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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 10, applicant’s argument that the references do not disclose the amended features is persuasive; the amendment overcome the applied references.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 and 21 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15-19, 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayyouk et al. (US 12,044,339 B2) hereinafter Bayyouk in view of Ihle (US 2008/0031748 A1) in view of Garvin et al. (US 2014/0377055 A1) hereinafter Garvin and further in view of Riedel, JR. et al. (US 2021/0270308 A1) hereinafter Riedel.
Regarding claim 13, Bayyouk teaches a housing comprising:
a body defining a port (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6) for fluid communication through the body, the port having a projection extending along port axis with an inner circumferential surface, an opposite outer circumferential surface (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6) and an axial surface end extending therebeween (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below); and
a port reinforcing ring having at least one interlock structure (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below) to provide an interlock between the port reinforcing ring and the body such that the port reinforcing ring is integrated and non-removable (the port reinforcing ring is rigidly fixed to the port)(Figs. 4-6) with the body and surrounding the port axis (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below), the body defining the port, wherein the port reinforcing ring includes a circumferential portion and a flange portion projecting radially inwardly from the circumferential portion (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below), the circumferential portion facing and contacting the outer circumferential surface of the port and the flange portion at least partially facing and contacting the axial surface end of the port (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bayyouk fails to teach: the body having a molded plastic construction including a plastic material; the plastic material defining a helical thread within the port and the port reinforcing ring having a metal construction.
However, Ihle teaches a housing body (Fig. 1) the housing body being made of molded plastic component (para. 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Bayyouk by making the body including the by molded plastic component as taught by Ihle as plastic molding is known to produce low labor cost and waste reduction.
Bayyouk as modified by Ihle fails to teach the reinforcement ring is metal construction.
However, Garvin teaches an assembly (10) comprising a body (10) and a reinforcement ring (48) connected to the body (Fig. 3, para. 0049). Garvin further teaches the reinforcement having a metal construction (para. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Bayyouk by forming the reinforcement ring with a metal in order to increase stiffness and strength of the reinforcement ring. Furthermore, it has been held (see MPEP 2144.07) that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
Bayyouk as modified by Ihle and Garvin teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim but fail to teach the plastic material defining a helical thread within the port.
However, Riedel in the same filed disclose a body defining a port (12) (Fig. 1, para. 0013) for fluid communication through the body, the body including an inner circumferential surface and an outer circumferential surface (Fig. 1). Riedel further teaches a helical thread (28) defined within the port at least partially on the inner circumferential surface (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Bayyouk by forming helical thread on the inner circumferential surface of the body formed by the plastic material as taught by Riedel as all claimed parts were known and would have yielded none but an expected result; namely connect the body to an adjacent component.
Regarding claim 15, Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel teach all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel further teach the flange portion is oriented perpendicularly relative to the port axis (Bayyouk, Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 above).
Regarding claim 16, Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel teach all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel further teach an inner surface of the circumferential portion defines the at least one interlock structure to provide the interlock between the port reinforcing ring and the plastic material of the port projection to provide retention of the port reinforcing ring on the port projection (Bayyouk, Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 above).
Regarding claim 17, Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel teach all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel further teach the interlock structure includes a circumferential groove (Bayyouk, Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 above).
Regarding claim 18, Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel teach all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel further teach the body includes gussets (grooves receiving seals 264). integrally molded with the outer circumferential surface of the port projection and also integrally molded with a face of the body for reinforcing the port projection (Bayyouk, Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 above).
Regarding claim 19, Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel teach all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel further teach the port reinforcing ring defines the at least one interlock structure (recess on the reinforcing ring; Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 above) to provide the interlock between the port reinforcing ring and the plastic material of the port projection during molding of the port projection for improved adherence of the port reinforcing ring to the plastic material forming the port projection (Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 above).
Regarding claim 21, Bayyouk teaches a housing comprising:
a body defining a port (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6) for fluid communication through the body, the port having a projection extending along a port axis with an inner circumferential surface, an opposite outer circumferential surface (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6) and an axial surface end extending therebeween (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below); and
a port reinforcing ring including a circumferential portion and a flange portion projecting radially inwardly from the circumferential portion (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below), the port reinforcing ring is integrated (Figs. 4-6) with the body and surrounding the port axis of the port (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below), the circumferential portion of the port reinforcing ring non-treadably coupled to the outer circumferential surface of the port (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below) such that the port reinforcing ring is non-removable (the port reinforcing ring is rigidly fixed to the port) from the port with the flange portion at least partially facing and contacting the axial surface end of the port (Bayyouk, Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below), the port reinforcing ring reinforcing the body defining the port (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 below).
Bayyouk fails to teach: the body having a molded plastic construction including a plastic material; the plastic material defining a helical thread within the port and the port reinforcing ring having a metal construction.
However, Ihle teaches a housing body (Fig. 1) the housing body being made of molded plastic component (para. 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Bayyouk by making the body including the by molded plastic component as taught by Ihle as plastic molding is known to produce low labor cost and waste reduction.
Bayyouk as modified by Ihle fails to teach the reinforcement ring is metal construction.
However, Garvin teaches an assembly (10) comprising a body (10) and a reinforcement ring (48) connected to the body (Fig. 3, para. 0049). Garvin further teaches the reinforcement having a metal construction (para. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Bayyouk by forming the reinforcement ring with a metal in order to increase stiffness and strength of the reinforcement ring. Furthermore, it has been held (see MPEP 2144.07) that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
Bayyouk as modified by Ihle and Garvin teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim but fail to teach the plastic material defining a helical thread within the port.
However, Riedel in the same filed disclose a body defining a port (12) (Fig. 1, para. 0013) for fluid communication through the body, the body including an inner circumferential surface and an outer circumferential surface (Fig. 1). Riedel further teaches a helical thread (28) defined within the port at least partially on the inner circumferential surface (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Bayyouk by forming helical thread on the inner circumferential surface of the body formed by the plastic material as taught by Riedel as all claimed parts were known and would have yielded none but an expected result; namely connect the body to an adjacent component.
Regarding claim 24, Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel teach all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 13. Bayyouk as modified by Ihle, Garvin and Riedel further teach the circumferential portion of the port reinforcing ring is at least partially embedded into the outer circumferential surface of the port, the plastic material of the circumferential surface of the port being molded over at least one interlock structure of the circumferential portion of the port reinforcing ring (Figs. 4-6 and Bayyouk, annotated FIG. 6 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11 and 23 are allowed.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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, NATHANIEL E WIEHE can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745