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 .
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Franz US-11711907.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5 and 10-12, Franz US-11711907 teaches in Figs. 1-7D (see at least Figs. 3B-3D) the limitations of:
---Claim 1. A female fluid coupling (non-circular female disconnect 301), comprising: a coupling body (female body 314 and disconnect 326) defining a central longitudinal axis (see the longitudinal centerline of the coupling assembly), the coupling body having an oblong outer profile when viewed along the central longitudinal axis (see at least Fig. 3D), the female fluid coupling having an outer height (see the shorter radial direction) extending perpendicularly to the central longitudinal axis and an outer width (see the longer radial direction) extending perpendicularly to the central longitudinal axis and to the outer height, wherein the outer width is greater than the outer height (see at least Fig. 3D); and a valve assembly disposed within the coupling body, the valve assembly comprising: (i) a valve stem comprising a valve stem head (see the forward end of the stationary plunger 316) and a valve stem head support structure (stationary portion 322) attached to the valve stem head and extending longitudinally and (ii) a valve sleeve (female poppet 318), wherein the valve sleeve is movable, along the central longitudinal axis and relative to the valve stem head and the valve stem head support structure, between: (a) an open position (see Fig. 3C) in which a flow path is opened through the female fluid coupling and (b) a closed position (see Fig. 3B) in which the flow path is blocked, wherein the valve sleeve has an oblong outer profile shape that extends around the valve stem head when the valve sleeve is in the closed position (see Fig. 3D) and that extends around the valve stem head support structure when the valve sleeve is in the open position (see Figs. 3B-3D), and wherein a base of the valve stem head support structure (the portion of the stationary portion 322 that is at least within the housing) is wider than a width of the valve stem head.
---Claim 2. The female fluid coupling of claim 1, wherein the central longitudinal axis intersects the valve stem head and does not intersect the base of the valve stem head support structure (see Fig. 3B).
---Claim 5. The female fluid coupling of claim 1, further comprising a seal member (see the unnumbered O-ring seal around plunger 316 that seals with the poppet sleeve 318) disposed within a groove (see Fig. 3B) defined by the valve stem head and positioned between the valve stem head and the valve sleeve (see at least Fig. 3B).
---Claim 10. A male fluid coupling (non-circular male disconnect 300) comprising: a coupling body (housing portions 302, 304 and 306) defining a central longitudinal axis (see the longitudinal centerline of the coupling assembly), the coupling body having an oblong outer profile when viewed along the central longitudinal axis (see at least Figs. 2C, 3B and 3D-3E), the male fluid coupling having an outer height (see the shorter radial direction) extending perpendicularly to the central longitudinal axis and an outer width (see the longer radial direction) extending perpendicularly to the central longitudinal axis and to the outer height, wherein the outer width is greater than the outer height; and a valve member (male poppet 312) disposed within the coupling body and having an oblong outer profile shape when viewed along the central longitudinal axis (see at least Figs. 2C, 3B and 3D-3E), wherein the valve member is movable along the central longitudinal axis, relative to the coupling body, between: (a) an open position (Fig. 3C) in which a flow path is opened through the male fluid coupling and (b) a closed position (see Fig. 3B) in which the flow path is blocked, wherein, when the valve member is in the open position: (i) end portions of the valve member (see the axially-inner/rearward end portions of the poppet 312) are in contact with the coupling body and (ii) a middle portion (see the middle portion between the axially-inner/rearward end portions of the poppet 312 and the axially-outer/forward end portion the poppet 312 which faces the female plunger 316) of the valve member, extending between the end portions, is fully out of contact with the coupling body (see at least Figs. 3B-3C).
---Claim 11. The male fluid coupling of claim 10, wherein the coupling body defines an internal space that has an oblong inner profile shape that corresponds to the oblong outer profile of the coupling body (see at least Figs. 3B-3D).
---Claim 12. The male fluid coupling of claim 10, further comprising first and second valve springs that each bias the valve member toward the closed position (see at least C4 L48-63 teaching that the male poppet can be biased to the closed position by a spring or spring(s)).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz US-11711907 in view of Handley US-11092982.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the device of Franz US-11711907 fails to explicitly disclose the arrangements of biasing springs for the valve sleeve of the female coupling and the male valve member as claimed. However, it is noted that Franz itself mentions the use of one or more springs for biasing these valves to the closed position (see at least C4 L48-63 and C6 L50 – C7 L4) and that such an arrangement is known in the art.
Handley US-11092982 teaches in at least Figs. 2-4 of a spring biased valve member comprising a movable valve member 52 and a plurality of springs 44 which are laterally offset from the centerline of the valve assembly. As it is known in the art, the use of either a single “large spring” or multiple “small” springs is a known alternative method of applying a biasing force to a movable valve member with the added advantage that the use of multiple springs aid in dispersing the energy impacting on the valve member and stabilizing its movement as compared to the conventional single large spring embodiment.
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 biasing springs of the device of Franz to include at least two springs arranged such that they are “are each laterally offset from the central longitudinal axis on opposite sides of the central longitudinal axis in relation to each other” in a similar manner as spring 44 of Hadley are arranged since this is a known alternative method of applying a biasing force to the movable valve members with the added advantage that the use of multiple springs aid in dispersing the energy impacting on the valve members and stabilizing its movement as compared to the conventional single large spring embodiment.
As such, the device of the combination of Franz US-11711907 in view of Handley US-11092982 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 3. The female fluid coupling of claim 1, further comprising first and second female valve springs (see at least C4 L48-63 and C6 L50 – C7 L4 of Franz, see also laterally offset spring 44 of Handley) that each bias the valve sleeve toward the closed position, wherein the first and second female valve springs are each laterally offset from the central longitudinal axis on opposite sides of the central longitudinal axis in relation to each other (see at least Figs. 2-4 of Handley).
---Claim 13. The male fluid coupling of claim 12, wherein the first and second male valve springs (see at least C4 L48-63 and C6 L50 – C7 L4 of Franz, see also laterally offset spring 44 of Handley) are each laterally offset from the central longitudinal axis on opposite sides of the central longitudinal axis in relation to each other (see at least Figs. 2-4 of Handley).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz US-11711907 in view of Braun US-6161578.
Regarding claim 4, the device of Franz US-11711907 fails to disclose the use of a latch as claimed. However, quick coupling latches similar to those used by the disclosed invention are well-known in the art.
Braun US-6161578 teaches in Figs. 1-31 (see at least Figs. 1-3) of a valved fluid coupling assembly 40 wherein the female coupling 44 comprises transversally-movable spring-biased latch coupling mechanism 60 that interacts with an annular groove on the male coupler 42 for releasably securing the connection between the two couplers. Notice that this type of coupling mechanism provides a quick-coupling allowing for the couplers 44 and 42 to be releasably secured by simply pushing the two couplers together into engagements. Also notice that the quick coupling mechanism also provides for easily disconnecting the connection by moving the latch to release the connection, thus providing a quick and easy method of coupling and uncoupling the fluid couplers.
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 device of Franz to include a quick coupling latch mechanism 60 similar to the one as taught by Braun since such a modification allows for a quick, easy and secure way of releasably coupling the male and the female fluid couplers.
As such, the device of the combination of Franz US-11711907 in view of Braun US-6161578 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 4. The female fluid coupling of claim 1, further comprising a latch (see the quick coupling latch mechanism 60 as taught by Braun) that is movably coupled to the coupling body and movable transverse to the central longitudinal axis (see at least Figs. 1-3 of Braun).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz US-11711907 in view of Bartholomew US-5546985.
Regarding claims 6-9, Franz US-11711907 fails to disclose the feature of a cartridge housing disposed within the coupling body as claimed. However, cartridges housing valve components which are then secured to the main housing of a coupling are well-known in the art.
Bartholomew US-5546985 teaches in Figs. 1-5 (see at least Figs. 1-3) of a fluid coupling assembly 10 comprising a spring biased piston-valved male coupling 14 and a spring biased sleeve-valved female coupling 12 wherein the female coupling comprises a housing body and within it a valve cartridge assembly is releasably secured. The valve cartridge assembly includes a cartridge housing (24 and 16), a stem 38 secured to the cartridge housing and a movable valve sleeve 22 which is biased by a spring 102. The use of a cartridge valve design allows for easier installation and servicing of the valve assembly by allowing the valve assembly to be packaged as a cartridge unit within the housing body of the coupling.
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 valve assembly of the device of Franz to use a valve cartridge design similar to the one as taught by Bartholomew wherein the components of the valve assembly are packaged within a cartridge housing (24 and 16) and the cartridge valve assembly is then releasably secured to the female coupling housing in as similar manner as taught by Bartholomew since such a modification allows for the easier installation and servicing of the valve assembly by allowing the valve assembly to be packaged as a cartridge unit within the housing body of the coupling.
