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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 15-22 are currently pending.
Claims 4, 5, and 17-22 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 6 and 14 and are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “retention feature” and “mating feature” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 in the second to the last line recites “buttom”. It appears that “buttom” should be --bottom--. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant’s amendment to the claim(s) has made moot the previous claim objection(s).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 1 recites “continuous common plane”, “bottom surface”, and “lower surface”; and these terms are not found in the specification.
The recitation(s) “continuous common plane”, “bottom surface”, “buttom surface” and “lower surface” is/are not identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing in accordance with MPEP § 608.01 (o). These recitation in claim(s) must also be addressed accordingly.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block have a continuous common plane” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The above recitation implies that the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block are both common and continuous along a plane, where the plane too is continuous (i.e. infinite). How is the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block infinite and common? How are the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block continuous? Is there not a gap between the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block along the common plane?
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block have a continuous common plane”.
The above recitation implies that the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block are both common and continuous along a plane, where the plane too is continuous (i.e. infinite). How is the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block infinite? How are the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block continuous?
Is applicant attempting to claim that the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block are both common and continuous along the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface in a shared plane or merely that the surfaces share a common plane long said surfaces.
The claims have been rejected as best understood.
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)(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) 1-3, 7-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gunderson (US 2008/0224467).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. 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).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Clm 1: Gunderson discloses a connection arrangement device (see Figs. 1-11 and above) for making a secure connection with at least one tube in a fluid line, the connection arrangement device comprising:
at least one adapter body (212, 216, and 217) having a passage bore (1001) forming a fluid channel (see Fig. 1) with at least two outlets including a first outlet (2001) and a second outlet (2002), the adapter body including a retention feature (280 and 284) formed outside the adapter body (see Fig. 1); and
a mating block (214) having an upper surface (3001), a lower (lower has been defined as relatively low in position) surface (3002) and at least one channel (the central passage of 214 that extends between 3001 and 3002) extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (see above) to receive the adapter body (see Figs. 1 and 2), the mating block including a mating feature (242 and 238) formed in the channel (see Figs. 1 and 2); wherein the retention feature of the adapter body is configured to interact with the mating feature of the mating block when the adapter body is coupled to the channel of the mating block such that the adapter body is securely retained within the channel of the mating block (see Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the at least one adapter body (212, 216, and 217) includes a bottom surface (4001 and not 6001 or 6002, note that bottom has been defined as the lower side or the portion that faces downwards or the part on which something rests, or the part closest to a reference point; and such does not require it to be the absolute or lowest limit of the structure) opposite from the second outlet (2002) and flushed (flush being defined as directly abutting or immediately adjacent) with the lower surface (3002) of the mating block (see above) when coupled to the mating block (see above) such that the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block have a continuous common plane (over the surfaces that mate (or are in common) at the end of lead line 4001, see above).
Re Clm 2: Gunderson discloses wherein the retention feature of the adapter body is formed with a beam (the beam is the structure that 280 is attached to) having a fixed end (the end attached to 265) attached to the adapter body (see Figs. 1 and 2) and a free end (the end opposite 265) extending from the fixed end (see Figs. 1 and 2) with an angle (see the titled surface of 280 and 284) from a flow direction of the second outlet such that the beam is engaged with the mating feature when the adapter body is retained within the channel of the mating block.
Re Clm 3: Gunderson discloses wherein the mating feature of the mating block is formed as a groove (the groove at 242) on an inner surface of the channel to receive the beam of the adapter body such that the adapter body is securely retained within the channel of the mating block (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Re Clm 7: Gunderson discloses wherein the second outlet (2002) of the adapter body includes a first end (the end that contains 222) and a second end (the end containing 215) extending from the first end along a second flow direction of the second outlet, and further includes an adapter bead (222) formed around the first end of the second outlet.
Re Clm 8: Gunderson discloses wherein the channel of the mating block includes a stepped annular surface (233, 243, and 237) being faced perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the channel (see Fig. 1) and having a larger diameter than the channel to receive and support the adapter bead of the adapter body when the adapter body is coupled to the channel of the mating block (see Fig. 2).
