DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 July 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 November 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith (GB 2,447,114A).
In regards to claim 1, at the onset it is noted that the claim is directed only towards the clamping device and the hose barbs are recited only functionally. It should be noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, a claim containing 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Smith discloses a clamping device for fluidically and mechanically connecting two hose barbs, the clamping device comprising a seal (10) and a locking mechanism (P), wherein the locking mechanism can be transferred from a mounting condition (see before night is tightened), in which the hose barbs can be inserted into the clamping device, to an assembled condition (see tightened state), in which the hose barbs are locked in place in a position in which free ends of the hose barbs face each other and the seal coaxially aligns and fluid-tightly connects the free ends,
wherein the seal comprises a primary sealing lip (20, 16) for engaging an outer surface of the free ends of the hose barbs and a secondary sealing lip (14, 18) for engaging an inner surface of the free ends of the hose barbs, the primary and secondary sealing lips being connected by a web (see central portion)so as to form a flexure bearing, and
wherein the primary sealing lip circumscribes the secondary sealing lip and the web extends in a radial direction between the primary sealing lip and the secondary sealing lip, thereby forming a first cavity (22) for receiving a first one of the hose barbs and a second cavity (24) for receiving a second one of the hose barbs with the web delimiting, and defining a proximal end of, each of the first and second cavities (shown in fig. 3).
In regards to claim 2, Smith further discloses the locking mechanism comprises a
fixture (see hex surfaces) for attaching the locking mechanism to a retaining plate.
In regards to claim 3, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim. In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the
product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only
process steps are set forth. Therefore, since being a "prefabricated unit" adds no further structure
to the seal and locking mechanism, the limitation has been met.
In regards to claim 5, Smith further discloses the seal consists of a material resistant to irradiation and chemicals (see claim 8).
In regards to claim 7, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim. In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth. Therefore, since being a "pre-loaded into the assembled condition" adds no further structure to the locking mechanism, the limitation has been met.
In regards to claim 21, Smith further discloses the seal has an inner wall in each of the first and second cavities adapted to frusto-conical shapes of the free ends of the hose barbs, and wherein the first and second cavities face in opposite axial directions (see fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 5 above.
In regards to claim 6, Smith discloses the device of claim 5 but does not expressly disclose the rubber being EPDM rubber. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Straub by making the seal from EPDM rubber due to its durability, flexibility, etc., 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. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 10, Smith does not explicitly disclose transfer of the locking mechanism from the mounting condition to the assembled condition is irreversible but does disclose “The packing nut (retaining member) may have a threaded outer circumference that engages a threaded opening in support J. However, the retainer member may engage the housing or support by other means” (see paragraph [0015]).
The examiner is taking Official Notice that threaded connections and irreversible connections are well-known in the art of pipe couplings as obvious variants.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the locking mechanism of Smith as an irreversible connection such as a grip ring, achieving no unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Matthew D. Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679 07/21/2026
Prosecution Insights