As such, the device of the combination of Franz US-11711907 in view of Bartholomew US-5546985 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 6. The female fluid coupling of claim 1, further comprising a cartridge housing (see the cartridge housing 24 as taught by Bartholomew which houses the various valve components a pre-packaged cartridge design) disposed within the coupling body, wherein the valve assembly is disposed within the cartridge housing (see at least Figs. 1-3 of Bartholomew).
---Claim 7. The female fluid coupling of claim 6, further comprising a first seal (seal 68 of Bartholomew) disposed within the cartridge housing and around the valve sleeve.
---Claim 8. The female fluid coupling of claim 7, further comprising a second seal (seal 70 of Bartholomew) disposed within the cartridge housing and positioned to seal against a male fluid coupling (see the male coupling 300 of Franz, see also the male coupling 14 of Batholomew) as it is inserted into the female fluid coupling.
---Claim 9. The female fluid coupling of claim 8, further comprising a spacer (see the bushing part 66 of Batholomew) disposed between the first seal and the second seal.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz US-11711907 in view of Vranish US-20140261819.
Regarding claim 14, the device of Franz US-11711907 fails to disclose the limitation of “wherein the valve sleeve abuts against an internal shoulder of the cartridge housing to locate the valve sleeve in the closed position” and “wherein the valve sleeve does not carry a seal member” as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that when a sealing engagement is required either: a) the movable valve sleeve carries the seal that seals against the housing, or b) the housing carries the seal that seals against the movable valve sleeve or c) both the housing and the movable valve sleeve includes seals for sealing against each other. Furthermore, such an arrangement is known in the art.
Vranish US-20140261819 teaches in Figs. 1-14 (see at least Figs. 4, 10, 12 and 14) of another example of a valved coupling assembly comprising a female coupling 100 comprising a cartridge housing 110, a spring biased poppet sleeve valve 136 and a stem 130 with a stem head 134. Notice that the stem head 134 carries a seal 144 that engages with the sleeve valve 136 and the housing 110 carries seals 142 and 146 with at least seal 142 that engages the sleeve valve 136 whereas the valve sleeve 136 does not carry any seal member.
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 valve sleeve 318 and the cartridge housing 314 of the device of Franz such that the housing 314 carries a seals 142 and 146 with at least seal 142 that engages the valve sleeve and the valve sleeve 350 does not carry any seal member in a similar manner as taught by Vranish since such a modification is a known alternative design of providing a seal in a sleeve-type valved coupling that provides the same effect of ensuring a fluid tight seal when the valve is moved to the closed position.
The device of the combination of Franz in view of Vranish as modified above fails to disclose the limitation of “wherein the valve sleeve abuts against an internal shoulder of the cartridge housing to locate the valve sleeve in the closed position” as claimed. It is noted that in the case of Franz, a shoulder is provided on the stem head 316 to arrest the valve sleeve from moving far away from the closed position and being disassembled. However, one of ordinary can recognize that in order to secure the valve sleeve and prevent it from moving further away from the closed position than it is required to, three alternative methods can be provided such as: a) a shoulder on the stem/plunger head that engages with the valve sleeve and arrests its movement when the valve is in the closed position (in a similar manner as taught by Franz) or b) include a shoulder on the housing structure that engages with the valve sleeve and arrests its movement when the valve is in the closed position, c) include an additional structure such as a fastener attached to the housing and providing the shoulder to arrest the movement of the valve sleeve when the valve is in the closed position or d) a combination thereof. Furthermore, such an arrangement similar to the one being claimed is known in Vranish itself. Notice in at least Fig. 4 of Vranish that the housing 110 includes a shoulder 184 which engages a shoulder 182 of the valve sleeve when the valve is in closed position. These shoulders aids in guiding the movement of the valve sleeve and preventing the valve sleeve from sliding away from the valve assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the design of the valve sleeve and the cartridge housing of the device of the combination of Franz in view of Vranish to include a shoulder/projection 184 and a flange/shoulder 182 on the valve sleeve such that shoulder/projection 82 engages the flange/shoulder of the valve sleeve when the valve is in the closed position in a similar manner as taught by Vranish since such a modification is a known method guiding the movement of the valve sleeve and further preventing the valve sleeve from sliding away from the valve assembly.
As such, the device of the combination of Franz US-11711907 in view of Scott US-20180238480 and Vranish US-20140261819 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 14. A fluid coupling cartridge (non-circular female disconnect 301 of Franz), comprising: a cartridge housing (female body 314 and disconnect 326 of Franz as modified by Vranish to include a seals 142 and 146 with at least seal 142 to seal against the valve sleeve when the valve is in the closed position and as modified by Vranish to include a shoulder 184 for engaging with a flange 182 of the valve sleeve when the valve is in the closed position) defining a central longitudinal axis (see the longitudinal centerline of the coupling assembly of Franz), the cartridge housing having an oblong outer profile when viewed along the central longitudinal axis (see at least Fig. 3D of Franz), the cartridge housing having an outer height (see the shorter radial direction) extending perpendicularly to the central longitudinal axis and an outer width (see the longer radial direction) extending perpendicularly to the central longitudinal axis and to the outer height, wherein the outer width is greater than the outer height; and a valve assembly disposed within the cartridge housing and comprising a valve stem head (see the forward end of the stationary plunger 316 of Franz) and a valve sleeve (female poppet 318 of Franz as modified by Vranish to remove the unnumbered seal from the valve sleeve and have the valve sleeve contact a seal on the stem head and a seal on the cartridge housing when the valve is in the closed position and as modified by Vranish to include a flange/shoulder 182 capable of engaging with shoulder 184 to aid in guiding the movement of the valve sleeve and further preventing the valve sleeve from sliding away from the valve assembly), wherein the valve sleeve is movable along the central longitudinal axis, relative to the cartridge housing and the valve stem head, between: (a) an open position (see Fig. 3C of Franz) in which a flow path is opened through the fluid coupling cartridge and (b) a closed position (see Fig. 3B of Franz) in which the flow path is blocked, wherein the valve sleeve abuts against an internal shoulder (shoulder 184 as taught by Vranish) of the cartridge housing to locate the valve sleeve in the closed position (see at least Fig. 4 of Vranish), and wherein the valve sleeve does not carry a seal member (see at least Fig. 4 of Vranish).
---Claim 15. The fluid coupling cartridge of claim 14, wherein the valve stem head has an oblong outer profile shape, and wherein the cartridge housing defines an oblong inner profile shape corresponding to the oblong outer profile shape of the valve stem head (see at least Figs. 3B-3D of Franz).
---Claim 17. The fluid coupling cartridge of claim 14, further comprising a first seal (see seal 142 of Vranish) disposed within the cartridge housing and around the valve sleeve while the valve sleeve is in the closed position.
---Claim 18. The fluid coupling cartridge of claim 17, further comprising a second seal (see the second seal 146 of Vranish) disposed within the cartridge housing and positioned to seal against a male fluid coupling (see the male coupling 300 of Franz, see also the male coupling 200 of Varanish) as it is inserted into the cartridge housing.
---Claim 19. The fluid coupling cartridge of claim 18, further comprising a spacer (see the shoulder between seals 146 and 142 of Vranish) disposed between the first seal and the second seal.
---Claim 20. The fluid coupling cartridge of claim 14, wherein a valve stem head support structure (the portion of the stationary portion 322 of Franz that is at least within the housing) is wider than a width of the valve stem head (see Figs. 3B-3D of Franz).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz US-11711907 in view of Vranish US-20140261819 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Handley US-11092982.
Regarding claim 16, the device of the combination of Franz US-11711907 in view of Vranish US-20140261819 fails to explicitly disclose the arrangements of biasing springs for the valve sleeve of the female coupling and the male valve member as claimed. However, it is noted that Franz itself mentions the use of one or more springs for biasing these valves to the closed position (see at least C4 L48-63 and C6 L50 – C7 L4) and that such an arrangement is known in the art.
Handley US-11092982 teaches in at least Figs. 2-4 of a spring biased valve member comprising a movable valve member 52 and a plurality of springs 44 which are laterally offset from the centerline of the valve assembly. As it is known in the art, the use of either a single “large spring” or multiple “small” springs is a known alternative method of applying a biasing force to a movable valve member with the added advantage that the use of multiple springs aid in dispersing the energy impacting on the valve member and stabilizing its movement as compared to the conventional single large spring embodiment.
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 biasing springs of the device of the device of the combination of Franz in view of Vranish to include at least two springs arranged such that they are “are each laterally offset from the central longitudinal axis on opposite sides of the central longitudinal axis in relation to each other” in a similar manner as springs 44 of Hadley are arranged since this is a known alternative method of applying a biasing force to the movable valve members with the added advantage that the use of multiple springs aid in dispersing the energy impacting on the valve members and stabilizing its movement as compared to the conventional single large spring embodiment.
