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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species A (figs. 1-6) in the reply filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a serious burden has not been identified. This is not found persuasive because a serious search and/or examination burden is present at least because the species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter outlined in paragraph “2” of the Office Action mailed 18 November 2025. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
It is noted that the claims drawn to the non-elected species have been cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 15 November 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2312519 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is further noted that the Office attempted to retrieve the document on 15 April 2025 but the attempt failed.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Specifically, the following limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1, “securing means for connection to a fluid line”; the specification describes this structure as being a threaded bore (see paragraph [0043]).
Claim 1, “means for returning the latch to its locked position”; the specification describes this structure as a compression spring (see paragraph [0085]).
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 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hohmann (USP 5,489,125)
In regards to claim 1, at the onset it is noted that the nipple is not a required structural limitation but rather recited functionally as part of an intended use recitation in the preamble. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Hohmann discloses a female element for rapid fluidic connection to a nipple including a circumferential groove, said female element comprising:
a body (4), which provides a fluid passage and comprises:
a distal part (left end in fig. 1) from which the passage opens into an orifice (central bore) configured to receive the nipple in a press-fit configuration of the nipple, the orifice defining a main axis of the body,
a proximal par (right end in fig. 1), which comprises securing means for connection to a fluid line (23, a retaining ring is considered a functional alternative to threading),
the distal part and the proximal part respectively defining a front side and a rear side of the body and of the female element (shown in fig. 1),
a latch (20), comprising:
a passage ring (at “20”), which surrounds the body and,
a tooth (13), which is able to penetrate the circumferential groove of the nipple,
an actuating surface (see surface opposite of tooth “13”), which is located opposite the tooth relative to the main axis,
the latch being movable in translation according to a locking axis perpendicular to the main axis between a locked position (shown in fig. 1), wherein the tooth penetrates the circumferential groove of the nipple in the assembled press- fit configuration, and a withdrawal position, wherein the tooth does not penetrate the circumferential groove (fig. 1 shows this capability if used with a suitable nipple),
means for returning the latch to its locked position (22), wherein:
the latch comprises a tooth support (at “12”), which is arranged outside the body, which presents an elongated shape with a first end, by which the tooth support is connected to the passage ring, and a second end, by which the tooth support is connected to the tooth, the tooth being offset axially toward the front of the passage ring,
the actuating surface extends along the main axis toward the rear of the passage ring (shown in fig. 1),
the passage ring comprises a proximal face (21), which extends in a plane perpendicular to the main axis and which is oriented toward the rear,
the female element comprises a rear axial latch stop (9), which provides a distal face which is located facing the proximal face of the passage ring, the rear axial stop being configured to prevent axial displacement of the passage ring toward the rear of the body.\
In regards to claim 2, Hohmann further discloses the tooth comprises a proximal face and a distal face, which is oriented opposite from the proximal face, and which is perpendicular to the main axis, the proximal face of the tooth is located facing a distal face of the body, the distal face of the tooth constitutes an end face of the female element (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 3, Hohmann further discloses the body provides a front axial stop (7), which is located facing the distal face of the latch stop, the passage ring comprises a distal face, which is oriented opposite from the proximal face of the passage ring and which cooperates with the front axial stop of the body in such a manner as to prevent axial displacement of the passage ring toward the front of the body (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 4, Hohmann further discloses the latch and the body are shaped so as to allow the latch to be inserted through a proximal end of the body, until the passage ring is in abutment against the front axial stop of the body (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 12, Hohmann further discloses the female element comprises axial stop means (11) for the rear latch stop.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 13 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.
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 female element.
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
03/03/2026