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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01 July 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-13 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application, with claims 14-20 withdrawn as directed to a nonelected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following issues:
The hatching in FIG. 2 is informal and does not follow the outline of the components. Furthermore, it appears that a portion of the first part (12) within the annular chamber (48) of the second part (14) is missing, while the first flange (30) of the first part (12) appears to have some form of outer annular rim inconsistent with the structure shown in fig. 5.
In figs. 4 & 8B, second flange (32) is incorrectly shown to be a separate part. As understood, the first flange should be integral with the rest of the first part, as correctly shown in fig. 7.
In fig. 4, the portion of the second material (41) which passes through the holes (40) of the first part is incorrectly shown to be a separate part. As understood, this second material which passes through the first part should be integral with the rest of the second part, as correctly shown in fig. 7.
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 § 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8 & 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milhas et al. (US 6,453,941; hereafter Milhas) in view of Mackal (US 5,058,933).
Regarding claim 1, Milhas discloses (fig. 1; see also alt embodiments in figs. 2-5) an adaptor (1) comprising:
a body having a first part (3) and a second part (4) integral with the first part and made of a dissimilar material (see col. 3, lines 41-44; col. 4, lines 1-15), the first part (3) has a first end (5) supporting a concentric barb (6) for connecting to a first tubing (C) and a second end (e.g. 7) has a flange (i.e., 9 / 10; see also 13 in alt. embodiment in fig. 2) to lock the parts together (col. 3, lines 58-61; see also col. 4, lines 50-55), and the second part has a receptacle for connecting to a fitting (T; see fig. 1; col. 4, lines 33-38).
Milhas does not disclose the limitation wherein the flange has a plurality of through holes, where material from the second part extends into the plurality of through holes to lock the parts together.
Mackal discloses a connection arrangement between a rigid first part (10) and an elastomeric second part (30 / 32) integral with the first part, the first part has a first end supporting a connection means (i.e., threads 14) and a second end has a flange (20; “flange 20”) with a plurality of through holes (21; “apertures 21”), material from the second part extends into the plurality of through holes to lock the parts together (see fig. 4; col. 4, lines 21-28: “the elastomeric material flows into the openings 21 from both sides, i.e., proximal and distal, thereof, thereby encasing flange 20 within said material when it hardens. As such, flange 20 becomes an integral part of the…article and can not be pulled therefrom or rotated relative thereto without destroying the…article itself”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Milhas such that the second end of the first part has a flange with a plurality of through holes, wherein material from the second part extends into the plurality of through holes to lock the parts together, in view of the teachings of Mackal, so as to provide a mechanical interlock which resists both axial and rotational forces (as suggested by Mackal), or otherwise obvious as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a mechanical connection between a rigid connector and an elastomeric component by providing a flange with apertures on the rigid connector and overmolding the elastomeric component therearound such that elastomeric material extends through the apertures of the flange, as in Mackal) to improve a similar device (i.e., the adaptor of Milhas, having a molded joint between a rigid component and an elastomeric component) in the same way (i.e., providing a strong mechanical interlock which resists both axial and rotational forces).
Regarding claim 2, the adaptor of Milhas, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the barb (6) is dimensioned to connect to an internal lumen of the first tubing (C)(see fig. 1 & col. 3, lines 46-48).
Regarding claim 3, the adaptor of Milhas, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the fitting (T) is a second tubing (see fig. 1; at least the portion of T shown in fig. 1 is reasonably depicted as tubing; see col. 3, lines 36-39: “a nipple T… of thermoplastic material and comprising, in conventional manner, a tubular cylindrical part T1”; see also col. 1, lines 15-17) and the receptacle is dimensioned to circumscribe a portion of an outer surface of the second tubing (see col. 4, lines 33-38).
Regarding claim 4, the adaptor of Milhas, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the first part (3) is made from a polymeric material having a modulus of elasticity greater than that of the second part (4).
Milhas discloses that the first part is a “rigid part” while the second part is “a flexible sleeve”. Milhas further discloses that the rigid part may be, for example, “a polyamide” while the flexible sleeve may be “an elastomer such as carboxyl nitrile rubber (XNBR)”, though “other materials can also be used for the rigid part and the flexible sleeve and, in particular, the flexible sleeve can be made of a fluorocarbon rubber (FPM) or a hydrogenated nitrile rubber (HNBR)” (col. 4, lines 1-16).
In view of the above, Milhas reasonably discloses that the first part is made from a polymeric material (e.g., rigid polyamide) having a modulus of elasticity greater than that of the second part (e.g., flexible elastomer such as XNBR, FPM, or HNBR).
Regarding claim 5, Milhas discloses the additional limitation wherein the first part (3) is made from a material selected from the group consisting of: polyamides, polyesters, polyolefins, cyclic olefin copolymers, polysulfones, polyphenyl sulfides, and polyvinyl chlorides.
In particular, Milhas discloses that the rigid first part may be made from “a polyamide” (col. 4, lines 2-4), though “other materials can also be used”.
Regarding claim 8, Milhas discloses the additional limitation wherein the second part (4) is made from a thermoplastic elastomer or a thermosetting elastomer.
In particular, Milhas discloses the use of several thermosetting elastomers (XNBR, FPM, HNBR), though “other materials can also be used”.
Regarding claim 10, Milhas discloses the additional limitation wherein the second part (4) is made from a thermosetting elastomer selected from the group consisting of: ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM), epichlorohydrin rubber, chloroprene, nitrile rubber, hydrogenated nitrile rubber, fluorinated rubber (FKM), polyacrylate rubber (ACM), ethylene acrylate rubber (AEM), styrene-butadiene- rubber (SBR), chloro-sulfonated monomer (CSM), and isoprene-isobutylene rubber.
In particular, Milhas discloses that the second part may be made from, for example, “hydrogenated nitrile rubber (HNBR)” (col. 4, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 11, the adaptor (1) of Milhas, as modified in view of Mackal in claim 1 above (i.e., such that the second end of the first part has a flange with a plurality of through holes, wherein material from the second part extends into the plurality of through holes to lock the parts together), in its normal and usual operation, reads on or otherwise renders obvious a method for connecting a first tubing (C) to a second tubing (T) comprising the steps of:
providing a body (at 1) having a first part (3) and a second part (4) integral with the first part and made of a dissimilar material (see col. 3, lines 41-44; col. 4, lines 1-15), the first part (3) has a first end (5) supporting a concentric barb (6) for connecting to the first tubing (C) and a second end (7) has a flange with a plurality of through holes (i.e., corresponding to flange 20 with through holes 21 as taught by Mackal; see embedded flange-like features 9 / 10 / 13 in the original embodiments of Milhas), material from the second part extends into the plurality of through holes to lock the parts together (as taught by Mackal, though similar to the mechanical engagement at 13 in fig. 2 embodiment of Mihas), and the second end has a receptacle for connecting to the second tubing (T; see fig. 1; col. 4, lines 33-38; see discussion provided for claim 3 above, not repeated for brevity);
inserting the first end (5) into a lumen of the first tubing (C)(col. 3, lines 45-47); and,
attaching the receptacle to a portion of an outer surface (T1/T2) of the second tubing (T) (see col. 4, lines 33-42) to establish a fluid flow connection between the first tubing and the second tubing (see col. 3, lines 32-40; see also col. 1, lines 15-32, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Milhas discloses the additional step of mounting a hose clamp (S; “clamping collar S”) about the circumference of the second part (i.e., at groove 12)(see col. 4, lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 13, the method of Milhas reads on the additional limitation wherein the second part (4) is removably connected to the second tubing (T).
