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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a camming mechanism or other linkage that allows the force to first decrease and then increase again, or the force to first increase and then decrease” as described in the specification paragraph [0048]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 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, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an apparatus having a pre-loaded biasing element, which is at least one of a magnet and a compressible gas, does not reasonably provide enablement for the pre-loaded biasing element having a biasing force that first decreases then increases or first increases then decreases, as the first connector of the quick disconnect moves relative to the housing. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification (see specification paragraph [0048]) describes the use of “a camming mechanism or other linkage that allows the force to first decrease and then increase again, or the force to first increase and then decrease”; however, there is no further explanation of how the “camming mechanism or other linkage” is configured with the pre-loaded biasing element, which is “at least one of a magnet and a compressible gas” (see base claim 9). The application further lacks proper illustration of an apparatus having the “camming mechanism or other linkage” which allows the biasing force of the pre-loaded biasing element to increase then decrease or decrease then increase, as claimed in claims 22 and/or 23.
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).
Claims 9-12, 14-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of US2888037 (“Jones”).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Zhao discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a housing (13) having a front-part (part proximal to opposed coupling 2) and a back-part (part abutting retaining clip 18);
a first connector (11) of a quick disconnect (mainly defined by 1 and 2) oriented toward the front-part of the housing; and
a pre-loaded biasing element (disc spring stack 16 of first coupling 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 (see assembly of fig. 1); and
a second pre-loaded biasing element (disc spring stack 16 of second coupling 2) disposed in a second housing (23) to apply a second biasing force between the second housing and a second connector (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. 1).
Zhao does not disclose the pre-loaded biasing element or the second pre-loaded biasing element being at least one of a magnet and a compressible gas.
However, Jones teaches that a pre-loaded biasing element (mainly defined by opposed magnets 12 and 16) being a magnet.
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 pre-loaded biasing element and the second pre-loaded biasing element to be magnets, as taught by Jones, to have non-linear compression distance versus force properties.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhao and Jones discloses the second connector (Zhao, 21) of the quick disconnect (Zhao, mainly defined by 1 and 2) is configured to complementarily mate with the first connector (Zhao, 11) of the quick disconnect to form a mated quick disconnect (Zhao, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhao and Jones discloses the mated quick disconnect (Zhao, see fig. 1) is configured to flow a cooling fluid (fluid coupling of Zhao, see fig. 1, is configured to flow any fluid therethrough) through the first connector (Zhao, 11) and the second connector (Zhao, 21).
Additionally, with regards recitations directed to the fluid being handled (e.g. "cooling fluid"), "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, 75 F.2d * > 996 < 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Zhao and Jones discloses the pre-loaded biasing element (Zhao, 16, as modified by Jones, 12 and 16, above) provides a longitudinal range of motion (Zhao, motion between first connector 11 and housing sleeve 13).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zhao and Jones discloses the pre-loaded biasing element (Zhao, 16, as modified by Jones, 12 and 16, above) is configured to provide the biasing force that is substantially constant (Zhao, pre-loading of biasing element 16 causes anchoring clip 18 to engage an end of housing 13) regardless of position based on a relative longitudinal position of the housing (Zhao, 13) and the first connector in the longitudinal range of motion.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Zhao and Jones discloses a second pre-load value (pre-loaded force of biasing elements, Zhao 16 as modified by Jones 12 and 16 above) of the second pre-loaded biasing element is at least equal to a first pre-load value of the pre-loaded biasing element (Zhao discloses male and female sides having identical configurations).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Zhao and Jones discloses the pre-loaded biasing element (Zhao, 16, as modified by Jones, 12 and 16, above) has a biasing force (Jones, repulsion force of magnets 12 and 16) that increases exponentially (Jones, magnets 12 and 16 have a repulsion force, which increase exponentially as distance therebetween is reduced) as the first connector (Zhao, 11) of the quick disconnect moves relative to the housing (Zhao, 13).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Jones, as applied to claims in view of JP20132502 (“Keisuke”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Zhao and Jones discloses the invention as claimed except for mating 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.
Keisuke teaches (see figs. 1-4) an apparatus configured to mate a first guiding element (mainly defined by 23) in a housing (mainly defined by 22 and 24) with a second guiding element (mainly defined by 34) in a second housing (mainly defined by 32 and 33) before a first connector (21) of a quick disconnect mates with a second connector (31) of the quick disconnect (guiding post 23 engages guide hole 34 before valves of first connector 21 and second connector 31 are mated and opened).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Zhao and Jones by arranging mating of 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, as taught by Keisuke, to assure proper alignment of the first and second connectors before mating.
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
Claims 17-20 are allowable.
Claim 8 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.
Claims 22 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 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 22, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the apparatus, wherein the pre-loaded biasing element has a biasing force that first decreases and then increases as the first connector of the quick disconnect moves relative to the housing, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 23, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the apparatus, wherein the pre-loaded biasing element has a biasing force that first increases and then decreases as the first connector of the quick disconnect moves relative to the housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025, have been fully considered.
With regards to the prior art rejection of claims 17-20 over Yang, Applicant’s current amendments have overcome this rejection and claims 17-20 are now found allowable.
With regards to the prior art rejection of claims 1-7 over Zhao in view of Engineering expedient, Applicant argues that Zhao fails to recognize the problem being solved by the invention of claims 1-7.
In response to applicant's argument that, the fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the present case, Zhao discloses the invention as claimed except for the threshold wipe value being +7mm. Optimizing the threshold wipe value for a certain application of the apparatus or coupling would have been within the realm of routine skill, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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.
In response to applicant's argument that, the fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With regards to the prior art rejection of claims 9-12 and 14-16 over Zhao in view of Jones, Applicant argues that Jones teaches away from a combination with Zhao.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Jones teaches away from a combination with Zhao, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the present case, Jones teaches a pre-loaded biasing element, which could either be a coil spring (64) or a pair of magnets (12 and 16) having a repulsive force therebetween. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to interchange various forms of pre-loaded biasing elements in the invention of Zhao. More specifically, 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 pre-loaded biasing element to be a pair of same-pole repulsion magnets, as taught by Jones, to have a pre-biasing element, which has a long lifespan and reduced wear, and because it is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With regards to the obvious-type double patenting rejection(s) of claims 1, 9 and 17 over claims 3, 4 and 21 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,000,514, the Terminal Disclaimer filed November 21, 2025, has been accepted, and the double patenting rejection(s) of claims 1, 9 and 17 is now withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 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