Re Clm 9: Gunderson discloses wherein the adapter body further includes at least one circular bead (215) radially formed around the adapter body such that the at least one circular bead is spaced apart from the adapter bead (see Figs. 1 and 2) along a second the flow direction of the second outlet (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Re Clm 10: Gunderson discloses wherein the adapter body further includes at least one rib (at 217) formed and connected between the adapter bead and the circular bead to prevent creep of the adapter body (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Re Clm 11: Gunderson discloses wherein the channel of the mating block further includes a side opening (the lateral opening that forms the larger diameter portion of 254) formed on a lateral wall (see Figs. 1 and 2) of the channel to receive a first outlet (the end of 212 within 248) of the adapter body when the adapter body is coupled to the channel of the mating block (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Re Clm 12: Gunderson discloses wherein a seal washer (218) is engaged by an interference-fit with a second outlet of the adapter body (the end of 212 within 248) and configured for sealing in the fluid line when the second outlet is connected with one of the tubes (the second outlet and the seal can be arranged to seal a fluid line when the second outlet is connected with one of the tubes, and not that the tubes are not positively recited elements of the claim).
Re Clm 15: Gunderson discloses wherein the adapter body is made from a plastic material (see [0080]).
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima et al. (US 5556138), (hereinafter, Nakajima).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. 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).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Re Clm 1: Nakajima discloses a connection arrangement device (see Figs. 1-4 for making a secure connection with at least one tube in a fluid line, the connection arrangement device comprising:
at least one adapter body (15) having a passage bore (the passage through 15) forming a fluid channel (see Fig. 3, the channel defined by 15) with at least two outlets including a first outlet (the outlet to the right of 16a, see Fig. 3) and a second outlet (the outlet to the left of 16a, see Fig. 3), the adapter body including a retention feature (18) formed outside the adapter body (see Fig. 3, the feature is external); and
a mating block (30 and 14b) having an upper surface (the surface opposite the surface that abuts 20), a lower surface (the surface adjacent 20) and at least one channel extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (see the bore) to receive the adapter body (see Fig. 3), the mating block including a mating feature (the surface of 14b) formed in the channel (see Fig. 3); wherein the retention feature of the adapter body is configured to interact with the mating feature of the mating block when the adapter body is coupled to the channel of the mating block such that the adapter body is securely retained within the channel of the mating block (see Fig. 3),
wherein the at least one adapter body includes a bottom surface (the straight surface of 16a facing 30) opposite from the second outlet and flushed (flush being defined as directly abutting or immediately adjacent) with the lower surface of the mating block (see Fig. 3) when coupled to the mating block (see Fig. 3) such that the bottom surface (the surface of 16a facing 30) of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface (the surface adjacent 20) of the mating block have a continuous common plane (a plane that passes through the bottom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block)..
Re Clm 13: Gunderson discloses wherein the mating block further includes at least one through hole (39) for receiving a fastening element (35) to fix the mating block to the fluid line system (see Fig. 3).
Re Clm 16: Gunderson discloses wherein the mating block is formed of a metallic (Col.5, lns. 1-5) or polymer material (Col.5, lns. 1-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 6 in line 18 through the end of page 7, that each of Gunderson and Nakajima does not teach the bottom surface of the adapter body, which is flushed with the lower surface of the mating block. That there is support for the amendments of “the buttom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block have a continuous common plane”.
This is not persuasive.
Gunderson discloses wherein the at least one adapter body includes a bottom surface (4001) opposite from the second outlet and flushed (flush being defined as directly abutting or immediately adjacent) with the lower surface of the mating block (see above) when coupled to the mating block (see above) and Nakajima discloses wherein the at least one adapter body includes a bottom surface (the surface of 16a facing 30) opposite from the second outlet and flushed (flush being defined as directly abutting or immediately adjacent) with the lower surface of the mating block (see Fig. 3) when coupled to the mating block (see Fig. 3).
There appears to be no support for the recitation “the buttom surface of the at least one adapter body and the lower surface of the mating block have a continuous common plane” as set forth by the new claim objection(s), drawing objection(s), and 112 rejection(s) above.
Any claim(s) not specifically argued will stand or fall with the claim(s) from which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
04/15/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights