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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s response has overcome the previously set forth 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-5, 8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Densel et al. (WO 2005/057075A1 hereinafter "Densel").
In regards to claim 1, at the onset it is noted that the claim is directed only towards the adapter and the upper and lower parts are recited functionally as part of an intended use recitation in the preamble. 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).
Densel discloses an adapter for connecting a second sleeve of an upper part and a first sleeve of a lower part of a fluid dispensing device, the adapter comprising:
a ring-shaped base body (216) with:
a longitudinal axis;
an inner surface (244), which encloses a through opening (central bore) for
accommodating the first sleeve of the lower part and includes an inner locking structure (246); and
an outer surface (218), which is insertable into an opening of the second sleeve of the upper part and includes an outer locking structure (220),
wherein at least one of the locking structures is designed such that when the adapter is
connected to one of the first or second sleeve, resistance to a relative movement of the adapter to
the one of the first or second sleeve in a first direction along the longitudinal axis is greater than
in a second direction opposed to the first direction (shown in fig. 11), and
wherein the second sleeve of the upper part, the first sleeve of the lower part, and the adapter are designed and matched to one another such that a first assembly force, which is required for inserting the adapter into the second sleeve of the upper part, is greater than a second assembly force, which is required for fitting the adapter onto the first sleeve of the lower part, and that a first disassembly force, which is required for pulling the adapter out of the second sleeve of the upper part, is less than a second disassembly force, which is required for pulling the adapter off the first sleeve of the lower part (fig. 11 shows that the adapter is capable of use with upper and lower parts such that this required force is met).
In regards to claim 2, Densel further discloses the inner locking structure comprises at
least one projection, which protrudes radially inwards from the inner surface and has an insertion
bevel that decreases an inner diameter of the adapter in the first direction in sections and forms
an undercut with an inner diameter that is increased in sections (shown in fig. 10).
In regards to claim 3, Densel further discloses the outer locking structure comprises at
least one projection, which protrudes radially outwards from the outer surface and has an insertion bevel that increases an outer diameter of the adapter in the second direction in sections and forms an undercut with the outer diameter that is decreased in sections (shown in fig. 10).
In regards to claim 4, Densel further discloses at least one of the inner or outer locking
structures is formed by a circumferential projection (shown in fig. 10).
In regards to claim 5, Densel further discloses the inner surface comprises a first region
having a first inner diameter (at "220") and a second region (at "246") having a second inner diameter that is smaller relative to the first region.
In regards to claim 8, Densel discloses a fluid dispensing device comprising:
an adapter according to claim 1 (see above) wherein the lower part (212) is connectable to the upper part (94),
wherein the second sleeve (96) of the upper part is connected to the first sleeve (body of 212) of the lower part via the adapter (shown in fig. 11), and
wherein the adapter is respectively connected to the second sleeve of the upper part and
the first sleeve of the lower part at least one of in a form fit or by a press fit (shown in fig. 11).
In regards to claim 11, Densel further discloses the second sleeve of the upper part
comprises at least one of a retaining groove (see groove at "220" is connected) or a projection
protruding radially inwards which, with the undercut of the outer locking mechanism, form a
snap-lock connection.
In regards to claim 13, Densel discloses a method for assembling a fluid dispensing
device according to claim 8, comprising: inserting the adapter into the first sleeve of the upper
part, then inserting the first sleeve of the lower part into the adapter (shown in figs. 10 and 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Densel as applied to claims 1 and 8 above.
In regards to claims 6 and 7, Densel discloses the adapter of claim 1 and further
discloses the adapter is formed of plastic (see paragraph [0031]).
Densel discloses the claimed invention except for the plastic having a shore D hardness
of between 80 and 90.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having
ordinary skill in the art to modify Densel by making the adapter from a material with a shore
hardness of between 80 and 90 such as PPE due to its strength, corrosion resistance, 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 claims 9 and 10, Densel discloses the claimed device except for the first
sleeve having a shore D hardness of between 45 and 70.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Densel by making the adapter from a material with a shore hardness of between 80 and 90 such as PVC due to its strength, corrosion resistance, 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, 277F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the amended language of claim 1, see the rejection above which shows how these limitations are disclosed by Densel.
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 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 09/21/2026
Prosecution Insights