In particular, as the second part is flexible / elastomeric and secured around the second tubing by the hose clamp (S), the second part would be removable from the second tubing by removing the hose clamp and pulling the second part free of the second tubing.
Claim 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milhas in view Mackal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Szabo (US 5,213,376).
Regarding claims 6 & 7, with respect to the limitation wherein the first part is made from an aliphatic polyamide, a semi-aromatic polyamide or an aromatic polyamide (claim 6), it is noted that polyamides are classified as aliphatic, semi-aromatic, or aromatic. Since claim 6 recites all three, Milhas’ disclosure that the first part may be made from “a polyamide” is reasonably seen as meeting the claimed limitation, since the resulting polyamide would be one of aliphatic, semi-aromatic, or aromatic. However, to promote compact prosecution with respect to claim 6, and to address the additional limitation wherein the first part is made from nylon 6,6 (claim 7), the following additional teachings are provided.
First, as previously noted, Milhas discloses the use of polyamides (“a polyamide modified for implementing the method”) but clarifies that “Other materials can also be used” (col. 4, lines 12-15).
Szabo teaches (figs. 1-7) an adapter having a body (11) with a first part (13 / 16) having an outer surface supporting a concentric barb (17) for connecting to a tubing (see col. 3, lines 25-29). Szabo suggests that the body, including the first part, is “preferably injection molded…from suitable material such as Nylon 66”, explaining that “although many materials would be suitable for practicing the present invention, Nylon 66 has been found to be particularly advantageous in certain automotive applications” (col. 4, lines 54-59).
Note: as acknowledged in applicant’s own specification (para. 32), Nylon 66 is an aliphatic polyamide
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Milhas such that the first part is made from Nylon 6,6 (an aliphatic polyamide), in view of the teachings of Szabo, as Milhas already suggests the use of polyamide for the first part, and Szabo identifies nylon 66 (a polyamide) as a particularly advantageous material for use in certain automotive applications, especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 9 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milhas in view of Mackal as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Powell (US 5,682,924).
Regarding claim 9, Milhas discloses that the flexible sleeve may be an elastomer (e.g., XNBR, FPM, HNBR) but suggests that “other materials can also be used for…the flexible sleeve” (col. 4, lines 12-15).
Milhas does not explicitly disclose the second part to be made from a thermoplastic elastomer selected from the group consisting of: styrenic block copolymers, thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers, thermoplastic vulcanizates, thermoplastic urethanes, thermoplastic copolyesters, thermoplastic polyamides, and unclassified thermoplastic elastomers.
Powell teaches (e.g., figs. 1-7) an adaptor comprising a body (30) having an end with a receptacle (32) for connection to a tube / fitting (40), an outer surface (34) of the end configured to receive a hose clamp (38) to secure the tube/fitting in the receptacle. Powell teaches that the adaptor body with the receptacle may be formed via injection molding from a thermoplastic elastomer such as Santoprene® (a thermoplastic vulcanizate) or rubber modified polypropylene (a thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer)(col. 7, lines 49-67). Note: applicant’s own specification identifies Santoprene® as a thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV)(see para. 37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Milhas such that the second part is made from a thermoplastic elastomer and, in particular, a thermoplastic elastomer selected from the group consisting of: styrenic block copolymers, thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers, thermoplastic vulcanizates, thermoplastic urethanes, thermoplastic copolyesters, thermoplastic polyamides, and unclassified thermoplastic elastomers (e.g., Santoprene®, a thermoplastic vulcanizate; or rubber modified polypropylene, a thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer), in view of the teachings of Powell, to enable the second part to be manufactured using thermoplastic injection molding techniques (rather than requiring additional curing processes as may be required for thermosetting elastomers) and which may also enable the adaptor to be recycled or otherwise reprocessed after use (which may not be possible for thermosetting elastomers), especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 July 2026 have been fully considered, however, applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the grounds of rejection set forth in the previous action. New grounds of rejection have been applied to the claims in this action, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights