Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/853,897

HOSE JOINT

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Oct 03, 2024
Examiner
RUFRANO, ALEXANDER TYLER
Art Unit
3679
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toyox Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
85 granted / 156 resolved
+2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
194
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
§112
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 156 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-6 are rejected. 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 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. 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 (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 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, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimazaki (JP-2018003980). Claim 1, Shimazaki discloses: A hose joint (see fig. 4b hereinafter unless otherwise noted) comprising: a guide part (see near 1) provided in a nipple (1 and 11) and provided to face an inner surface of a hose body (B) having flexibility; a tightening member (2) having a tapered surface (2a) provided to face an outer peripheral surface of the guide part and have a diameter which gradually becomes larger in an inserting direction of the hose body (see fig. 4b); a sleeve (3) provided to be reciprocatable in each of the inserting direction of the hose body and an opposite hose pullout direction along the tightening member (ex., compare fig. 3b and fig. 4b) and be capable of elastic diameter expansion/contraction deformation in a radial direction (see fig. 5, where sleeve 3 comprises fingers capable of expansion/contraction); and an elastic member (5) provided so as to press the sleeve in the hose pullout direction along the tapered surface (ex., compare fig. 3b and fig. 4b), wherein the sleeve has a plurality of sleeve projections (34) that bite into an outer surface of the hose body when a diameter of the sleeve is contracted (see fig. 4b), the guide part has a plurality of O-rings (34) arranged from a far side to a rear side in the inserting direction of the hose body, and the plurality of sleeve projections are disposed above the O-ring on the far side in the inserting direction of the hose body when connection of the hose body is completed (see fig. 4b), while being disposed above the O-ring on the rear side in the inserting direction of the hose body when a force to pull out the hose body from the hose joint is exerted (see fig. 4b, where the projections are above both O-rings), and the hose body and the sleeve are simultaneously moved in the hose pullout direction (see fig. 4b). Claim 3, Shimazaki discloses: The hose joint according to claim 1, further comprising a ring (4) serving as a retainer of the elastic member, wherein the ring has a given thickness in the inserting direction of the hose body (see fig. 4b), and reciprocates while keeping a parallel state between an outer peripheral surface of the ring and an inner face of the tightening member, such that a pressing force of the elastic member uniformly acts on the sleeve in the circumferential direction (ex., compare fig. 3b and fig. 4b). Claim 6, Shimazaki discloses: The hose joint according to claim 1, further comprising a ring (4) serving as a retainer of the elastic member, wherein the ring has a given thickness in the inserting direction of the hose body and in contact with an inner face of the tightening member (ex., see near 4 where the ring presses directly against the ring 6 which directly presses against tightening member 2), and reciprocates while keeping a parallel state with the nipple (ex., compare fig. 3b and fig. 4b), such that a pressing force of the elastic member uniformly acts on the sleeve in the circumferential direction. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Mizuguchi et al. (JP-2003343783). In regards to claim 2, Shimazaki discloses: The hose joint according to claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein the sleeve has an extending part extending further than the tightening member in the hose pullout direction opposite to the inserting direction of the hose body, and the extending part functions as a pressing part for performing a pressing operation on the sleeve in the inserting direction of the hose body so as to expand the diameter of the sleeve when the hose body, the insertion of which has been completed, is pulled out. In regards to the extending part, Mizuguchi discloses a similar device comprising: a first embodiment (see fig. 5) where a sleeve (30) does not comprise an extending part, and a second embodiment (see fig. 6) where a sleeve (30) comprises an extending part (40) extending out of a tightening member (19) to provide the benefit of pushing the sleeve forward which allows teeth of the sleeve to project radially outward (see lines 242-246 in the translated document provided herein). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the tightening member and sleeve of Shimazaki such that the sleeve comprises an extending part that extends beyond the tightening member because Mizuguchi discloses that there a finite number of identified solutions such as a first embodiment where a sleeve does not comprise an extending part (see fig.5) extending from a tightening member or a second embodiment where a sleeve comprises an extending part extending from a tightening member (see fig. 6) to provide the benefit of pushing the sleeve forward which allows teeth of the sleeve to project radially outward (see lines 242-246). A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying the sleeve with the provision of an extending part such that the extending part extends beyond the tightening member is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results. In regards to claim 4, Shimazaki further discloses: The hose joint according to claim 1, further comprising a ring (4) serving as a retainer of the elastic member, wherein the ring has a given thickness in the inserting direction of the hose body (see fig. 4b), and reciprocates while keeping a parallel state between an outer peripheral surface of the ring and an inner face of the tightening member, such that a pressing force of the elastic member uniformly acts on the sleeve in the circumferential direction (ex., compare fig. 3b and fig. 4b). In regards to claim 5, Shimazaki further discloses: The hose joint according to claim 4, wherein the nipple has an escaping part (ex., to the left of protrusion 1b) serving as a space into which the ring retreats in the inserting direction of the hose body when the pressing operation is performed. 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 ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM. 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. /A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679 /Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 12, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595869
PIPE JOINT INSERT DEVICE, PIPE JOINT ASSEMBLY, AND METHODS OF FORMING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583303
BULKHEAD FITTING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584576
Plug Connector Comprising Verification Element
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12553556
FLUID COUPLINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546423
Connecting device, in particular for producing a fluid flow circuit
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+25.4%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 156 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month