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 in response to preliminary amendment filed on 01/17/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-20 were canceled, no claims were amended, and claims 21-40 were newly added. Thus, claims 21-40 are presently pending in this application.
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
“A first part” of claim 21 line 1, “a base” of claim 21 line 3, “a first tube end” of claim 21 line 3, “a hose fitting” of claim 21 line 6, and “an outer portion end” of claim 21 line 7-8
“a protrusion” of claim 27 line 1
“a raised portion” of claim 28 line 1
“a hose” of claim 38 line 2, “a hose fitting” of claim 38 line 3
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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:
“an opening” of claim 21 line 2 (the specification reads on first opening 9010 and second opening 9018)
“a pair of latches” of claim 24 line 1 (the specification reads on latching portion 9012 and complementary latching portion 9014)
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 25-33, 35, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 23 line 2 and claim 30 line 2, the term “each of slots” should read --the two diametrically opposed slots-- or --each of the two diametrically opposed slots-- to remain consistent with language from claim 21 line 10.
Regarding claim 25 line 1, claim 26 line 1, claim 27 line 1, claim 28 lines 1-3, claim 29 lines 1-2, claim 30 line 1, claim 31 line 3, and claim 32 line 2, the term “the latches” should read --the pair of latches-- to remain consistent with language from claim 24 line 1.
Regarding claim 31 line 3, the term “the curved, outer sides” should read --the two diametrically opposed curved, outer sides-- to remain consistent with language from claim 31 line 2.
Regarding claim 33 line 1 and claim 35 line 1, the term “each of the slots” should read --the two diametrically opposed slots-- or --each of the two diametrically opposed slots-- to remain consistent with language from claim 21 line 10.
Regarding claim 35 line 1, the term “The first of claim 34” should read --The first part of claim 34-- to remain consistent with the preamble language and include the missing word.
Regarding claim 40 line 2, the term “when the hose fitting connected to” should read --when the hose fitting is connected to-- for grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21 line 3, the claim reads as having “a tube extending from a base to a first tube end”. However, “a base” and “a first tube end” are new subject matter entered upon the preliminary amendment that are not present in the specification or drawings and thus fail to provide adequate written description of the structure.
Regarding claim 21 line 5-6, the term “the base is configured to be connected to a hose fitting”. However, “a hose fitting” is new subject matter entered upon the preliminary amendment that is not present in the specification or drawings and thus fails to provide adequate written description of the structure.
Regarding claim 21 line 7-8, the term “an outer portion connected to the base and extending around the tube to an outer portion end”. However, “an outer portion end” is new subject matter entered upon the preliminary amendment that is not present in the specification or drawings and thus fails to provide adequate written description of the structure.
Regarding claim 23 lines 1-2, the claim reads as having “the sealing surface is positioned between the outer portion end and a proximal end of each of slots that is proximal to the base”. However, the specification fails to provide adequate written description of where “the outer portion” and “the base” are, thus failing to provide adequate written description of the positioning of the sealing surface relative to those structures.
Regarding claim 26 lines 1-2, the claim reads as having “each of the latches is cantilevered from the outer portion”. However, the specification and drawings do not describe or show a latch or latching portion that is cantilevered from the outer portion. The latching portions 9012, 9014 appear to be connected on all sides of the outer portion. Thus, the specification fails to provide adequate written description of the latches being cantilevered from the outer portion.
Regarding claim 28 line 1, the term “a raised portion” is new subject matter entered upon the preliminary amendment that is not present in the specification or drawings and thus fail to provide adequate written description of the structure.
Regarding claim 32 lines 1-3, the claim reads as having “an opening through the outer portion around a portion of each of the latches and the outer portion and an overmould positioned in the opening”. However, the specification fails to provide adequate written description of what and where “an opening” is relative to the latching portions, thus failing to provide adequate written description of where “an overmould” could be positioned as well.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 21-40 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.
Regarding claim 21 line 3, the term “the first end” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 4, the term “pressurized breathing gas” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than line 1.
Regarding claim 22 line 2, the term “the first tube” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 32 line 1, the term “an opening” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “an opening” in claim 21 line 3.
Regarding claim 35 line 2, the term “the flat sides” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
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 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wagner et al. (US 5,330,235) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wagner in view of Iversen (US 3,097,866), as best understood.
Regarding claim 21, Wagner discloses a first part of a fluid connector system for delivery of pressurized breathing gas to a patient from a respiratory pressure therapy device (see Wagner Coupling assembly A; where the invention is couplings for fluid lines in biomedical and biotechnological fields), the first part comprising:
a tube extending from a base to a first tube end (see Wagner male coupling member B and female coupling member C; with through opening or bore 18 coaxial with bore or passage 40), the first end forming an opening configured to receive pressurized breathing gas from the respiratory pressure therapy device (see Wagner first end 30 of female coupling member C receives fluid line F’), wherein a sealing surface extends radially outward from the first end (see Wagner counterbore 38 with tapered region 42; Col 4 lines 27-38 tapered end facilitates seal with O-ring to connect members B and C), and wherein the base is configured to be connected to a hose fitting (see Wagner first end 10 of male coupling member B receives fluid line F); and
an outer portion connected to the base and extending around the tube to an outer portion end (see Wagner coupling sleeve D, Fig. 3 formed of substantially cylindrical member 50 with second end 54), the outer portion end extending farther from the base than the first tube end (see Wagner Fig. 2 when attached, the end of female coupling member C is the tapered region 42 is closer to the male coupling member B than the second end 54 of member 50 reaches axially away from the male coupling member B), an inner surface of the outer portion being spaced from an outer surface of the tube (see Wagner inner diameter 56 of member 50 surrounds all of male and female coupling members B, C).
Wagner discloses the outer portion comprising two diametrically opposed slots extending from the outer portion end towards the base (see Wagner Figs. 3-4 longitudinal slots 92, 96 have a mirror image on the other side of member 50, wherein one side slot 92 would be diametrically opposed to the mirror image side slot 96, and vice versa). Even if Wagner fails to disclose the limitation, Iversen teaches the outer portion comprising two diametrically opposed slots extending from the outer portion end towards the base (see Iversen Fig. 3 axially outer portion of clamping rung 31 including slots 34, pairs of which are diametrically opposed, and which assist in securement of tube 12; Col. 3 lines 11-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer sides of coupling member 50 of Wagner with the addition of slots as taught by Iversen so as to strengthen the grip between and guide the connection between the outer portion (see Wagner coupling member 50) and the tube (see male coupling member B).
Regarding claim 22, modified Wagner discloses the sealing surface is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first tube (see Wagner counterbore 38 with tapered region 42; wherein the distal end of tapered region 42 is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tube).
Regarding claim 23, modified Wagner discloses the sealing surface is positioned between the outer portion end and a proximal end of each of slots that is proximal to the base (see Wagner Fig. 2 when attached, the counterbore 38 with tapered region 42 is in the space between the first and second ends 52, 54, positioning the seal between the slots, disposed on the coupling member 50 and end 54).
Regarding claim 24, modified Wagner discloses the outer portion comprises a pair of latches (see Wagner the latching means is defined by two, diametrically opposed latching members 72, 72').
Regarding claim 25, modified Wagner discloses the latches are diametrically opposed and extend radially outward from the outer portion (see Wagner two, diametrically opposed latching members 72, 72' ; Figs 3, 5-7 show the latching members 72, 72’ extend radially out beyond the cylinder 50).
Regarding claim 26, modified Wagner discloses each of the latches is cantilevered from the outer portion (see Wagner Fig. 4 latching portions 72, 72’ have portion 100 cantilevered end).
Regarding claim 27, modified Wagner discloses each of the latches comprises a protrusion that extends radially outward beyond the outer portion and is configured to releasably engage the respiratory pressure therapy device (see Wagner latching portions 72, 72’ distal ends are an actuating portion or release button 100 protruding radially outward [see Fig. 6 view], wherein the actuation of button 100 releases the cylinder 50 position, thus could release the cylinder 50 from the device overall).
