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.
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Claims 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 17 March 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Straub (USP 3,877,733)
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).
Straub discloses a clamping device (see figs. 1 and 3) for fluidically and mechanically
connecting two hose barbs, the clamping device comprising a seal (21) and a locking mechanism
(11, 34), wherein the locking mechanism can be transferred from a mounting condition (see
when pipes are first inserted but the coupling is not 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.
In regards to claim 2, Straub further discloses the locking mechanism comprises a
fixture (13) 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, Straub further discloses the seal consists of a material resistant to
irradiation and chemicals (column 4, lines 6-10 discloses synthetic rubber).
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 10, Straub further discloses transfer of the locking mechanism from
the mounting condition to the assembled condition is irreversible (see rings 29, 30).
In regards to claim 13, Straub further discloses the seal comprises a primary sealing lip
(23, 24) for engaging an outer surface of the free ends of the hose barbs and a secondary sealing
lip (31, 32) 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 at 27) so as to form a flexure bearing.
In regards to claim 19, Straub further discloses the locking mechanism comprises two
axially spring-loaded snap rings (34) for engaging behind rear gripping edge surfaces of the hose
barbs, the snap rings being held in a sleeve (11).
In regards to claim 21, Straub further discloses the seal has an inner wall adapted to frusto-conical shapes of the free ends of the hose barbs to coaxially align the hose barbs (fig. 1 shows at “24” that the seal is adapted to be used with such hose barbs).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straub as applied to
claim 5 above.
Straub 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Straub is only suitable for connecting conventional pipes and not hose barbs. The examiner disagrees. Claim 1 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). As there is no structure in the claim as to what constitutes “a hose barb” and there is nothing preventing the device of Straub from being used with a variety of “hose barbs”, the claim has been met.
Applicant argues that Straub does not disclose “the seal coaxially algins and fluid-tightly connects the free-ends” as required by claim 1. The examiner disagrees. As stated above, the hose barbs are not required by the claim. Even so, fig. 5 shows that when members are connected to the clamp, the seal “21” coaxially aligns and fluid-tightly connects the free ends. The same function would occur if connecting a hypothetical hose barb.
In response to applicant's argument that Straub does not solve the technical problem addressed by the instant application, the fact that the inventor 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Specifically, claim 21 is new. 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 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 04/08/2026
Prosecution Insights