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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/07/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims and any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Therefore, the valves in each coupling part of claim 11 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. The drawings do not show any specific detail of the claimed valve and a person of ordinary skill in the art would question how the valve is connected to each coupling part and if the valves are standard or not. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the multi start thread and the multi start thread are” and should be “wherein the multi start thread of the first coupling part and the multi start thread of the second coupling part are” to avoid ambiguity that the two recited multi start threads are the same or different.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US 3,276,474) in view of Rothe (DE 102019100897 A1) and Laverdiere et al. (US 2014/0091027 A1, hereinafter “Laverdiere”).
In regard to claim 1, Gill discloses an arrangement (Fig. 1 shows an arrangement) having a coupling connection (Fig. 1, a coupling connection between A and B) comprising:
a first coupling part (Fig. 1, plug member A defines a first coupling part); and
a second coupling part (Fig. 1, socket member B defines a second coupling part),
wherein the first coupling part and the second coupling part are connectable by a screw connection to form a fluid channel (Fig. 1, screw connection between 19 and 75 and fluid channel within A and B when connected by 19 and 75),
wherein the first coupling part includes a multi-start thread configured as a first part of the connection screw (Fig. 1, threads 19 define at least a first part of the connection screw and in 6:38-61 discloses 19 is a multi-start thread),
wherein the second coupling part includes a multi-start mating thread as a second part of the screw connection (Fig. 1, threads 75 defines at least a second part of the screw connection which has a complementary multi-start thread for 19).
Gill does not expressly disclose the multi start thread of the first coupling part and the multi start thread of the second coupling part are made of plastic, and wherein the first coupling part and the second coupling part are made of plastic, and wherein the screw connection is closable by less than one revolution.
In the related field of threaded pipe couplings, Rothe teaches a threaded pipe coupling can be made of plastic in order to have the advantage of corrosion resistance which ensures long-term durability and allow for at least ease of manufacturing (Figs. 1-2, pipe fitting at 10 and in [0018] of the English translation discloses the advantage of the fitting 10 being made of plastic).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of both the multi start threads and the coupling parts of Gill to be made of plastic with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of corrosion resistance which ensures long-term durability and allow for at least ease of manufacturing as taught by Rothe.
Additionally, 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, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of both the multi start threads and the coupling parts of Gill to be made of a known material such as plastic for at least the advantages of corrosion resistance, energy saving, and recyclable as disclosed at https://aliaxis.com/the-benefits-of-plastic-pipe-systems/.
In the related field of threaded couplings, Laverdiere teaches a threaded connection having a multi-start thread that includes a triple start in order to have the advantage of at least a known and reliable type of multi start thread that provides 360 degrees axial loading and a full seal connection with less than one rotation which reasonably suggest at least faster assembly as compared to single start threads (In [0242-0244] discloses double start and triple start threading connections allow for 360 degrees axial loading and a full seal connection with less than one rotation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi start threads of Gill to be triple start threads with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a known and reliable type of multi start thread that provides 360 degrees axial loading and a full seal connection with less than one rotation and faster assembly as taught by Laverdiere.
Additionally, triple start threads are well known type of threading as disclosed at https://baer.tools/en/blog/multi-start-thread-unlike-other-threads?srsltid=AfmBOoqFhDd9FvZ3Ed3NhNQthPq3lkq4zy_MSTBg-wE2pLVOWxLrx4hX and https://www.harveyperformance.com/in-the-loupe/multi-start-thread-guide/ to provide 360 degrees of locking with less than one revolution and provide fast acting connections.
In regard to claim 2, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 1, and Gill further discloses wherein the multi-start thread is an outer thread (Fig. 1, threads at 19 are outer threads), and the multi-start mating thread is an inner thread (Fig. 1, threads at 75 are inner threads).
In regard to claim 3, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 2, and Gill further discloses wherein the outer thread is arranged on an outside of a hollow cylindrical shaft of the first coupling part (Fig. 1, 19 is arranged on an outside of a hollow cylindrical shaft which defines the cylindrical shape of 19 of the first coupling part A).
In regard to claim 4, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 2, and Gill further discloses wherein the inner thread is arranged in a union nut of the second coupling part (Fig. 1, the part at 74 defines at least a union nut which has inner threads 75 similar to applicant’s invention which union nut 18 is a part that has inner threads).
In regard to claim 5, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 4, and Gill further discloses wherein the screw connection is established or disconnected by operating the union nut (Fig. 1, rotation of 74 to thread 75 over 19).
In regard to claim 11, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 1, and Gill further discloses wherein the first coupling part and the second coupling part each include a valve, wherein the valves are open when the coupling connection is formed (Fig. 1, each coupling part has a valve 10 and 10’ and in 1:9-14 discloses the valves are actuated to an open position when the coupling members are joined together, therefore, when A and B are connected, the valves are in the open position and when disconnected the valves close in order to avoid unwanted leaks when the parts are disconnected).
In regard to claim 12, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the screw connection is closable by one third of a revolution (See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere to disclose a triple start thread which allows a 360 degrees closable threading connection by one third of a revolution. See the notes above for claim 1 which disclose that multi start threading such as double start threading allows for half a revolution to provide 360 degrees of closure and triple start thread allows for one third of a revolution to provide 360 degrees of closure are known types of multi start threading).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US 3,276,474) in view of Rothe (DE 102019100897 A1) and Laverdiere (US 2014/0091027 A1) and further in view of Prymych (US 2003/0047238 A1).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere disclose the arrangement according to claim 1, and Gill further discloses wherein the first coupling part is connected directly or via a line (Fig. 1, first coupling part A has a connection at 16 for a flexible hose line and in 2:18-44 discloses A and B can connect flexible hose lines together) and the second coupling part is connected via a line (Fig. 1, second coupling part also includes an end for connecting to flexible hose).
Gill, Rothe, and Laverdiere do not expressly disclose the lines are for transferring fluid between a container and a tank of a tank truck.
In the related field of pipe couplers, Prymych teaches pipe fittings used for transferring fluid between a container and a tank of a tank truck (Fig. 4, pipe fittings near 10 which allows transfer of fluid between a container 50 to a tank of a tank truck at 52) in order to have at least the advantage of reliably transferring fluid between a container to a tank of a tank truck.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement of Gill in view of Rothe and Laverdiere to include a container and a tank of a tank truck with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of reliably allowing fluid transfer between a container and a tank of a tank truck as taught by Prymych. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably apply the pipe coupler of Gill in view of Rothe and Laverdiere for transferring between two locations such as between a container to a tank of a tank truck which in view of Prymych suggests a need for pipe couplers in order to allow reliable transfer of fluid between a container and a tank of a tank truck.
Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is a pipe fitting shown in applicant’s drawings in Figs. 2 and 3, and not to a container and a tank of a tank truck. The container and a tank of a tank truck is the intended use of the pipe fitting shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Therefore, the criticality of applicant’s invention is the pipe fitting shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
In regard to claim 10, Gill, Rothe, Laverdiere, and Prymych disclose the arrangement according to claim 8, and Gill further discloses wherein the line is formed as a hose (See claim 8 above, the coupling parts are for coupling to a flexible hose).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and moot.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to drawings, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably question how a valve structurally fits applicant’s invention shown in Figs. 2 and 3 when the portion at 12 inserts into 17. The claim describes two separate valves which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably question how two separate valves fit in 10 and 11 when there is a portion at 12 that inserts into 11. There are many types of standard valves having very distinct structural features. Applicant simply cites a dictionary definition which is unclear if applicant intended to define the valves as known standard valves that fit within the coupling parts or that a specially designed valve can fit into the coupling parts. A dictionary definition would not reasonably allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand and practice applicant’s invention absent an adequate drawing of a valve that fits into the particular coupling parts shown in applicant’s drawings. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments that Gill does not disclose plastic multi start threads and Rothe shows single start threads and teaches away from multi start threads, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Rothe would reasonably suggest plastic material corrosion resistance which ensures long-term durability and allow for at least ease of manufacturing. Additionally, 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, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of both the multi start threads and the coupling parts of Gill to be made of a known material such as plastic for at least the advantages of corrosion resistance, energy saving, and recyclable as disclosed at https://aliaxis.com/the-benefits-of-plastic-pipe-systems/. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Rothe and even without in view of Rothe would reasonably consider the advantages of plastic material for the multi start threads and the coupling parts.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to the screw connection is closable by less than one revolution have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for all teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the updated rejection that includes the prior art Laverdiere that teaches a multi start threading such as triple start threads to allow for 360 degrees of closure in less than one revolution. Additionally, types of multi start threading such as double start threads and triple start threads are well known types of multi start threading to allow for fast acting connections as compared to single start threading.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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 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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679