Regarding claim 28, modified Wagner discloses each of the latches comprises a raised portion (see Wagner latching portions 72, 72’ in Fig. 5 are raised higher than the outer surface of cylinder 50), the protrusion of each of the latches extending radially outward beyond the raised portion of a corresponding one of the latches (see Wagner actuating button 100 extends radially outward and higher than latching portions 72, 72’ bodies; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 29, modified Wagner discloses the raised portion of each of the latches is positioned between the protrusion of a corresponding one of the latches and the outer portion end (see Wagner latching portions 72, 72’ raised portions are between buttons 100 and cylinder member 50’s second end 54).
Regarding claim 30, modified Wagner discloses the protrusion of each of the latches is positioned between the outer portion end and a proximal end of each of slots that is proximal to the base (see Wagner latching portions 72, 72’ and buttons 100 are within the member 50, wherein the slots as modified by Iversen extend from a first end 52, meaning the latching portions 72, 72’ are positioned between the end 54 and end 52).
Regarding claim 31, modified Wagner discloses the outer portion comprises two diametrically opposed curved, outer sides (see Wagner annotated Fig. 3 below), and
wherein each of the latches extends into a corresponding one of the curved, outer sides (see Wagner latching portions 72, 72’ extend on curved edges of substantially cylindrical member 50).
Modified Wagner discloses one flat, outer side (see Wagner annotated Fig. 3 below), but is silent as to two diametrically opposed flat, outer sides. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the one flat, outer side to be two diametrically opposed flat, outer sides, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wagner Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claim 32, modified Wagner discloses an opening through the outer portion around a portion of each of the latches (see Wagner longitudinal slots 94, 98 with slots 88, 90) and the outer portion and an overmould positioned in the opening (see Wagner extending strips 84, 86 are overmoulded off of slots 88, 90).
Regarding claim 33, modified Wagner discloses each of the slots is rectangular (see Wagner 102 interpretation where longitudinal slots 92, 96 are rectangular in shape, and 103 interpretation where slots 34 of Iversen are rectangular in shape).
Regarding claim 34, modified Wagner discloses the outer portion comprises two diametrically opposed curved, outer sides (see Wagner annotated Fig. 3 above). Modified Wagner discloses one flat, outer side (see Wagner annotated Fig. 3 above), but is silent as to two diametrically opposed flat, outer sides. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the one flat, outer side to be two diametrically opposed flat, outer sides, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 35, modified Wagner discloses each of the slots is located on a corresponding one of the flat sides (see Wagner modified by Iversen to include slots 34, wherein the slots are located around the entirety of Iversen, meaning modification onto Wagner’s modified two flat sides can contain slots 34 diametrically opposed).
Regarding claim 36, modified Wagner discloses the sealing surface has a greater outer circumference than the tube (see Wagner counterbore 38 with tapered region 42 have greater diameter than through opening or bore 18 coaxial with bore or passage 40).
Regarding claim 37, modified Wagner discloses the tube and the outer portion are connected so as to be non-rotatable relative to one another (see Wagner Col. 3 lines 34-36 “A coupling sleeve D is fixedly secured to one of the coupling members”).
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheffer et al. (US 2016/0193440; hereinafter “Sheffer”) in view of Wagner and Iversen.
Regarding claim 38, Sheffer discloses an air delivery tube (see Sheffer fluid delivery system 10, including a mechanical ventilator 12) comprising:
a hose (see Sheffer inspiratory limb 18 comprising fluid port 14 and connector 24);
a hose fitting connected to a first end of the hose (see Sheffer fluid port 14).
Sheffer is silent as to the first part of claim 21 connected to the hose fitting. However, Wagner in view of Iversen teaches the first part of claim 21 connected to the hose fitting (see rejection to claim 21 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Sheffer with the fluid connector as taught by Wagner in view of Iversen as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of fluid line connector for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. connect the hose fitting within the fluid system.
Regarding claim 39, modified Sheffer discloses a second end of the hose is configured to be connected to a patient interface (see Sheffer end of inspiratory limb 18 connected to patient connection 22).
Regarding claim 40, modified Sheffer discloses the hose is rotatable relative to the outer portion when the hose fitting connected to the first end of the hose (see Sheffer in view of Wagner and Iversen connector from claim 21; see Wagner Fig. 11 Col. 6 lines 28-36 “Once the coupling sleeve shoulder 58 is received in groove 22, the sleeve is free to rotate relative to the male coupling member and is axially retained between shoulders 22 and 23”; meaning the hose in Sheffer/male coupling member in Wagner would be rotatable relative to the outer portion, or member 50, as applied).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,850,059 in view of Iversen.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than the patented claims.
The instant claim 21 does not include “a sealing surface extending around a periphery of the second opening and configured to engage the seal portion to form a face seal”, “wherein the face seal forms a seal to breathing gas travelling between the first opening and the second opening”, “the seal portion is configured to engage the sealing surface before the latching portion and the complementary latching portion touch, wherein the seal portion includes a bellows-shape, a partial bellows shape, or a frustoconical portion, and wherein the bellows-shape, partial bellows shape, or frustoconical portion contacts the sealing surface to form the face seal when the first end portion and the second end portion are connected” found in patent claim 1. However, any infringement over the patented claim would result in infringement over the instant claim.
With respect to the additional features recited in instant claim 21, patent claim 1 fails to recite “the outer portion comprising two diametrically opposed slots extending from the outer portion end towards the base”. However, Iversen teaches the outer portion comprising two diametrically opposed slots extending from the outer portion end towards the base (see Iversen Fig. 3 axially outer portion of clamping rung 31 including slots 34, pairs of which are diametrically opposed, and which assist in securement of tube 12; Col. 3 lines 11-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer tube of patent claim 1 with the addition of two diametrically opposed slots as taught by Iversen so as to strengthen the grip between and guide the connection between the outer tube and inner tube.
Regarding instant claim 22, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 6.
Regarding instant claim 24, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 1 (see patent claim 1 a latching portion and a complementary latching portion).
Claims 21-22, 24, and 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,969,553 in view of Iversen.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than the patented claims.
The instant claim 21 does not include “an overhang portion extending in the axial direction forward of the sealing surface and the first part retaining portion” and “wherein the sealing surface is configured to form the face seal by contact with the seal portion when the overhang portion abuts a stop of the second part” found in patent claims 1, 7, and 8. However, any infringement over the patented claim would result in infringement over the instant claim.
With respect to the additional features recited in instant claim 21, patent claim 8 fails to recite “the outer portion comprising two diametrically opposed slots extending from the outer portion end towards the base”. However, Iversen teaches the outer portion comprising two diametrically opposed slots extending from the outer portion end towards the base (see Iversen Fig. 3 axially outer portion of clamping rung 31 including slots 34, pairs of which are diametrically opposed, and which assist in securement of tube 12; Col. 3 lines 11-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer tube of patent claim 8 with the addition of two diametrically opposed slots as taught by Iversen so as to strengthen the grip between and guide the connection between the outer tube and inner tube.
Regarding instant claim 22, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 3.
Regarding instant claim 24, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 8.
Regarding instant claim 26, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 8.
Regarding instant claim 27, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 8.
Claims 38-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,969,553.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than the patented claims. The instant claim 38 does not include “an overhang portion extending in the axial direction forward of the sealing surface and the first part retaining portion” and “wherein the sealing surface is configured to form the face seal by contact with the seal portion when the overhang portion abuts a stop of the second part” found in patent claim 1, which is included in patent claim 18 and 20. However, any infringement over the patented claim would result in infringement over the instant claim.
Regarding instant claim 39, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 23.
Regarding instant claim 40, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant' s disclosure.
Packham et al. (US 2007/0169825) and Hinshaw et al. (US 4,306,743) are cited to show a fluid conduit coupling assembly.
Doherty et al. (US 2008/0264413), Yoshino (US 2005/0110274), and Serowski et al. (US 5,937,851) are cited to show fluid connector components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Tim Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights