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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 5/4/2026. The previous drawing objection has been withdrawn due to the amendment to the specification (see paragraph 50). The previous claim objection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. The previous 112 rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. Any new ground(s) of rejection below have been made due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Final.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the last four lines of the claim, it is unclear how the retainer can be arranged in the first groove (of the first or second tube) to engage the second groove of the radially inward facing surface of the connector body, to secure the first tube and the second tube in the connector body. In other words, by the use of the “and/or” phrasing, the applicant appears to be claiming a structural option where the retainer secures both the first tube and the second tube via the first and second grooves. Based off the applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear how the retainer is able to secure both the first and second tubes. Figure 10 shows retainer 300 located in a groove 246 for the second tube and a groove 280 for the retainer. This only appears to secure the second tube to the connector body, not the second tube and the first tube.
It is further noted for claim 1, the last four lines, it is unclear how the first tube and the second tube can have a first groove with the radially inward facing surface of the connector body having a second groove with a retainer arranged in the first groove (which, per the “and/or” phase, would be part of the first and the second tube).
Removing the “and/” portion of the “and/or” phrase in the fourth to last line of claim 1 and the last line of claim 1 would appear to resolve the above issues.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 8 is further rejected as it is unclear if the introduced “a groove” in line 4 is the same or different feature from the “a first groove” and “a second groove” recited in claim 1 or not. It is noted that the second groove from claim 1 is already associated with the connector body (as it is on “the first radially inward facing surface” of the connector body).
Claim 9 is further rejected as it is unclear if the introduced “a retainer” from line 2 is the same as the retainer now recited in claim 1, the second to last line of the claim, or not.
Claim 22 is rejected for reasoning similar to the above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Clapper et al. (U.S. 11,035,505).
Regarding claims 21-22, Kinoshita discloses a variable refrigerant flow assembly, comprising: a housing (30) including a first wall (the right wall in fig. 4), the first wall comprising a first hole (a hole for 13 or 8); a piping network (including, for instance, 15, 9, 10, 11, 12, 27, 28, etc.) arranged in the housing, the piping network including: a plurality of valves (11, see fig. 3 showing the plurality); a manifold (27, 28); and a plurality of actuators operatively arranged to control the plurality of valves (at least paras. 32-33, the vales are electric valves and thus electrically actuated); a first tube (13 or 8) connected to the manifold and extending through the first hole
While Kinoshita appears to disclose what appears to be connector bodies for each tube in figures 4-6 (see in particular figure 4 at the rightmost end of 13 and 8), Kinoshita is silent as to the connector body removably connectable to the first tube, the connector body including: a first end arranged to engage the first tube; a second end; a first through-bore extending from the first end to the second end; a first radially inward facing surface; and a first radially outward facing surface; and a second tube removably connected to the second end of the connector body, wherein: the first tube and/or the second tube comprises a first groove, the first radially inward facing surface comprises a second groove; and a retainer is arranged in the first groove and operatively arranged to engage the second groove to secure the first tube and/or the second tube in the connector body.
Clapper teaches it was known in the art to have a connector body (145, 147, 143, the embodiment of figs. 6-8) removably connectable to a first tube (133 or 135), the connector body including: a first end arranged to engage the first tube (such as the left end); a second end (such as the right end); a first through-bore extending from the first end to the second end (left to right in figs. 6-8); a first radially inward facing surface (facing toward 133 and 135); and a first radially outward facing surface (facing away from 133, 135), with a second tube (the other of 133 or 135) removably connected to the second end of the connector body, wherein: the first tube and/or the second tube comprises a first groove (139), the first radially inward facing surface comprises a second groove (155); and a retainer (153) is arranged in the first groove and operatively arranged to engage the second groove to secure the first tube and/or the second tube in the connector body (figs. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kinoshita by having the connector body be removable and couple to the first and second tubes via the connector body with the first or second tubes having a groove and the radially inward facing surface of the connector body having a groove with a retainer in the first groove and operatively arranged to engage the second groove as taught by Clapper as Kinoshita is silent as to the details of the connector body and the connector body of Clapper allows for a secure means of coupling tubes together.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Velez.
Kinoshita discloses a variable refrigerant flow assembly, comprising: a housing (30) including a first wall (the right wall in fig. 4), the first wall comprising a first hole (a hole for 13 or 8); a piping network (including, for instance, 15, 9, 10, 11, 12, 27, 28, etc.) arranged in the housing, the piping network including: a plurality of valves (11, see fig. 3 showing the plurality); a manifold (27, 28); and a plurality of actuators operatively arranged to control the plurality of valves (at least paras. 32-33, the vales are electric valves and thus electrically actuated); a first tube (13 or 8) connected to the manifold and extending through the first hole
While Kinoshita appears to disclose what appears to be connector bodies for each tube in figures 4-6 (see in particular figure 4 at the rightmost end of 13 and 8), Kinoshita is silent as to the connector body removably connectable to the first tube, the connector body including: a first end arranged to engage the first tube; a second end; a first through-bore extending from the first end to the second end; a first radially inward facing surface; and a first radially outward facing surface.
Velez teaches it was known in the art to have a connector body (including 22, 32, 34, 42) that is removably connectable to a first tube (41), including: a first end arranged to engage the first tube (right end that engages the tube as shown in fig. 4); a second end (the left end); a first through-bore extending from the first end to the second end (figs. 1-4, the opening that extends through 22, 32, 34, 42); a first radially inward facing surface (the radially inward facing surfaces that define the through-bore); and a first radially outward facing surface (the radially outward facing surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kinoshita by having the connector body be removable and couple to the tubing and have a through bore, first and second ends, and radially inward and outward facing surfaces as taught by Velez as Kinoshita is silent as to the details of any connector body present at the tubing and the connector body of Velez allows for removably secure connections to other tubes (such as the tube 31 of Velez).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita in view of Velez as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Katsura (7,938,452).
Kinoshita as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose a filter removably arranged in the connector body, the filter including: an axial wall comprising a plurality of through-holes; and a lateral wall extending in an axial direction from the axial wall, the lateral wall forming a second radially inward facing surface and a second radially outward facing surface, wherein the lateral wall has no through-holes therein.
Katsura teaches it was known in the art to have a filter with a connector body (filter 5 with connector body T), the filter including: an axial wall comprising a plurality of through-holes (5B); and a lateral wall extending in an axial direction from the axial wall (5A), the lateral wall forming a second radially inward facing surface and a second radially outward facing surface (best shown in fig. 3), wherein the lateral wall has no through-holes therein (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kinoshita by including a filter with an axial wall having through holes and lateral wall having no through-holes as taught by Katsura in order to be able to filter any undesired contaminants flowing through the tubing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 17 has overcome the previous prior art rejections of record.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 has been amended to include allowable claim 11 and intervening claim 7. Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record is not seen to disclose or make obvious the combination of limitations as now recited in claim 1. Including the limitations of the housing, piping network including at least one valve and a manifold, a first tube, a connector body, a filter arranged in the connector body, a second tube, and wherein the first tube or the second tube comprises a first groove, the first radially inward facing surface of the connector body comprises a second groove, and a retainer is arranged in the first groove and operatively arranged to engage the second groove to secure the first tube or the second tube in the connector body. While Velez teaches a connector and a filter located within the connector, it is not seen to be obvious to further modify the already modifying reference to Velez to have the recited grooves and retainer located in the grooves as now recited in claim 1. Further, while Clapper teaches a connector with groove and a retainer, the connector, as shown in figures 6-8, is located entirely radially outside of the first and second tubes (133, 135). It is not seen to be further obvious to teach the addition of a filter to the connector assembly of the already teaching reference to Clapper as the filter would necessarily be located directly inside and only contacting the tube, with presumably only a friction fit to maintain the placement of the filter. Such as modification is not seen to be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 and 21 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
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 MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights