DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it begins with the implied phrase “Disclosed is”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 11-28 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.75(i) because elements of the claims are not separated by line indentation.
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.
Claims 11-28 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 11 recites “one actuated position” in line 5. However, no actuated positions have been previously recited. It is unclear how many actuated positions exist and which one is being referred to by this limitation.
Claim 12 recites “one actuated position”. It is unclear if this is referring to the “one actuated position”, the “further actuated position” or intending to require a third actuating position.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the other free end" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no free end has been recited.
Further regarding claim 14, the claim recites “a further fixing element” and “a further lever drive” which is unclear because no previous fixing element or lever drive have been recited. It appears this claim should depend from claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the assignable plate-shaped fixing element" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "one of the free end faces" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this claim should depend from claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the free opening cross-section" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to the free-cross section recited in claim 11 or intending to recite a new element.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the waveform" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this claim should depend from claim 12.
Claim 19 recites “The coupling system”. It makes it unclear if claim 19 is intending to be an independent or dependent claim. For examination purposes only, “The coupling system will be treated as “A coupling system”.
Further regarding claim 19, the preamble of the claim recites “consisting of” which is a close-ended transitional phrase. The claim later recites “comprising” multiple times which is open-ended. This makes the bounds of the claim impossible to determine.
Further regarding claim 19, the claim recites “one actuated position” in line 6. However, no actuated positions have been previously recited. It is unclear how many actuated positions exist and which one is being referred to by this limitation.
Claims 22-28 are replete with instances referring an element of one of the two coupling systems and it is not clear which is being referred to. For example, claim 22 recites “the flexible membrane” in lines 1-2. Is this referring to the flexible membrane of the first coupling device or the second coupling device? Each instance of this must be corrected throughout claims 22-28.
Further regarding claim 22, it recites “one actuated position”. It is unclear if this is referring to the one actuated position, the “further actuated position” or intending to require a third actuating position.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sehr et al. (DE 4006785A1 hereinafter “Sehr”).
In regards to claim 11, as best understood by the examiner, Sehr discloses a coupling device (1, 11) having at least one coupling element which comprises an actuating device (18, 12) that actuates a closure part (2, 15), wherein a flexible conduit portion (9) comprising a free cross- section can be connected to the coupling element and wherein the closure part, in one actuated position, releases the free cross-section of the conduit portion and closes this cross-section in a further actuated position (shown between figs. 4-5), wherein the closure part comprises a flexible membrane (2, 15).
In regards to claim 12, as best understood by the examiner, Sehr further discloses the flexible membrane can be actuated by the actuating device from one actuated position after passing in a waveform manner (see fig. 5) through the inside of the coupling element into the further actuated position, which lies opposite the first actuated position (shown in figs 4-5).
In regards to claim 16, as best understood by the examiner, Sehr further discloses the membrane protrudes over one of the free end faces of the coupling element in one direction to fix the conduit portion (shown in fig. 5).
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.
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 19, 21, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sehr as applied to claim 11 above.
In regards to claims 19 and 21, as best understood by the examiner, Sehr discloses the coupling system consisting a coupling device (1, 11), wherein the coupling device has at least one coupling element which comprises an actuating device (18, 12) that actuates a closure part (2, 15), wherein a flexible conduit portion (9) comprising a free cross-section can be connected to the coupling element and wherein the closure part, in one actuated position, releases the free cross- section of the conduit portion and closes this cross-section in a further actuated position (shown between figs. 4-5), wherein the closure part comprises a flexible membrane. (2, 15)
Sehr does not disclose a second identical coupling device.
However, duplication of working parts of a prior art device has been held to be design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice before the effective filing date to provide a second identical coupling device in order to connect a second conduit, producing no new and unexpected results.
In regards to claim 22, as best understood by the examiner, Sehr further discloses the flexible membrane can be actuated by the actuating device from one actuated position after passing in a waveform manner (see fig. 5) through the inside of the coupling element into the further actuated position, which lies opposite the first actuated position (shown in figs 4-5).
In regards to claim 26, as best understood by the examiner, Sehr further discloses the membrane protrudes over one of the free end faces of the coupling element in one direction to fix the conduit portion (shown in fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15, 17, 18, 20, 23-25, 27, and 28 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the remaining cited prior art shows a similar coupling device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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 supervisor, Matthew D. 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.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
12/15/2025