As such, the device of the combination of Franz US-11711907 in view of Vranish US-20140261819 and Handley US-11092982 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 16. The fluid coupling cartridge of claim 14, further comprising first and second valve springs (see at least C4 L48-63 and C6 L50 – C7 L4 of Franz, see also laterally offset spring 44 of Handley) that each bias the valve sleeve toward the closed position, wherein the first and second valve springs are each laterally offset from the central longitudinal axis on opposite sides of the central longitudinal axis in relation to each other (see at least Figs. 2-4 of Handley).
Double Patenting
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 1-17 of U.S. Patent Langer US-11480280 (referred from here on as Langer ‘280). Additionally, claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent Langer US-12203579 (referred from here on as Langer ‘579).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the devices of the Langer ‘280 and Langer ‘579 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 cited prior art. Notice that the claims of the application generally claims a female fluid coupling/a fluid coupling cartridge with a coupling body/a cartridge housing, a valve sleeve and a valve stem head, a male fluid coupling with a coupling body and a valve member, wherein the coupling bodies/cartridge housing and/or the valve have an oblong outer profile whereas the claims of the Langer ‘280 and Langer ‘579 patents describe in greater detail the same limitation with at least Langer ‘280 going as far as claiming the fluid coupling system including both the oblong valved male coupling and the oblong valved female coupling and with both Langer ‘280 and Langer ‘579 describing how the oblong valved female coupling includes the cartridge housing with the components of the valve. 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. It is further noted that while the claims of the application include different features to those claimed in the patent, many of these features either explicitly or implicitly taught by the claims of the Langer patents themselves such as claims directed to widths and heights with the width being greater that the height which is inherently met the oblong outer profile. Lastly, any other missing structure or detail would be obvious over the cited prior art in a similar manner as applied to the rejections above with at least Franz US-11711907 teaching of a valved fluid coupling including a male coupler with a spring biased piston valve and a female coupler with a spring biased sleeve type valve wherein the couplings comprises an oblong/elliptical/non-circular outer profile which increases flow rate while maintaining a smaller profile; Bartholomew US-5546985 teaching of valved coupling assembly comprising a female coupler having a cartridge valve design that includes the valve assembly which allows for the valve assembly to be pre-packaged into a cartridge unit which then can be removably attached to the main housing of the female coupling allowing for easier assembly and servicing of the valve components on the female coupling; Braun US-6161578 teaches of yet another valved coupling assembly wherein the female coupling includes a spring biased latch mechanism that interacts with an annular groove on the male coupling to provide a quick coupling latching mechanism that allows for the quick, easy and secure connection between the male and female couplers; Handley US-11092985 teaches of a spring biased valve including a plurality of spring that are laterally offset from each other which aids in dispersing the energy impacting on the valve member and stabilizing its movement as compared to using a single large spring to do the same; and Vranish US-20140261819 teaches of yet another examples of spring biased valved couplings that includes at least a female coupling comprising a cartridge housing with a spring biased poppet sleeve type valve wherein the valve sleeve does not carry a seal but rather the stem head has a seal and the housing includes two seals on both sides of a spacer shoulder wherein a first seal seals against the valve member when the valve is in the closed position and a second seal seals against the male coupling when the male coupling is inserted into the female coupling; Vranish also teaches of the use of a shoulder provided on the housing structure that is capable of interacting with a flange on the valve sleeve that aids in guiding the movement of the valve sleeve and arresting its movement pass the closed position preventing it from possibly disassembling.
Conclusion
The prior/relevant art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
---References A (relevant but not “prior” art): Langer US-11480280 and Langer US-12203579.
---References B (Oblong/elliptical/non-circular fluid couplings): Franz US-11711907, Ramberg US-2962303 and Scott US-20180238480.
---References C (Cartridge unit valves): Bartholomew US-5546985, Cornford US-6328348 and Allread US-3645294.
---References D (multiple springs biasing a valve member): Handley US-11092985.
---References E (Latch quick coupling mechanisms): deCler US-7469472 and Braun US-6161578.
---References F (Poppet sleeve type valved couplings): Nanni US-6866064, Nix US-4991627, Brown US-4327770, Nick US-20210148499 and Vranish US-20140261819.
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