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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 1, 2026, has been entered.
Drawings
In light of claim amendments filed May 1, 2026, the objection to drawings, set forth in the Office action dated March 2, 2026, has been reconsidered. The drawings filed April 24, 2024, are acceptable.
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. 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2962303 (“Ramberg”).
Regarding claim 9, Ramberg discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a housing (11) having a front-part (coupling mating part) and a back-part (threaded part);
a first connector (40) of a quick disconnect oriented toward the front-part of the housing; and
a pre-loaded biasing element (at least partially defined by bellows 44) disposed in the housing to apply a biasing force (via compressed air caught within bellows 44) in a longitudinal direction (along longitudinal axis of male 11 and female 12 couplers) between the housing and the first connector of the quick disconnect, wherein the pre-loaded biasing element is configured to allow the first connector of the quick disconnect to move relative to the housing (between positions of figs. 1 and 2), wherein the pre-loaded biasing element is a compressible gas (coupling transfers “air” between fluid lines; see specification col. 4, lines 72-75).
Regarding claim 10, Ramberg discloses a second pre-loaded biasing element (54) disposed in a second housing (12) to apply a second biasing force (via compressed air caught within bellows 54) between the second housing and a second connector (50), and wherein the second pre-loaded biasing element is configured to allow the second connector of the quick disconnect to move (between positions of figs. 1 and 2) relative to the second housing.
Regarding claim 11, Ramberg discloses the second connector (50) of the quick disconnect is configured to complementarily mate with the first connector (40) of the quick disconnect to form a mated quick disconnect (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Ramberg discloses the mated quick disconnect (see fig. 1) is configured to flow a cooling fluid (any type of cooling gas can be transferred via ports 16) through the first connector (40) and the second connector (50).
Regarding claim 14, Ramberg discloses the pre-loaded biasing element (44) provides a longitudinal range of motion (allows motion of first connector 40 to move along direction of flow).
Regarding claim 15, Ramberg discloses the pre-loaded biasing element (44) is configured to provide the biasing force that is substantially constant (constant with the pressure within the quick disconnect) regardless of position based on a relative longitudinal position of the housing (11) and the first connector (40) in the longitudinal range of motion (motion of first connector 40 along direction of flow).
Regarding claim 16, Ramberg discloses a second pre-load value (force of compressed air within bellows 54) of the second pre-loaded biasing element (54) is at least equal (with flow extending from left to right, relative to the orientation of fig. 1, biasing pressure within second bellows 54 is at least the magnitude of biasing pressure within second bellows 44) to a first pre-load value (force of compressed air within bellows 44) of the pre-loaded biasing element (44).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110608334 (“Zhao”) in view of Engineering Expedient.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a housing (13 or 23) having a front-part (part proximal to opposed coupling 2 or 1) and a back-part (part distal from opposed coupling 2 or 1);
a first connector (11 or 21) of a quick disconnect (defined mainly by 1 and 2) oriented toward the front-part of the housing; and
a pre-loaded biasing element (16; see fig. 1) disposed in the housing to apply a biasing force in a longitudinal direction (coupling force direction) between the housing and the first connector of the quick disconnect, wherein the pre-loaded biasing element is configured to allow the first connector of the quick disconnect to move relative to the housing, wherein the pre-loaded biasing element has a threshold wipe value (force which overcomes the biasing force of spring 16 to lift retainer clip 18 from contact with housing 13).
Zhao does not disclose the threshold wipe value of ±7 mm at which a compression of the pre-loaded biasing element provides the biasing force equal to a mating force.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would know to experiment with pre-loaded biasing elements, or springs, having different threshold wipe values to allow for sufficient biasing force between the housing and first connector to allow for mating with a second connector while maintaining sufficient resilience to allow for dampening between first and second connectors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Zhao by configuring the threshold wipe value to be ±7 mm to allow for sufficient biasing force between the housing and first connector to allow for mating with a second connector while maintaining sufficient resilience to allow for dampening between first and second connectors.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses the pre-loaded biasing element (16) is at least one of a magnet, a compressible gas, or a spring (disc spring 16).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao discloses the first connector (11 or 21) includes a fluid valve (12 or 22).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses a second pre-loaded biasing element (disc spring stack 16 of the other of couplings 11 or 21) disposed in a second housing (the other of housings 13 or 23) to apply a second biasing force between the second housing and a second connector (the other of couplings 11 and 21), and wherein the second pre-loaded biasing element is configured to allow the second connector of the quick disconnect to move relative to the second housing (see assembly of fig. 6).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on November 21, 2025, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Pat. No. 12,000,514 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 8, 13 and 21 is/are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the apparatus, further including a first guiding element, wherein the first guiding element is a cross-slotted guiding plate oriented horizontally and configured to mate with a second guiding element, wherein the second guiding element is cross-slotted guiding plate oriented vertically, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the apparatus, further configured to mate a first guiding element in the housing with a second guiding element in the second housing before the first connector of the quick disconnect mates with the second connector of the quick disconnect, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the apparatus, wherein the first guiding element is across-slotted guiding plate, in combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Claims 18-20 are allowable because they depend on an allowable base claim.
Regarding claim 21, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the apparatus, wherein the pre-loaded biasing element has a biasing force that increases exponentially as the first connector of the quick disconnect moves relative to the housing, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 1, 2026, has been fully considered.
With regards to the drawing objection, set forth in the Office action dated March 2, 2026, Applicant’s cancellation of claims 22 and 23 has overcome this objection and is now withdrawn.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 22 and 23, Applicant’s cancellation of claims 22 and 23 has overcome this rejection, and is now withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-3 and 6 over CN110608334 ("Zhao") in view of Engineering expedient, Applicant argues that Zhao does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the present case, Zhao discusses in the "Background" a prior art radially floating quick disconnect coupling (CN104565628B), which compensates for radial misalignment of a male and female coupler; however, industry has proven need for a quick disconnect coupling, which has capability to compensate for both radial and axial misalignments. Zhao introduces a floating quick disconnect coupling comprising a housing (13) and a first connector (11), which maintain a radial and axial gap therebetween by an elastic ring (15) and a (pre-loaded) biasing element (16).
Although Zhao does not explicitly state that the biasing element (16) is "pre-loaded", Zhao states that the axial ends of the biasing element (16) do not slide relative to the housing (13) to prevent the biasing element (16) from jamming, which inherently entails a degree of pre-loading of the biasing element (16). The degree of pre-loading and the compression strength of the pre-loaded biasing element (16) is not explicitly discussed in Zhao; however, discovering an optimum value ("threshold wipe value of +/- 7mm") of a result effective variable (compression strength or force of the pre-loaded biasing element) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the instant application lacks the evidence to prove that the range, as claimed in the instant application, is critical. The applicant must prove the criticality of the claimed range, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
With regards to amended claim 9, including dependents thereof, Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous prior art; however, the amended claim(s) have motivated a new grounds of rejection over claims 9-12 and 14-16, see Office action, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US12173826, US5217203, US4312524, US7850190, US3604730, US5322330, US12338922 and US2007/0246108 disclose a quick disconnect having a coupler and a pre-loaded biasing element disposed in a housing, the pre-loaded biasing element allowing for longitudinal movement between the coupler and the housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM 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, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights