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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04 December 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Office notes that while the applicant appears to have attempted to provide copies of foreign references EP-3258154, EP-3258152 and DE-202014000070, these only include the first page of each reference and are not considered a full legible copy of these documents. In order to expedite prosecution and considering that the references are pertinent, these references are being cited by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
---The abstract includes phrases which can be implied “Provided is…”. The Office suggests that the above-mentioned phrase is deleted from the abstract.
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).
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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
---Claim 7 L2 and claim 7 L5 (two separate instances) recites “having first portion”. Notice the lack of the indefinite article “a” in first portion. As such, the Office suggests that both instances are amended to:
“ having a first portion ”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan US-10480691 in view of Berardi US-8757213.
Regarding claims 1-5, 14, 17 and 19, Pan US-10480691 teaches in Figs. 1-3 (see at least Figs. 2-3) the limitations of a connection assembly (see Fig. 1 of Pan) for connecting to inner and outer hoses (see inner pipe body 1 and outer woven layer 2 of Pan), the connection assembly comprising: a first connector assembly (first joint assembly 3 of Pan) including a fluid connector (first connection socket 33 of Pan); a second connector assembly (second joint assembly 4 of Pan) configured to be coupled to an attachment (second joint assembly 4 of Pan comprises threads capable of coupling with a water supply device); a first hose connector assembly (see Fig. 2 of Pan) coupled to the first connector assembly and configured to be coupled to the inner and outer hoses, the first hose connector assembly including a first tube connector (first connector 31 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the inner hose and a first collar (first retainer ring 32 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the outer hose; and a second hose connector assembly (see Fig. 3 of Pan) coupled to the second connector assembly and configured to be coupled to the inner and outer hoses, the second hose connector assembly including a second tube connector (second connector 41 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the inner hose and a second collar (second retainer ring 42 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the outer hose. The device of Pan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the “fluid connector (first connection socket 33) configured to be coupled to a spigot” and “wherein the second tube connector has a cross-sectional area that is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first tube connector”. However, it is noted that similar to applicant’s invention, the first connector (32 in the applicant / 33 in Pan) are threaded joints and Pan discloses that the first connector is capable of coupling to a water supply equipment. Additionally, connecting expandable hoses to a water supply spigot is known in the art.
Berardi US-8757213 teaches in Figs. 1-13 (see at least Figs. 1-2 and 9) of an expandable hose comprising one end threadedly connected to a spigot 23 and another end threadedly connected to a nozzle 25 which allows the expandable hose to be used in irrigation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the ends of the expandable hose assembly of the device of Pan to be configured to be coupled to a water supply spigot 23 on a first end and, if desired, to an attachment nozzle 25 at the other end via the use of correspondingly sized threads in a similar manner as taught by Berardi since such a modification allows the device of Pan to couple to standard water supply/dispensing equipment to allow the device to be used for irrigation purposes while maintaining the benefits of an expandable hose. The device of the combination of Pan in view of Berardi fails to explicitly disclose the limitation of “wherein the second tube connector has a cross-sectional area that is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first tube connector”. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device [see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)]. Additionally, notice that the applicant does not discloses in the specification the criticality of claimed relative dimensions. While at least P10 and P20-21 provides support for this limitation, it is noted that mentions the relative dimensions as being exemplary or possible embodiments but does not properly establish the criticality of the design. Additionally, considering that the second tube connector 280 is connected to an attachment/nozzle and corresponds to the outlet portion of the expandable hose assembly and the first tube connector 220 is connected to a water supply spigot and corresponds to the inlet portion (which due to its connection to the water supply spigot can be considered to be anchored), it is unclear if there is any merit to applicant’s disclosed benefit of having the claimed relative dimensions which “prevents the hose from retracting under flow” since positive fluid pressure flowing from the inlet portion to the outlet portion will always act to expand the hose when fluid is flowing within the hose. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the relative dimensions of the second tube connector (41) of the device of the combination to have a cross-sectional area that is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first tube connector (31) such as by modifying the overall relative dimensions and/or distinct portions of them (such as flow passages), since the device of the combination would work appropriately within the claimed relative dimensions by allowing fluid to flow from the inlet portion to the outlet portion and allowing the expansion and preventing the retraction of the expandable hose under positive fluid pressure.
As such, the modified device of the combination of Pan US-10480691 in view of Berardi US-8757213 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 1. A connection assembly (see Fig. 1 of Pan as modified by Berardi) for connecting to inner and outer hoses (see inner pipe body 1 and outer woven layer 2 of Pan), the connection assembly comprising: a first connector assembly (first joint assembly 3 of Pan) including a fluid connector (first connection socket 33 of Pan as modified by Berardi) configured to be coupled to a spigot (the joint assembly 3 of Pan comprises threads capable of coupling with a spigot 23 such as the one taught by Berardi); a second connector assembly (second joint assembly 4 of Pan) configured to be coupled to an attachment (joint assembly 4 of Pan comprises threads capable of coupling with a water supply equipment as mentioned by Pan such as nozzle 25 as taught by Berardi); a first hose connector assembly (see Fig. 2 of Pan) coupled to the first connector assembly and configured to be coupled to the inner and outer hoses, the first hose connector assembly including a first tube connector (first connector 31 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the inner hose and a first collar (first retainer ring 32 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the outer hose; and a second hose connector assembly (see Fig. 3 of Pan) coupled to the second connector assembly and configured to be coupled to the inner and outer hoses, the second hose connector assembly including a second tube connector (second connector 41 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the inner hose and a second collar (second retainer ring 42 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the outer hose, wherein the second tube connector has a cross-sectional area that is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first tube connector (see the modification above).
---Claim 2. The connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the cross-sectional area of the second tube connector is about thirty percent less than the cross-sectional area of the first tube connector {the device of the combination fails to explicitly disclose the limitation of “the connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the cross-sectional area of the second tube connector is about thirty percent less than the cross-sectional area of the first tube connector”. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device [see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)]. Additionally, notice that the applicant does not discloses in the specification the criticality of claimed relative dimensions. While at least P10 and P20-21 provides support for this limitation, it is noted that mentions the relative dimensions as exemplary or possible embodiments but does not properly establish the criticality of the design. Additionally, considering that the second tube connector 280 is connected to an attachment/nozzle and corresponds to the outlet portion of the expandable hose assembly and the first tube connector 220 is connected to a water supply spigot and corresponds to the inlet portion (which due to its connection to the water supply spigot can be considered to be anchored), it is unclear if there is any merit to applicant’s disclosed benefit of having the claimed relative dimensions which “prevents the hose from retracting under flow” since positive fluid pressure flowing from the inlet portion to the outlet portion will always act to expand the hose when fluid is flowing within the hose. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the relative dimensions of the second tube connector (41) of the device of the combination to have the cross-sectional area of the second tube connector (41) is about thirty percent less than the cross-sectional area of the first tube connector (31), since the device of the combination would work appropriately within the claimed relative dimensions by allowing fluid to flow from the inlet portion to the outlet portion and allowing the expansion and preventing the retraction of the expandable hose under positive fluid pressure}.
---Claim 3. The connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first tube connector includes an elongate portion having a bulbous end (in Fig. 2 of Pan see the tubular right/upper end portion of 31 that faces toward the second joint assembly 4 and couples with the inner hose 1 at one end) over which a first end of the inner hose member is configured to be received (see at least Figs. 1-2 of Pan).
---Claim 4. The connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the second tube connector includes an elongate portion having a bulbous end (in Fig. 3 of Pan see the tubular left/lower end portion of 41 that faces toward the first joint assembly 3 and couples with the inner hose 1 at another end) over which a second end of the inner hose member is configured to be received (see at least Figs. 1 and 3 of Pan).
---Claim 5. The connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first collar surrounds at least a portion of the first tube connector and is configured to be coupled to a first end of the outer hose member, and the second collar surrounds at least a portion of the second tube connector and is configured to be coupled to a second end of the outer hose member (see at least Figs. 1-3 of Pan).
---Claim 14. A hose (see the expandable hose assembly of Fig. 1 of Pan, see also Fig. 1 and 9 of Berardi) comprising: a first connector assembly (first joint assembly 3 of Pan as modified above) configured to be coupled to a spigot (the joint assembly 3 of Pan comprises threads capable of coupling with a spigot 23 such as the one as taught by Berardi); a second connector assembly (second joint assembly 4 of Pan as modified above) configured to be coupled to an attachment (joint assembly 4 of Pan comprises threads capable of coupling with a water supply equipment as mentioned by Pan such as nozzle 25 as taught by Berardi); and a hose assembly (see inner pipe body 1 and outer woven layer 2 of Pan) coupled to the first and second connector assemblies, the hose assembly including an inner hose member (inner pipe body 1 of Pan) having first and second ends, an outer hose member (outer woven layer 2 of Pan) having first and second ends, a first hose connector assembly (see Fig. 2 of Pan) coupled to the first ends of the inner hose member and outer hose member and the first connector assembly, and a second hose connector assembly (see Fig. 3 of Pan) coupled to the second ends of the inner hose member and outer hose member and the second connector assembly, the first hose connector assembly including a first tube connector (first connector 31 of Pan as modified above) coupled to the inner hose member, and the second hose connector assembly including a second tube connector (second connector 41 of Pan as modified above) coupled to the inner hose member, wherein the second tube connector has a cross-sectional area that is about thirty percent smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first tube connector {the device of the combination fails to explicitly disclose the limitation of “the connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the cross-sectional area of the second tube connector is about thirty percent less than the cross-sectional area of the first tube connector”. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device [see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)]. Additionally, notice that the applicant does not discloses in the specification the criticality of claimed relative dimensions. While at least P10 and P20-21 provides support for this limitation, it is noted that mentions the relative dimensions as exemplary or possible embodiments but does not properly establish the criticality of the design. Additionally, considering that the second tube connector 280 is connected to an attachment/nozzle and corresponds to the outlet portion of the expandable hose assembly and the first tube connector 220 is connected to a water supply spigot and corresponds to the inlet portion (which due to its connection to the water supply spigot can be considered to be anchored), it is unclear if there is any merit to applicant’s disclosed benefit of having the claimed relative dimensions which “prevents the hose from retracting under flow” since positive fluid pressure flowing from the inlet portion to the outlet portion will always act to expand the hose when fluid is flowing within the hose. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the relative dimensions of the second tube connector (41) of the device of the combination to have the cross-sectional area of the second tube connector (41) is about thirty percent less than the cross-sectional area of the first tube connector (31), since the device of the combination would work appropriately within the claimed relative dimensions by allowing fluid to flow from the inlet portion to the outlet portion and allowing the expansion and preventing the retraction of the expandable hose under positive fluid pressure}.
---Claim 17. The hose according to claim 14, wherein the first hose connector assembly includes a first collar (first retainer ring 32 of Pan) coupled to the outer hose assembly, the first collar surrounding at least a portion of the first tube connector, and the second hose connector assembly includes a second collar (second retainer ring 42) coupled to the outer hose member, the second collar surrounding at least a portion of the second tube connector (see at least Figs. 1-3 of Pan).
---Claim 19. A connection assembly (see Fig. 1 of Pan as modified by Berardi) for connecting to inner and outer hoses (see inner pipe body 1 and outer woven layer 2 of Pan), the connection assembly comprising: a first connector assembly (first joint assembly 3 of Pan as modified above) including a fluid connector (first connection socket 33 of Pan) configured to be coupled to a spigot (the joint assembly 3 of Pan comprises threads capable of coupling with a spigot 23 such as the one as taught by Berardi); a second connector assembly (second joint assembly 4 of Pan as modified above) configured to be coupled to an attachment (joint assembly 4 of Pan comprises threads capable of coupling with a water supply equipment as mentioned by Pan, such as the nozzle 25 as taught by Berardi); a first hose connector assembly (see Fig. 2 of Pan) coupled to the first connector assembly, the first hose connector assembly including a first tube connector (first connector 31 of Pan as modified above) configured to be coupled to the inner hose and a first collar (first retainer ring 32 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the outer hose; and a second hose connector assembly (see Fig. 3 of Pan) coupled to the second connector assembly, the second hose connector assembly including a second tube connector (second connector 41 as modified above) configured to be coupled to the inner hose and a second collar (second retainer ring 42 of Pan) configured to be coupled to the outer hose, wherein the second tube connector has a flow passage that is smaller than a flow passage of the first tube connector (see the rejection of claim 1 above for details).
Claim(s) 12-13, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan US-10480691 in view of Berardi US-8757213 as applied to claim the intervening claims above, and further in view of Kuster US-5881757.
Regarding claims 12-13, 15-16 and 20, the device of the combination of Pan in view of Berardi as modified above fails to disclose the limitation of wherein the first connector assembly includes a regulator assembly as claimed. However, the use of pressure regulators to reduce pressure are well known in the art.
Kuster US-5881757 teaches in Figs. 1-6 (see at least Fig. 3) of a pressure regulator device 18 used for regulating the pressure of a fluid as it flows from inlet 15 to an outlet 13 in an irrigation supply line. The pressure regulator includes at least a biased-opened pressure-responsive valve stem member 36 and a housing assembly (see at least 43 and 54) that allows fluid to flow up to a desired pressure threshold and should the pressure at the upstream rise above the pressure threshold, the valve moves to regulate pressure and reduce pressure. Such a pressure regulator arrangement allows fluid to be delivered at a constant pressure, minimizes pressure changes and protects downstream equipment from high pressure spikes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the first connector assembly (3 of Pan as modified above) of the device of the combination of Pan in view of Derardi to include a pressure regulator assembly (18 of Kuster) which includes at least a biased-opened pressure-responsive valve member (36 of Kuster) that allows fluid to flow up to a desired pressure threshold and should the pressure at the upstream rise above the pressure threshold, the valve moves to regulate pressure and reduce pressure in a similar manner as taught as Kuster since such a modification allows fluid flowing through the expandable hose to be delivered at a constant pressure, it minimizes pressure changes at the outlet and protects components downstream of the first connector assembly from high pressure spikes.
As such, the modified device of the combination of Pan US-10480691 in view of Berardi US-8757213 and Kuster US-5881757 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 12. The connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first connector assembly includes a regulator assembly (see the pressure regulator 18 as taught by Kuster which includes at least a biased-opened pressure-responsive valve member 36 capable of regulating pressure flowing which is installed within the first connector assembly 3 to regulate flow) configured to regulate a flow of fluid through the inner hose to reduce a pressure of the fluid, the regulator assembly being coupled to the fluid connector (see at least Figs. 1-3 of Pan and Fig. 3 of Kuster).
---Claim 13. The connection assembly according to claim 12, wherein the regulator assembly includes a body (see the housing assembly of Kuster having at least 43 and 54) having a first end (54 of Kuster which is coupled within to the upstream portion of the first connector assembly 3) coupled to the fluid connector and a second end (43 of Kuster which is coupled within to the downstream portion of the first connector assembly 3) coupled to the first hose connector assembly, a valve stem (36 of Kuster) disposed in the body, and a valve seat (see the portion of 54 of Kuster that provides the valve seat for valve 36) disposed in the body, wherein the valve stem is biased in an open position and movable to a closed position against the valve seat blocking flow through the regulator assembly (see at least Fig. 3 of Kuster and Fig. 2 of Pan).
---Claim 15. The hose according to claim 14, wherein the first connector assembly includes a regulator assembly (see the pressure regulator 18 of Kuster which includes at least a biased-opened pressure-responsive valve member 36 capable of regulating pressure flowing which is installed within the first connector assembly 3 to regulate flow) configured to regulate a flow of fluid through the inner hose to reduce a pressure of the fluid, and a fluid connector (first connection socket 33 which is part of the first connector assembly 3) coupled to the regulator assembly for coupling to the spigot (see at least Fig. 3 of Kuster and Fig. 2 of Pan).
---Claim 16. The hose according to claim 15, wherein the regulator assembly includes a body (see the housing assembly of Kuster having at least 43 and 54) having a first end (54 of Kuster which is coupled within to the upstream portion of the first connector assembly 3) coupled to the fluid connector and a second end (43 of Kuster which is coupled within to the downstream portion of the first connector assembly 3) coupled to the first hose connector assembly, a valve stem (36 of Kuster) disposed in the body, and a valve seat (see the portion of 54 of Kuster that provides the valve seat for valve 36) disposed in the body, wherein the valve stem is biased in an open position and movable to a closed position against the valve seat blocking flow through the regulator assembly (see at least Fig. 3 of Kuster and Fig. 2 of Pan).
---Claim 20. The connection assembly according to claim 19, wherein the first connector assembly additionally includes a regulator assembly (see the pressure regulator 18 of Kuster which includes at least a biased-opened pressure-responsive valve member 36 capable of regulating pressure flowing which is installed within the first connector assembly 3 to regulate flow) configured to regulate a flow of fluid through the inner hose to reduce a pressure of the fluid, the regulator assembly including a body (see the housing assembly of Kuster having at least 43 and 54), a valve stem (36 of Kuster) disposed in the body, and a valve seat (see the portion of 54 of Kuster that provides the valve seat for valve 36) disposed in the body, wherein the valve stem is biased in an open position and movable to a closed position against the valve seat blocking flow through the regulator assembly (see at least Fig. 3 of Kuster and Fig. 2 of Pan).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 5-6, 17 and 20 of prior U.S. Patent Breeden US-12188592. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Notice that the claim limitations of claim 6 of the application can all be found in claim 1 of the Breeden US-12188592 patent, similarly claim 7 of the application can be found in claim 5 Breeden US-12188592 patent; similarly claim 8 of the application can be found in claim 6 Breeden US-12188592 patent; similarly claims 17-18 of the application can be found in claims 17 and/or 20 of the Breeden US-12188592 patent.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Breeden US-11927284; additionally, claims 1-5, 9-16 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Breeden US-12188592
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the device of the claims of the patents either explicitly or implicitly anticipates all the limitations of the present application and/or any missing structure or detail would be obvious over the claims of the patents themselves and/or the cited prior art. Notice that the claims of the application generally broadly claims a hose/ a connection assembly for connecting inner and outer hoses having a first connector assembly, a fluid connector, a second connector assembly, a first hose connector assembly, a first tube connector, a first collar, a second hose connector assembly, a second tube connector and a second collar. It is noted that the claims of the patents includes all of these in greater detail including details of the regulator and stress relief device which are claimed broadly in dependent claims of the application. It is further noted that claims 1 and 5 of the application broadly mirrors the limitations of claim 1 of Breeden US-12188592 patent; claims 2-4 of the application broadly mirrors the limitations of claims 2-4 of Breeden US-12188592; claim 9 of the application broadly mirrors the limitations of claim 9 of Breeden US-12188592, claims 10-11 of the application broadly mirrors the limitations of claim 13-14 of Breeden US-12188592, claims 12-13 of the application broadly mirrors the limitations of claims 8-9 of Breeden US-12188592; claims 14-16 of the application broadly mirrors the limitations of claims 17-19 of Breeden US-12188592; and claims 19-20 of the application broadly mirrors the limitations of claims 10 and 12 of Breeden US-12188592. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where the applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, the applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since the claims of the application are anticipated by the claims of the patent and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then the claims of the application are obvious over the claims of the patent. Additionally, any missing structure or detail would be obvious over the cited prior art in a similar manner as applied in the rejections above with at least Pan US-10480691 teaching of an expandable hose with a connection assembly with similar features such as the use of connectors, tube connector and collars that allows for the safely securing the inner and outer tubes to water supply lines while enjoying the benefits of an expandable hose; with Berardi US-8757213 teaching of another example of an expandable hose and teaching of the interconnection between a spigot and a nozzle which allows the expandable hose to connect to conventional threads in fluid supply equipment in a similar manner as applicant’s invention; and with Kuster US-5881757 teaching of details of a pressure regulator that allows fluid pressure to be delivered at a constant pressure, which minimizes pressure changes at the outlet and protects components downstream of the first connector assembly from high pressure spikes.
Conclusion
The references made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
---References A (relevant but not prior art): Breeden US-11927284, Breeden US-12188592 and Breeden US-12416374 showing US Patents by the same Inventor/Assignee with similar claimed subject matter as the current application. It is noted that these references cannot be relied as “prior art” as these references are under the 35 USC 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2) exceptions.
---References B (Expandable Hoses): Mishan US-11732826, Zhang US-11118707, Rose US-10724663, De Nora US-10563796, Lord US-10550965, Pan US-10480691, Blanchette US-10458574, Caplan US-10393291, De Nora US-10228082, Ashcroft US-9765909, Pan US-9709194, Liang US-9310000, Berardi US-8757213, Bartholomew US-4669757, Zheng US-20220082193, Perlmutter US-20200158269, Righi US-20190285212, Wu US-20190226615, Sung US-20160319964, Huang US-20160215919, Rose EP-3258154, Lord EP-3258152, DS Produckte DE-202014000070 and Hsieh US-11898668 teaches of various examples of expandable hoses which include connections for coupling the inner and outer hoses in a similar manner as applicant’s general invention.
---References C (Pressure Regulator): Drechsel US-10386867, Lawyer US-9459631, Greenwood US-9367070, Ungerecht US-8714186, Lo US-7654282, Youngberg US-7140595, Callies US-6374853, Meyer US-5257646 and Hartley US-4300592 teaches of various examples of pressure regulators that allows fluid pressure to be delivered at a constant lower pressure similar to a feature of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753