partially exposed or fully covered in the neutral state (Fig. 1, [0006], screwed together); and
fully exposed in the attached state (Fig. 1, [0006], prior to screwing together).
Regarding Claims 10-12, Yamamoto discloses a system comprising:
a housing attachable to a column ([0002]) and including a turn fitting (Fig. 1, [0006], fitting 4A) and a receiver (Fig. 1, [0006], case 1B),
wherein the turn fitting is movable relative to the receiver and along an axis (Fig. 1, [0006], fittings 4A and 4B approach each other in the axial direction) of the housing between a neutral state to prevent grasping ([0006], after screwing together) of the turn fitting and the receiver by a tool ([0007], can be rotated with a tool, such as a wrench or rod-shaped tool), and an attached state to permit grasping ([0006], prior to screwing together) of the turn fitting and the receiver by the tool.
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 11: in the neutral state, the turn fitting is disposed at a first axial location ([0006], by screwing together, approach each other in the axial direction) along the axis of the housing; and
in the attached state, the turn fitting is disposed at a second axial location ([0006], prior to screwing together) along the axis of the housing.
Claim 12: the turn fitting comprises an engagement member (Fig. 1, [0006], threaded cylindrical portion 6A of case 1A) that is:
partially exposed or fully covered in the neutral state (Fig. 1, [0006], screwed together); and
fully exposed in the attached state (Fig. 1, [0006], prior to screwing together).
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.
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JPH0647857U (‘Yamamoto’) in view of Japanese Patent JP6099800B1 (‘Inoue’). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 3-4 and 13-14, Yamamoto discloses the system of Claim 2, except that in the neutral state, the engagement member is partially disposed adjacent to at least one extender of the receiver; and in the attached state, the engagement member is fully disposed adjacent to the at least one extender of the receiver, and that
in the neutral state, the engagement member is partially disposed adjacent to two opposite facing extenders of the receiver; and in the attached state, the engagement member is fully disposed adjacent to the two opposite facing extenders of the receiver.
Inoue also relates to a system ([0005]), including that in the neutral state, the engagement member (Fig. 2, [0027], locking means 100) is partially disposed adjacent to at least one extender (Fig. 16, [0026-0027], projections 81) of the receiver; and in the attached state, the engagement member is fully disposed adjacent to the at least one extender of the receiver (Fig. 3B, [0027], prior to locking), and that
in the neutral state, the engagement member is partially disposed adjacent to two opposite facing extenders (Fig. 16, [0026]) of the receiver; and in the attached state, the engagement member is fully disposed adjacent to the two opposite facing extenders of the receiver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the engagement member of Yamamoto to be partially disposed adjacent to at least one extender of the receiver in the neutral state, as demonstrated by Inoue, to maintain a clamping state (Inoue, [0028]).
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 15-16, Yamamoto discloses the system of Claim 1, except that the receiver comprises at least two internal nesting members to support movement of the turn fitting relative to the receiver, and that the receiver includes a hexagonal internal configuration formed by six internal nesting members to support movement of the turn fitting relative to the receiver.
Inoue also relates to a system ([0005]), including that the receiver (Fig. 2, [0050], holding ring 3) comprises at least two internal nesting members (Fig. 2, [0050], multiple arc-shaped inner protrusions 30) to support movement of the turn fitting relative to the receiver ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the receiver of Yamamoto to comprise at least two internal nesting members, as demonstrated by Inoue, so that a clamping state can be reliably maintained (Inoue, [0028]) and the operators can perform the switching (rotation) operation lightly and quickly (Inoue, [0050]). It would have been obvious to choose a number of internal nesting members to engage locking by small radial rotation (Inoue, [0050]. See Inoue, Fig. 18, arrow M). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JPH0647857U (‘Yamamoto’) in view of U.S. Publication US20040070197A1 (‘Densel’). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Yamamoto discloses the system of Claim 1, except for a spring to bias the turn fitting relative to the receiver.
Densel also relates to a system (abstract), including a spring (Fig. 3, [0041], locking member 190. [0051], locking member has spring force) to bias the turn fitting (Fig. 3, [0041], first member 122) relative to the receiver (Fig. 3, [0041], second member 124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system of Yamamoto to include a spring, as demonstrated by Densel, to allow tight engagement to the turn fitting when connected to the receiver (Densel, [0037]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JPH0647857U (‘Yamamoto’) in view of U.S. Patent US6361687B1 (‘Ford’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 8-9, Yamamoto discloses the system of Claim 1, except for a capillary lock engaged with a notch in a capillary to retain a weldment including the capillary.
Ford also relates to a system (abstract), including a capillary lock (Fig. 4, C8/45-50, sealing element 50), engaged with a notch in a capillary (Fig. 4, C9/5-12, sealing recess 122) to retain a weldment including the capillary (Fig. 4, C9/L2-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system of Yamamoto to include a capillary lock, as demonstrated by Ford, because both Yamamoto and Ford are concerned with attachments to chromatography columns (Yamamoto, [0001] and Ford, C1/L11-15).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 9: the capillary lock is ring-shaped (Ford, Fig. 4 and C7/L42-45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
