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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered. Prior arts Abura et al. and Calisher are used to address the amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram (USPN 11125479 B1) in view of Rogers et al. (USPN 5215122 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Ingram Annotated Fig. 21
PNG
media_image2.png
462
995
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 - Ingram Annotated Fig. 23
Regarding Claim 1, Ingram discloses coupling assembly for a heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) system, comprising: a female coupling member (130) comprising: a first resilient sealing member (Ingram Annotated Fig. 21) disposed at a front portion of the female coupling member (130), a first sleeve (160) disposed at a rear portion of the female coupling member (130), a second resilient sealing member (295) disposed at the rear portion of the female coupling member (130), a first spring (155) disposed adjacent to the first sealing member (Ingram Annotated Fig. 21) and a first poppet assembly including a first poppet (165/175) and a first bonded poppet (175), and a male coupling member (140), configured to couple with the female coupling member (130), the male coupling member (140) comprising; a third resilient sealing member (Ingram Annotated Fig. 23), a second spring (235) disposed adjacent to the third resilient sealing member (Ingram Annotated Fig. 23), and a second poppet assembly including a second poppet (205/215) and a second bonded poppet (205) but does not disclose and an aerator for receiving an end of the first poppet assembly.
Rogers teaches an aerator (114) in order to relieve pressure during disconnection (Col. 5, Lines 31–46).
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 female coupling of Ingram with an aerator as taught by Rogers in order to relieve pressure during disconnection.
The recitation “for receiving an end of the first poppet assembly” is seen as intended use of the aerator. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. (MPEP §2114.II).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, the Ingram–Rogers combination teaches the male (Ingram 140) and female (Ingram 130) coupling members are configured to secure to one another with a three-stage sealing structure (Ingram Figs. 21–24, where the three stages are the connection between the first and second bonded poppets, the connection between the axle sleeve, 160 and the through hole, 190 and the threaded connection between elements 180 and 185).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the Ingram–Rogers combination teaches the coupling assembly comprises disconnected mode (Ingram Fig. 15), a partially connected mode (Ingram where the partially connected mode is where there is no other connection between the female and male couplings with the exception of the first and second bonded poppets), and a fully connected mode (Ingram Fig. 13).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the Ingram–Rogers combination teaches the coupling assembly further comprises a self-sealing valve (Ingram Figs. 21 and 23 illustrate the self-sealing positions of the female and the male couplings, respectively).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the Ingram–Rogers combination teaches a thread type configuration (Ingram 180/185) to allow connection and disconnection from the system.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the Ingram–Rogers combination teaches does not explicitly teach the coupling assembly constructed of brass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use brass with the invention of the Ingram–Rogers combination, since 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. MPEP §2144.07. Here, Ingram states that any metallic flexible material may be used which would include brass (Ingram Col. 5, Lines 31–36).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights