DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 11/24/2025.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimers filed on 11/24/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration dates of US Patent 11,542,690 and US Patent 12,084,844 have been reviewed and are accepted. The terminal disclaimers have been recorded.
Drawings
Applicant’s claim amendments filed 11/24/2025 have overcome the drawing objections set forth in the previous Office action. The drawings filed 7/31/2024 are accepted.
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 8 and 9 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outer adapter ring surface" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeMoss et al. (US Patent 5,251,940).
Regarding Claim 1, DeMoss discloses a nozzle cap adapter (the adapter of DeMoss is at least capable of use as a nozzle cap adapter) comprising: an adapter ring 17 (best shown in Figure 9) comprising an interior void (central opening extending through sleeve 32 of 17 as shown in Figure 9) extending through the adapter ring 17; a nozzle connector (male projection 45 provides a connector capable of engaging a nozzle) extending from the adapter ring 17 (as shown in Figure 9) and configured to rotatably engage a fire hydrant nozzle (45 rotatably engages flange 43 of the opposite connector after insertion through recess 42 of the opposite connector; the male projection 45 is capable of rotatably engaging a fire hydrant nozzle in the same manner); and a latch 49 coupled to the adapter ring 17 (vi pivot pin 50) and configured to removably lock the nozzle cap adapter 17 onto the fire hydrant nozzle (49 pivotably engages the opposite connector in Figure 8 and therefore is configured to lock the adapter onto a fire hydrant nozzle in the same manner); wherein the adapter ring 17 defines an L-shaped cutout (L-shaped cutout for latch 49 as shown in Figures 9 and 8; i.e. the cutout for 49 includes an axially extending portion and a radially extending portion at one end of the axially extending portion, the radially extending portion accommodating spring 52 as shown in Figure 8) and the latch 49 is received within the L-shaped cutout (as shown in Figure 8).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington et al. (US Patent Application 2003/0193193) in view of DeMoss et al. (US Patent 5,251,940).
Regarding Claim 1, Harrington discloses a nozzle cap adapter (including 64 and 44) comprising: an adapter ring 44 comprising an interior void (central opening 54 through 44) extending through the adapter ring 44; a nozzle connector 56 extending from the adapter ring 44 and configured to rotatably engage a fire hydrant nozzle 46 (rotatably engaging via the threaded connection 56).
Harrington does not disclose a latch coupled to the adapter ring and configured to removably lock the nozzle cap adapter onto the fire hydrant nozzle; wherein the adapter ring defines an L-shaped cutout and the latch is received within the L-shaped cutout.
DeMoss teaches a fluid coupling and further teaches a latch 49 coupled to an adapter ring 17 (via pivot 50) and configured to removably lock a nozzle cap adapter onto a fire hydrant nozzle (as described above, the latch of DeMoss is capable of removably locking the adapter onto a fire hydrant nozzle); wherein the adapter ring 17 defines an L-shaped cutout (L-shaped cutout for latch 49 as shown in Figures 9 and 8; i.e. the cutout for 49 includes an axially extending portion and a radially extending portion at one end of the axially extending portion, the radially extending portion accommodating spring 52 as shown in Figure 8) and the latch 49 is received within the L-shaped cutout (as shown in Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Harrington to include a latch on the adapter ring as taught by DeMoss for the purpose of preventing unintentional disconnection of the coupling.
Regarding Claim 4, Harrington is seen as further disclosing the adapter ring (for the purpose of this claim, the adapter ring is seen to include the interconnected components 44, 64, and 94) further comprises an inner adapter ring surface (including the tapered surface of bore 54 and extending through the interior surface of 94; it is noted that the claim does not require any particular shape of the interior surface) defined from a first end to a second end of the adapter ring (as described above) and an annular adapter ring flange (the portion having threaded portion 78 provides an annular adapter ring flange extending inwardly from at least portion 80; alternatively the portion 52 also provides a radially inwardly extending flange) that extends radially inward from the inner adapter ring surface (as described above) relative to a cap axis of the adapter ring (relative to a central axis of the adapter ring which is seen to be readable as a “cap axis” of the adapter ring; it is noted that a cap is not positively recited).
Regarding Claim 5, Harrington is seen as further disclosing the annular adapter ring flange defines a flange upper surface (either portion 78 or the portion 52 are seen to define an upper surface, which may be an interiorly facing surface or an axially facing surface as the term “upper” is not recited with respect to any other particular direction).
Regarding Claim 8, Harrington is seen as further disclosing the adapter ring (for the purpose of this claim, the adapter ring is seen to include the interconnected components 44, 64, and 94) comprises: an annular ring flange on an inner adapter ring surface defining the interior void (the portion having threaded portion 78 provides an annular ring flange extending inwardly from at least portion 80; alternatively the portion 52 also provides a radially inwardly extending flange); and an adapter ring slot on the outer adapter ring surface (such as the slot adjacent the lip 68).
Regarding Claim 10, Harrington further discloses a gasket housing 92 defining an outer gasket housing surface (outer surface of 92), a first end (first end toward 46), a second end (second end toward 94), and a gasket groove (groove to receive gasket 90 as shown in Figures 6 and 8) in the outer gasket housing surface (in the axial end surface); and a gasket 90 received within the gasket groove (as shown in Figure 8), the gasket configured to engage the fire hydrant nozzle (the gasket capable of engaging the fire hydrant nozzle; it is noted that the fire hydrant nozzle is recited as an intended use of the claimed adapter as set forth in claim 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Harrington further discloses the outer gasket housing surface (outer surface of 92) engages an inner adapter ring surface defined in the adapter ring (as shown in Figure 8, the surface of 92 engages an inner surface of the adapter ring, which may be seen to include 44 with 64 and 94).
Regarding Claim 12, Harrington discloses a nozzle cap assembly (best shown in Figure 6) comprising: a nozzle cap 94; a nozzle cap adapter (including 64) coupled to the nozzle cap 94, comprising: an adapter ring 64 comprising an interior void 70 extending through the adapter ring 64; and a cutout defined in the adapter ring (cutout adjacent the lip 68 as shown in Figure 6).
Harrington does not disclose the cutout is an L-shaped cutout; and a latch coupled to the adapter ring within the L-shaped cutout, the latch configured to removably lock the nozzle cap assembly onto a nozzle.
DeMoss teaches a fluid coupling and further teaches a latch 49 coupled to an adapter ring 17 (via pivot 50) within an L-shaped cutout (L-shaped cutout for latch 49 as shown in Figures 9 and 8; i.e. the cutout for 49 includes an axially extending portion and a radially extending portion at one end of the axially extending portion, the radially extending portion accommodating spring 52 as shown in Figure 8), the latch configured to removably lock a nozzle cap assembly onto a nozzle (as described above, the latch of DeMoss is capable of removably locking the adapter onto a nozzle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Harrington to include a latch on the adapter ring as taught by DeMoss for the purpose of preventing unintentional disconnection of the coupling.
Regarding Claim 14, Harrington further discloses the nozzle cap adapter further comprising a gasket housing 92 received in the interior void of the adapter ring 64 (as shown in Figure 8), the gasket housing 92 comprising a gasket 90 received within a gasket groove defined in the gasket housing (as shown in Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 15, Harrington is seen as further disclosing an inner housing (outlet member 46 is readable as an “inner housing”, which is not defined as being any particular shape) comprising a housing body (the structure which forms 46 as shown in Figure 6 defines a housing body), a first locking ring 94 (member 94 is readable as a first locking ring because the member is annular and locks with lip 68 as shown in Figure 8), and a second locking ring (portion 44 is readable as a second locking ring because the portion is annular and threadably engages 46 to thereby lock 64 with 46), the first locking ring 94 coupled to the housing body 46 (these elements at least indirectly coupled as shown in Figure 8) and the second locking ring 44 between the housing body 46 and the adapter ring 64.
Regarding Claim 16, for the purpose of this claim, element 44 is relied upon as readable on the recited adapter ring recited in claim 12 (rather than element 64 as described above). It is noted that 44 includes a void extending therethrough and therefore in this interpretation the proposed modification of Harrington in view of DeMoss includes modifying the adapter ring 44 of Harrington to include a latch as taught by DeMoss for coupling the ring 44 to the outlet 46. Therefore, regarding claim 16, Harrington is seen as further disclosing an inner housing 64, wherein: the inner housing 64 defines a mounting leg 68 (to mount to 94), an inner housing shoulder (at the left end of 78 as shown in Figure 6), and a first locking ring (the annular ring portion having threads 80; the threads provided for locking 64 with 44); a boundary defined on the inner housing shoulder (i.e. the shoulder provides a boundary between the portions on either side thereof); and the first locking ring (including threads 80) coupled to the inner housing 64 (i.e. formed integrally therewith) at the boundary (as shown in Figure 6; the portion including threads 80 is connected with the rest of 64 at the shoulder).
Regarding Claim 18, when making and using the device of Harrington, Harrington is seen as necessarily disclosing a method for mounting a nozzle cap (including 92) to a nozzle (outlet 46 forms a nozzle of the hydrant) comprising: providing a nozzle cap assembly (including 92), the nozzle cap assembly comprising the nozzle cap 92 and a nozzle cap adapter (including 44), the nozzle cap adapter 44 coupled to the nozzle cap 92 (via 64), the nozzle cap adapter 44 comprising an adapter ring (including sections 60 and 62) and a nozzle connector 56 extending from the adapter ring (as shown in Figure 6); engaging the nozzle connector 56 with the nozzle 44; and rotating the nozzle cap assembly relative to the nozzle to secure the nozzle cap assembly (this is achieved when the connector 56 is threaded into the nozzle 44).
Harrington does not disclose the nozzle cap assembly comprising a latch, the adapter ring defining an L-shaped cutout, the latch being positioned in the L-shaped cutout; and engaging the latch with the nozzle.
DeMoss teaches a method of providing a fluid coupling and further teaches a nozzle cap assembly comprising a latch 49, an adapter ring 17 defining an L-shaped cutout (L-shaped cutout for latch 49 as shown in Figures 9 and 8; i.e. the cutout for 49 includes an axially extending portion and a radially extending portion at one end of the axially extending portion, the radially extending portion accommodating spring 52 as shown in Figure 8), the latch 49 being positioned in the L-shaped cutout (as described above); and engaging the latch 49 with an opposite fitting (as shown in Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Harrington to include a latch on the adapter ring as taught by DeMoss for the purpose of preventing unintentional disconnection of the coupling. It is noted that the proposed modification of providing a latch on the adapter ring of Harrington in the manner taught by DeMoss includes engaging the latch with the nozzle of Harrington in the manner taught by DeMoss in which the latch engages the opposite fitting.
Regarding Claim 19, Harrington is seen as further disclosing, wherein engaging the nozzle connector 56 with the nozzle 44 comprises inserting the nozzle connector 56 into an insertion region of an arcuate slot of the nozzle (the female threads of 44 define an “arcuate slot” of the nozzle for engagement with male threads 56).
Regarding Claim 20, Harrington is seen as further disclosing, wherein rotating the nozzle cap assembly relative to the nozzle 44 comprises rotating the nozzle connector 56 within an arcuate slot of the nozzle (the female threads of 44 define an “arcuate slot” of the nozzle) to rotate the nozzle connector 56 from an insertion region (i.e. the region at the rightmost end of 46 as shown in Figure 6) to a locking region of the arcuate slot (i.e. the region at the left end of 46 as shown in Figure 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are 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.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 18 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. Specifically, applicant argues that Steingass, Terzini, and Harrington all fail to teach the new limitations of an L-shaped cutout. However, newly applied DeMoss teaches an L-shaped cutout for latch 49 as shown in the annotated Figures 8 and 9 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753