DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected and claims 2 and 4 are cancelled.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on 6 that “the O-ring 61 is not positioned between any two sleeve projections”, the examiner respectfully disagrees as fig. 6e shows both O-rings being positioned between sleeve projections (see annotated fig. 6e below). In addition, paragraph 0026, which applicant suggested supports that O-ring 61 is not positioned between any two sleeve projections, does not seem to depict this limitation, instead, it appears to depict that at low pressure the O-ring 61 is contacted and with increasing pressure both O-ring 61, 62 are contacted.
PNG
media_image1.png
291
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicants arguments on page 8 that Shimazaki is not structurally the same as the present invention with consideration of feature (I), the examiner respectfully disagrees because both the present invention (ex., see annotated fig. 6e above) and the prior art (ex., see annotated figure from Applicants Arguments on 6/1/2026) both depict that the O-rings are between two teeth.
PNG
media_image2.png
384
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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. Therefore, the “plurality of sleeve projections … being disposed only 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” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this case, the limitation “plurality of sleeve projections … being disposed only 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” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention because figure 6E does not depict the projections being disposed only the O-ring on the rear side (ex., see annotated fig. 6e above).
For example, the specification states: “At this time, the contact between the nut inner slope surface 21 and the sleeve slope surface 32 further contracts the diameter of the sleeve 3 and strengthens the biting of the sleeve projections 33 into the hose body B to reliably keep the hose body B from coming off and simultaneously enhance a force to compress the hose body B and the O-ring 61, thereby implementing water shut-off. Under a relatively low pressure, water shut-off is implemented by the far-side O-ring 61 in the inserting direction of the hose body (see Figs. 6(a), and 6(b)) and, as the pressure increases, the hose body B moves to contract the diameter of the sleeve 3 and simultaneously implement water shut-off by using the rear side O-ring 62 in the inserting direction of the hose body (see Fig. 6(e)).” (0026)
Therefore, it appears the specification, at most, states that O-ring 61 is initially engaged (ex., fig. 6a) and then when more pull-out/pressure occurs, both O-rings 61, 62 are engaged by the projections and not only O-ring 62.
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, 3, 5, and 6 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.
In regards to claim 1, the limitation “plurality of sleeve projections … being disposed only 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” is unclear to the examiner as to how the plurality of sleeve projections are disposed only above the O-ring 62 when a force to pullout the hose body from the hose joint is exerted when figure 6E shows that the plurality of sleeve projections are above both O-rings.
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) 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki (JP-2018003980) in view of Mizuguchi et al. (JP-2003343783).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood, 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 reciprocatably 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 only 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),
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,
the plurality of projections being disposed only 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.
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 the positional relationship of the teeth/O-rings, while Shimazaki does not disclose that the plurality of projections are disposed only above the rear-side O-rings, such modification of the placement of the plurality of projections/O-rings would have been a matter of design choice and modifying the position of the plurality of projections and/or O-rings to meet the limitation of the claim would not have modified the operation of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the positions of the plurality of the projections and/or O-rings of Shimazaki to meet the limitation of claim 1 because modifying the position of the O-rings and/or plurality of projections would not have modified the operation of the device as a seal would still be produced, it has been held that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) and the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
In regards to claim 3, 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 3, 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.
In regards to claim 6, 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimazaki (WO-2013115044) discloses a similar device to the present invention.
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
Prosecution Insights