DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12 and 13 are pending. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 13 and the cancelation of claims 5 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12 and 13 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/27/25. These drawings are not acceptable to Examiner. See the drawing objections set forth below.
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 13 – the second clip is not shown as described in paragraph 34 of the specification.
Figure 13 – the multiple o-rings look like a singular o-ring at 608.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 34 – the second clip is not shown in Figure 13 as described in paragraph 34 of the specification.
Correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 5 and 7 – add --at least one-- between “the” and “o-ring”.
Correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is not clear what changes were made to claim 6 which has a claim status identifier “(Currently amended)”. It does not appear that any changes were made to claim 6.
Correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 7 and 8 - add --at least one-- between “the” and “o-ring”.
Line 8 – add a comma before “the spigot indentation”.
Correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 – add --two-- before “o-rings”.
Correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crompton et al U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0138738 A1.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figures 7-8, Crompton et al disclose a connector assembly comprising:
a first tube (at 10);
a bellows tube (at 50), the bellows tube having a cup (see below) at a distal end of the bellows tube;
at least one o-ring (at 42), the o-ring disposed around an outer circumference of the first tube, the first tube having an indentation (see below) around said outer circumference of the first tube, the indentation configured to hold the o-ring in place; and
the cup positioned over the first tube and the at least one o-ring wherein the at least one o-ring seals and/or locks the bellows tube to the first tube (as shown in Fig 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, and as shown in Figures 7-8, Crompton et al disclose wherein two o-rings (at 42, 42) are provided to lock and/or seal the connector assembly.
With regard to claim 6, and as shown in Figures 7-8, Crompton et al disclose wherein a plurality of o-rings (at 42, 42) are provided to lock and/or seal the connector assembly.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0052314 A1.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figures 1 and 3, Ishida et al disclose a connector assembly comprising:
a first tube (20);
a bellows tube (at 30 – paragraph 45, lines 1-4 and 16-21), the bellows tube having a cup (see below) at a distal end of the bellows tube;
at least one o-ring (at 50), the o-ring disposed around an outer circumference of the first tube (at 20), the first tube having an indentation (see below) around said outer circumference of the first tube, the indentation configured to hold the o-ring in place; and
the cup positioned over the first tube and the at least one o-ring wherein the at least one o-ring seals and/or locks the bellows tube to the first tube (as shown in Fig 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
456
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, and as shown in Figure 3, Ishida et al disclose wherein a heat shield (at 40) is positioned around the first tube (at 20) and adjacent to the at least one o-ring (at 50).
With regard to claim 3, and as shown in Figure 3, Ishida et al disclose wherein a spacer (at 40) is provided around the first tube (at 20) and adjacent to the at least one o-ring (at 50).
With regard to claim 7, and as shown in Figures 1 and 3, Ishida et al disclose a connector assembly comprising:
a spigot (at 20), the spigot having a spigot indentation (see above) around an outer circumference of the spigot;
a bellows tube (at 30 – paragraph 45, lines 1-4 and 16-21), the bellows tube having a cup (see above) at a distal end of the bellows tube, the cup having a cup indentation (see above) on an inner surface of the cup, the cup indentation extending around an inner circumference of the cup (as shown in Fig 3);
at least one o-ring (at 50), the o-ring disposed around the outer circumference of the spigot the spigot indentation and the cup indentation configured to hold the o-ring in place (as shown in Fig 3); and
the cup positioned over the spigot and the at least one o-ring wherein the at least one o-ring seals and/or locks the bellows tube to the spigot (as shown in Fig 3).
With regard to claim 8, and as shown in Figure 3, Ishida et al disclose wherein a heat shield (at 40) is positioned around the spigot (at 20) and adjacent to the at least one o-ring (at 50).
With regard to claim 9, and as shown in Figure 3, Ishida et al disclose wherein a spacer (at 40) is provided around the spigot (at 20) and adjacent to the at least one o-ring (at 50).
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao Chinese Patent No. CN 114754204A.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 3, Liao discloses a connector assembly comprising:
a first tube (at 1);
a bellows tube (at 2), the bellows tube having a cup (see below) at a distal end of the bellows tube;
at least one o-ring (at 4), the o-ring disposed around an outer circumference of the first tube, the first tube having an indentation (see below) around said outer circumference of the first tube, the indentation configured to hold the o-ring in place; and
the cup positioned over the first tube and the at least one o-ring wherein the at least one o-ring seals and/or locks the bellows tube to the first tube (as shown in Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
360
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 7, and as shown in Figure 3, Liao discloses a connector assembly comprising:
a spigot (at 1), the spigot having a spigot indentation (see above) around an outer circumference of the spigot;
a bellows tube (at 2), the bellows tube having a cup (see above) at a distal end of the bellows tube, the cup having a cup indentation (see above) on an inner surface of the cup, the cup indentation extending around an inner circumference of the cup;
at least one o-ring (at 4), the o-ring disposed around the outer circumference of the spigot the spigot indentation and the cup indentation configured to hold the o-ring in place; and
the cup positioned over the spigot and the at least one o-ring wherein the at least one o-ring seals and/or locks the bellows tube to the spigot (as shown in Fig 3).
With regard to claim 13, and as shown in Figure 3, Liao discloses wherein a retaining clip (at 3) is provided around the connector assembly.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al.
With regard to claim 4, Ishida et al disclose the claimed invention but do not disclose that two o-rings are provided to lock and/or seal the connector assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided two o-rings with a reasonable expectation of success to have a backup in the event of a seal failure, to provide additional sealing security and because duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With regard to claim 6, Ishida et al disclose the claimed invention but do not disclose that a plurality of o-rings are provided to lock and/or seal the connector assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plurality of o-rings with a reasonable expectation of success to have a backup in the event of a seal failure, to provide additional sealing security and because duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With regard to claim 10, Ishida et al disclose the claimed invention but do not disclose that o-rings are provided to lock and/or seal the connector assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided two o-rings with a reasonable expectation of success to have a backup in the event of a seal failure, to provide additional sealing security and because duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With regard to claim 12, Ishida et al disclose the claimed invention but do not disclose that a plurality of o-rings are provided to lock and/or seal the connector assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plurality of o-rings with a reasonable expectation of success to have a backup in the event of a seal failure, to provide additional sealing security and because duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied are examples of connector assemblies with generally a first tube, a bellows tube and at least one o-ring.
Applicant's amendment of at least claim 1 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 FANNIE KEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1820. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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.
/F.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679