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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 contain the limitation "Shore D hardness (according to DIN EN ISO 868)". Where a government or industry standard is used in a claim as a limitation, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because the claim scope is uncertain since standards are subject to change over time. In order to overcome this rejection, applicant must file a copy of the standard (excerpts of the applicable portions are acceptable).
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11, and 13-16 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, 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 and includes an inner locking structure (246); and
an outer surface (218), which is insertable into an opening of the second sleeve 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).
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 upper part (94), which comprises at least one second sleeve (96);
a lower part (212), which comprises at least one first sleeve (body of 212), the lower part being connectable to the upper part; and
an adapter according to claim 1 (see above),
wherein the second sleeve of the upper part is connected to the first sleeve 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).
In regards to claim 14, Densel discloses a fluid dispensing device comprising:
an adapter (216);
an upper part (96), which comprises at least one head sleeve (94); and
a lower part (212), which comprises at least one cone sleeve (body of “212”), the lower part being connectable to the upper part;
wherein the head sleeve is connectable to the cone sleeve via the adapter (shown in fig. 11), and
wherein the adapter is respectively connected to the head sleeve and the cone sleeve via at least one of a form fit connection or a press fit connection (shown in fig. 11).
In regards to claim 15, Densel further discloses the adapter includes an inner locking structure (246) for connecting to the cone sleeve and an outer locking structure (220) for connecting to the head sleeve.
In regards to claim 16, Densel further discloses the adapter has an outer surface (244) insertable into the head sleeve and an inner surface (218) configured to receive the cone sleeve.
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 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 12, while Densel does not expressly disclose 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 first sleeve of the upper part, is less than a second disassembly force, which is required for pulling the adapter off the sleeve of the lower part; the forces required for assembly/disassembly may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Densel to have a first assembly force, which is required for inserting the adapter into the second sleeve of the upper part, be 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 first sleeve of the upper part, be less than a second disassembly force, as the forces required for assembly/disassembly may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the remaining cited prior art shows a similar adapter.
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
05/19/2026
Prosecution Insights